Is there a lawyer in the house? M. Stewart case

[Guest]

Maybe a lawyer here can enlighten me. How come Martha Stewart wasn't taken to jail after she was convicted? Is it the normal procedure for a convicted felon to go home and meet a week later with a probation officer, only to come several months later for sentencing? Or is she getting special treatment? And why is the judge waiting so long to tell her what her sentence is? Surely it can't take him more than a day or two to come up with a sentence??

[Flower]

> How come Martha Stewart wasn't taken to jail after she was convicted?

It's not unusual in State court (and presumably not so in Federal court either) for this to happen. I haven't practiced criminal law for some time, however she was out on bail, was not a flight risk and presented no danger to life or limb--really no reason to take her immediately into custody, especially, since it takes a while for the judge to decide what he's going to do with her, and then, only AFTER a pre-sentencing probation report--don't forget, until now, she was PRESUMED innocent, so not until now does the system try to figure out what punishment is proper.

 

>Is it the normal procedure for a convicted felon to go home and meet

>a week later with a probation officer, only to come several

>months later for sentencing?

I can't speak to the federal court in question, but in general it doesn't seem "abnormal" -- it occurs all the time in state courts. The specific timing differs for many reasons--her celebrity may even be causing the delay since everyone is working in a "fishbowl" and if they screw up, the whole world sees. Also, with capable counsel (NOT) the probation department may have requested more time or needs more time to come up with the information necessary--again, because of the white collar nature of the crime, there's no need to rush to judgment--within reason.

 

>Or is she getting special treatment?

Personally, I don't think so, and don't suspect any favoritism. I don't believe the judge is too impressed with the case however. I mean, am I wrong, or has she been convicted of covering up a crime she was found not guilty of by the judge? I really haven't been following it, but it sort of seems that way.

>And why is the judge waiting so long to tell her what her sentence is?

Again, the law requires a pre-sentence probation report and it takes time--the PO is filled with convicted defendants waiting to be sentenced and as hard as it may be to believe, I doubt they will jump her ahead of her rotation

[Guest zoom]

>

>>Or is she getting special treatment?

>

>Personally, I don't think so, and don't suspect any

>favoritism. I don't believe the judge is too impressed with

>the case however. I mean, am I wrong, or has she been

>convicted of covering up a crime she was found not guilty of

>by the judge? I really haven't been following it, but it sort

>of seems that way.

>

I have not been following this case step by step but my impression is the same as Flower. It would seem that Martha had been found guilty of concealing evidence in a crime that a federal judge found her not guilty.

 

This sort of logic kind of makes one's mind numb.

[woodlawn]

>I mean, am I wrong, or has she been

>>convicted of covering up a crime she was found not guilty of

>>by the judge? I really haven't been following it, but it

>sort

>>of seems that way.

 

>I have not been following this case step by step but my

>impression is the same as Flower. It would seem that Martha

>had been found guilty of concealing evidence in a crime that a

>federal judge found her not guilty.

 

That is not what occurred at all. To summarize it as simply as possible, it appears that Stewart lied to federal investigators about the reasons for her sale of ImClone stock because she feared she might be accused of insider trading if she told the truth. Prosecutors apparently decided that the true facts would not make a strong case for insider trading, but that she should be prosecuted for lying and obstruction, which are separate crimes under federal law.

 

The situation is somewhat analogous to the impeachment of Clinton. Clinton was accused of lying under oath in a deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit. The judge in that case ultimately dismissed Jones's claim, ruling that even if her version of the facts was true Clinton's actions did not amount to sexual harrassment under federal law. But Clinton's lie could still be a crime even though he told it in a civil case that was ultimately found to be without merit.

 

>This sort of logic kind of makes one's mind numb.

 

I don't see what you find so hard to understand. Lying and obstructing an investigation are crimes because we don't want people to do that, just as homicide is a crime because we don't want people to do that.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Pre-Sentence Reports

 

These are now more common and this explains part of what is going on. You have to remember that both Ms. Stewart and her broker are first time offenders. If there is a discrepency in how she is being treated, it has more to do with that then with their wealth or, in her case, her fame, such as it now may be.

 

For first time offenders, the pre-sentence reports take into account whether or not there will be a sentence of probation only and, more importantly, how long such a probation may last. They will also explore what jail time, if any, is recommended.

 

In this case, Peter Bacanovic, her broker, will suffer more, even if both appeal the case with success, in that he will also face actions by the NASD and the SEC, as well as other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies. He will likely lose his broker's license.

 

Once the reports are made, at the time a sentence will be imposed and, if it included jail time, at that time Ms. Stewart would be taken into custody or her attorneys would make arrangements for her to report for that event. As Flower points out, the fact that she could afford bail impacts how this may come down. Prosecutors did not view her as a flight risk in the past and this also impacts her treatment. However, prosecutors may present new evidence to impact this as well.

