Martha Stewart Refused April Deal To Avoid Prison

PR Newswire ^ | 3/7/04

[11th Earl of Mar]

Prosecutors Offered Martha Stewart a Deal Last April: Cop To One Count of Making a False Statement and Receive Probation and Continue to Work at Omnimedia, Sources Say

She Refused to Plead Guilty to a Felony

NEW YORK, March 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Newsweek has learned that the Feds gave Martha Stewart an opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Stewart a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and could continue working at her company, they say. But she refused to plead guilty to a felony, and a defense source says the Feds couldn't guarantee she would stay out of jail.

And federal investigators say she could have avoided the entire mess if she had confessed in the beginning. Had she admitted wrong doing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time, report Detroit Bureau Chief Keith Naughton and Special Correspondent Barney Gimbel in the March 15 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 8).

After a seven week trial, the jury deliberated for three days before convicting Stewart on all four counts.

One juror sobbed as the judge ticked off all the guilty counts. Martha's daughter, Alexis, doubled over in tears in the front row of the gallery. Alexis's husband John Cuti, also one of Martha's lawyers, buried his face in his hands at the defense table. Stewart stared straight ahead, showing no emotion.

Martha Stewart's case may set the new standard for judging fat cats who don't play by the rules, write Naughton and Gimbel. "We're now going to see the 'Martha test' as a fair punishment for white-collar crimes," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, associate dean of the Yale School of Management.

"This is going to have a strong influence on jurors from here on out." And legal experts say she'll likely go to prison for one to three years, probably at a minimum- security "prison farm."

[Howlin]

January 21, 2004 -- A defiant Martha Stewart breezed into court yesterday, clutching a $12,000 Hermes handbag and offering a royal wave and a smile as she embarked on her knife-edged battle to avoid prison.
The diva of domesticity, looking chic in a chocolate pant ensemble and spike-heeled boots, said "good morning" and nodded her head when a supporter yelled, "Martha, you go girl," as she glided up the courthouse stairs.


http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/16333.htm

[Howlin]

More:

January 23, 2004 -- The bag was back at the Martha Stewart trial yesterday — but government prosecutors are getting sick of hearing about Stewart's style-setting standards.
The single-minded good-living guru thumbed her nose at critics who say jurors might be turned off by her $12,000 bag, turning up to court yesterday with only one accessory — the hard-to-get Hermes Birken.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/15618.htm

[Howlin]

This is what I mean..I just don't understand how you can wish prison on someone like her. That doesn't mean I think because of who she is she shouldn't go to jail, I'm just saying the spirit of those who take glee with the thought of a jailed Martha Stewart just seems so very wrong to me. And yes, I do think it's class envy.

What do you mean, "like her?" Like her who?

I'm just saying the spirit of those who take glee with the thought of a jailed Martha Stewart just seems so very wrong to me. And yes, I do think it's class envy.

So, according to you, if anybody discusses this at all, it's expressing GLEE, is that right?

As far as the class envy thing, if you think Martha Stewart has class, that's your opinion. Frankly, I think she's a pretender who thinks way too much of herself, as evidenced by her actions in this case.

I just don't happen to think people who lie under oath have ANY class at all.

[Howlin]

And you didn't answer my question: how has she suffered?

[Carolinamom]

There's no evidence that K-Mart promised to pay anything for that business meeting. Martha was the supplicant there. She was looking for an outlet for her MS wares. The pie billing was petty, sure, but it was but one small instance of her future billings and demands far beyond their contractual obligations w/her.

[Reelect President Dubya]

Wanna bet? Name it.

Your tiny little weenie.

[William Tell]

Carolinamom said: "There's no evidence that K-Mart promised to pay anything for that business meeting. Martha was the supplicant there. She was looking for an outlet for her MS wares. "

You mean that the pie was Martha's idea and that the K-Mart representatives were not expecting a bill of any kind? Did she bill them individually or send the bill to the company? Was she willing to accept payment in cash? Did she collect state sales tax on the sale of the pie? Did she make a profit on the pie and did she report the income?

If it is as you say, then we will definitely be seeing more of this when the inevitable TV movies come out.

