Posted on 03/07/2004 8:42:12 AM PST by 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."
OK prez - I'll agree that you are the most deranged wacko here, but please respond to the original response to yours: on what basis will her convictions be overturned?
Have you ever heard of Bill Clinton?
They sure are different, but that doesn't meant it's a good thing.
Odds are against it according to legal experts. They've all said that if she expects to file an appeal, she'll need to get apologetic. Fat chance of that happening. Stewart is still claiming she did nothing wrong, and her calling a summit today to formulate strategy doesn't show she's anywhere near admitting guilt.
I doubt any judge would honor an appeal especially in light of the fact that she was offered a deal and turned it down.
She surely is suffering. It is said that the uncertainty, the imminent threat, is sometimes worse than the consequences.
FREE MARTHA.
She had the option to avoid jail and turned it down. When she did that, she accepted the choice of a jury trial and whatever outcome occurred. Stewart had worked as a broker, knew full well the rules and regulations regarding selling and trading. She knowingly broke the rules, lied to federal investigators and tried to cover up her lies. Had she been honest from the beginning, she wouldn't be in the pickle she's in now. She still refuses to admit any complicity in what happened. Why should someone who perpetuates falsehoods and refuses to admit their guilt be given a break? Even Clinton finally admitted his guilt, although neither of these elitists have apologized for their deliberate deceptions.
You say that like we took a poll and went after her. She is where she is because of herself.
Don't lose track of the fact that ALL SHE HAD TO DO IS TELL THE TRUTH one day and she wouldn't be where she is today. One time on one day, Hildy; all she had to do was tell the truth and face the consequences.
But she didn't want to, because she DOES think she's different than you and I.
She has suffered enough? You mean the public humiliation? Have you never heard the phrase "The bigger they are, the harder they fall?"
This debacle is of her own making, period. At every single point where she came to a fork in the road where truth would have set her free, she chose to lie. Why? Because she's better/smarter/more important than the rest of us.
So all people should take any plea deal offered by the Feds because the judge will not look kindly upon their turning down a deal?
That sounds like a really good system for prosecutors to use against innocent people.
Excuse me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.