Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

This just in: Martha guilty on all charges. nt

Mar 5, 2004 4:12AM PST

.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I think it would be fair to say ...
Mar 6, 2004 10:33PM PST

... that I almost NEVER agree with Ron Kuby (who describes himself as a commie Wink) -- he is a cohost of Curtis (Sliwa of Guardian Angels fame) and Kuby out of WABC radio in NYC and has defended some high profile clients -- but I began to see this angle after something he said that was essentially what you just did. It's not all that uncommon and human to know you are innocent but panic in the face of events that don't look too good for you or if you have no way to prove that innocence.

Personally I think that fraud charge the judge threw out should be prosecuted against the prosecutors for misconduct! They had to manufacture that charge in order to indict her. Does anyone really think they would have indicted her on just the charges she has now been found guilty of? They made an allegation then tried to say her proclaimations of innocence were criminal. She clearly DIDN'T do any insider trading. And since no charges were ever brought pertaining directly to the stock trade, she clearly didn't do anything illegal there either.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
The problem
Mar 6, 2004 3:32PM PST

is that destroying the evidence, if done completely, should also preclude any ability to be charged with obstruction of evidence. Without the evidence, such a charge is conjecture.

- Collapse -
Not at all, James...
Mar 6, 2004 10:22PM PST

Not at all, James, all you need to do is get witness in court to testify that they participated in the file strip and/or coverup. Such has been done many times before. "Inocent little Martha" was not always a home fashion guru, she used to be a broker, and she played with "the big boys". She knew full well the rules of the game she was playing. I keep thinking of the movie "Wall Street". If I pull something and am brought court on multiple charges, if the judge eliminates one of them for insufficient evidence that does not automatically eliminate all of the charges. Eliminating that one does not mean that I would be either innocent nor guilty, it would only mean that the jury would never hear the evidence that I had and be allowed to decide for themselves. That's why the defense goes thru so much effort to get the judge to make such a ruling on one of the charges, so that the jury will never hear some of the evidence.

- Collapse -
But J?
Mar 6, 2004 10:59PM PST

Where's the charge? All the evidence they have for this "coverup" paints a pretty clear picture of what transpired. She broke no laws that I am aware of in the trade itself.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: You're not telling me anything ...
Mar 6, 2004 11:51AM PST

Hi, Evie.

There are always levels of prosecution based on the accused's perceived degree of naivite (without her ex-brokerage connections and NYSE Board seat, they might have been much less aggressive with Martha). The one overly aggressive charge was (IMCO properly) thrown out by the judge. WITH all the publicity and her background, NOT aggressively prosecuting her would have sent exactly the wrong message to others facing the choice of whether or not to act on inside information. BTW, we have to fill out forms about our investing because my wife is privvy to investing decisions made by the trust funds of the bank where she's a Sr. VP -- we aren't allowed to trade in securities for five business days after her funds make a move in them.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) An honest question, if I may: How can one be found guily of lying about and covering up a crime for which there was, in the judge's opinion, insufficient evidence to convict? Sounds like ample grounds for overturning on appeal...
Mar 6, 2004 8:18AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Can't remember exact case, but was a big news one where
Mar 6, 2004 8:28AM PST
- Collapse -
Re: How can one be found guily of lying about and covering up a crime for which there was... insufficient evidence to convict?
Mar 6, 2004 11:56AM PST

Hi, Paul.

If you're speaking of martha, the only charge thrown out (properly, IMCO) was one which accused her of trying to manipulate the price of her own stock (Martha Stewart Omnimedia) by falsely protesting her own innocence in regards to the original Imclone sale. BTW, there have been even more egregious examples, in which people were acquitted of "attempting to...." because they changed their minds, but convicted of "conspiracy to.... " Dan't give you an example of the top of my head, but I remember that happening.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Easy one, Paul...
Mar 6, 2004 10:41PM PST

Let me spin a very simple senario to keep it very simple but yet show the underlying principle.
I get caught with a kilogram of Heroin in my house. I get one of my men to give the evidence clerk a million dollars for taking the evidence (that kilogram of heroin) and throwing it in the river or some such. In court, the prosecution is forced to admit that they can't produce that evidence, so the judge is forced to throw out that charge. That does not stop the prosecution from nailing me (and the clerk) for that evidence destruction, obstruction of justice, bribe, etc.etc.
Same for "pulling a Gotti" and tampering with a jury.