[Carolinamom]

The pie billing was but a foreshadowing of her future demands and her preoccupation w/money. She even billed THEM for her vacations.

[freedumb2003]

I thought that's exactly what it was!!

An appeal is based exclusively on items of LAW (a trial and verdict is based on items of FACT, within the confines of the law).

So an appeal would have to be based on things like evidence let in, kept out, judgements made -- basically an appeal that wins means the original trial judge screwed up -- royally, since the error has to be aggregious and not within the very broad purvue of the judge's judgement (sorry for the redundancy but it points out what the actual judge does).

Since it is judges who do the appeals, they are loathe to nail one of their own (judges are the most notoriaous clique in the Universe).

Now you know why many are saying Martha ain't gonna win on appeal -- if anything, the judge bent over backwards to ensure quesionable calls went in HER favor. Some are saying she had bad representation, but that is probably not an appealable issues or everyone who ever lost would appeal on the same basis.

She's toast.

[freedumb2003]

If it is as you say, then we will definitely be seeing more of this when the inevitable TV movies come out.

I thought they already did -- the hit piece starring what's-her-name from Moonlighting.

[Hildy]

So, according to you, if anybody discusses this at all, it's expressing GLEE, is that right?

Yikes, that is NOT what I said. I said expresses GLEE...that is self-explanatory. It is not discussing..it is being happy at the thought of this particular woman in prison. But you knew that.

[nmh]

I believe the evidence was overwhelming AGAINST her and when questioned she'd trip herself up. Also she doesn't exactly have humility or stellar people skills.

[nmh]

I believe the evidence was overwhelming AGAINST her and when questioned she'd trip herself up. Also she doesn't exactly have humility or stellar people skills.

In any event she blew it! In April she was offered a deal to AVOID prison, just do probation and still run her business. She chose NOT to take the deal and gamble. Well your royal highness lost. No matter how you look at Martha it is ALL her fault.

[tbeatty]

And the statement at www.marthatalks.com is revised from that after her lawyers talked to her and explained the judicial process to her.

Dear Friends:

I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have the confidence and enduring support of my family and friends.

I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate all the words of encouragement I have received from thousands of supporters. It is your continued support that will keep me going until I am completely exonerated.

Sincerely,

Martha Stewart

[gcruse]

It's good to see hubris eat its own.

[RipSawyer]

Perhaps someone can recall who said a quote I am about to paraphrase: "I would not want to be judged by twelve people too stupid to not get off jury duty."

This probably constitutes extreme nitpicking but I am irritated when supposedly literate people use this type of sentence construction. The second not in this sentence actually changes the meaning to the exact opposite of what the speaker really means. The functional equivalent is when no negatives are used as in the constantly heard, "I could care less", which is used to mean I could NOT care less. Flame away if you will but the inability to communicate creates all kinds of problems and this type of misusage, which i was cautioned against in grade school, is heard daily on television news programs.

[Cboldt]

Flame away if you will ...

No flames. I share your distaste with "I could care less," but the "I would not want to be judged by twelve people too stupid to not get off jury duty." is, I think correct.

The jurors in place are so stupid, they could not even come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty. "Too stupid to not get off ... " is awkward, but I think it correctly expresses the sentiment.

[Cboldt]

Flame away if you will ...

No flames. I share your distaste with "I could care less," but the "I would not want to be judged by twelve people too stupid to not get off jury duty." is, I think correct.

The jurors in place are so stupid, they could not even come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty. "Too stupid to not get off ... " is awkward, but I think it correctly expresses the sentiment.

I am re-reading, and rethinking ... I see that it (too stupid to not get off) could be interpreted either way. It's worse than awkward!

[RipSawyer]

Too stupid to GET off would be the correct structure, this has been misused so much on television that people no longer see the error. Maybe it all started with the Rolling Stones, "I can't get no satisfaction". Just imagine you heard someone say,"he is too stupid to NOT walk and NOT chew gum at the same time".

It seems that the ability to express oneself clearly has become a very rare talent.

[Cboldt]

LOL. I see the mistake I'm making. I rephrased to "so stupid they couldn't get off," and imputed sensibility to the "not get off" fraction of the rephrase.