 

Finally, because both Stewart and Bacanovic were convicted of obstruction, many legal analyst of both defense and prosecution perspectives, have offered the opinion that is highly unlikely that a report of no jail time will be offered or that the judge will be able to offer a sentence that does not include prison for both defendants. Stewart will likely remain out on bail during her appeal, but she will likely be fingerprinted (if she has not already) and otherwise processed once sentenced, pending the outcome of her appeal.

 

Or so I read in last nights synopsis of Law & Order in TV Guide.

[Flower]

>That is not what occurred at all. To summarize it as simply

>as possible, it appears that Stewart lied to federal

>investigators about the reasons for her sale of ImClone stock

>because she feared she might be accused of insider trading if

>she told the truth. Prosecutors apparently decided that the

>true facts would not make a strong case for insider trading,

>but that she should be prosecuted for lying and obstruction,

>which are separate crimes under federal law.

 

hmmm...what was the crime that was dismissed by the Judge?

[Doug69]

>hmmm...what was the crime that was

>dismissed by the Judge?

 

There was no "crime that was dismissed by the Judge." As usual, the media characterized the decision incorrectly. At the close of evidence, the Judge acquitted Stewart on one count (out of 5) of the indictment - a Count of Securities Fraud based on the allegation that she manipulated the price of shares in her company by publicly and falsely denying her guilt - on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that she acted with the requisite criminal intent. The charge was not "dismissed"; she was found Not Guilty by the Court of that charge based on the evidence (or lack thereof).

 

It was a novel (and foolish) attempt by the Government to concoct a Securities Fraud claim in order to bolster the seriousness of the indictment once they determined that they were unlikely to be able to prove that she engaged in insider trading. Very rarely are individuals indicted exclusively because they made false statements to federal investigators without being under oath. Usually, that charge is accompanied by some underlying crime about which the false statements were made.

 

That's the irony of this case: Stewart and Baconovic lied about the reasons her shares were sold in order to avoid being charged with a crime (insider trading) which the Government ultimately concluded it couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But as Woodlawn points out, lying to SEC and FBI investigators - which those 2 unquestionably did - is and should be a felony, and it's virtually certain that they will both be spending some time in prison.

[HooBoy]

I wonder what Martha can do with the bars in her cell. Perhaps make them sideways monkey bars so she can stay in shape while she writes the book that will make her more millions of dollars.

 

And can she turn the silver toilet into a lovely planter?

 

What happens when Queen Latifa tries to set her up with Richard Gere?

 

Pretty Woman III?

__

 

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

 

--garbo the hoo

[Guest]

Many thanks, Flower. I learn more about the workings of our legal system from you and other male4malescort posters than I ever did in my high school civics class! :7 I always thought that bail was simply an assurance a person would show up to court prior to a verdict.

The other thing that puzzles me is whatever happened to the Imclone executive who originally sold his stock (the one Stewart's stockbroker warned her about)? He seems to be the REAL bad guy here.

If I had to put in order from most to least damaging to our nation's fair stock trading system, I would say the Imclone executive would be the worst, the stockbroker next (for divulging confidential material), and Martha Stewart the least. I mean, anyone would sell his stocks if his stockbroker told him that executives of the company were selling all of theirs. She wouldn't have gotten into trouble if she hadn't bullshitted about the whole thing.

By the way, any settlement yet on your shopping cart case?

[MiamiLooker]

How did Sam Waksal, the former ImCLone CEO, find out that the FDA was going to reject the ImClone heart drug? If leaked by someone in the FDA, is that illegal?

[woodlawn]

>How did Sam Waksal, the former ImCLone CEO, find out that the

>FDA was going to reject the ImClone heart drug? If leaked by

>someone in the FDA, is that illegal?

 

Erbitux isn't a heart drug. And the news wasn't leaked to ImClone. FDA informed the company as a matter of course prior to making the results of its review public. There's nothing improper about that so far as I know. The impropriety occurred when Waksal attempted to use the information to benefit himself and others prior to its public release. For that, among other offenses, he is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence.

[woodlawn]

>I mean, anyone would sell his stocks if his

>stockbroker told him that executives of the company were

>selling all of theirs. She wouldn't have gotten into trouble

>if she hadn't bullshitted about the whole thing.

 

Not exactly. There is some question in my mind whether trading on the basis of nonpublic information about sales of stock by insiders itself constitutes insider trading, but I heard Harvey Pitt say in an interview last week that he believes it does constitute insider trading under the case law of the Second Circuit. The US Attorney evidently didn't think the evidence was strong enough to make that case. Even so, had Stewart admitted trading on the basis of such information it is likely that SEC would have taken action of some kind against her. To say that nothing would have happened to her if she had told the truth is probably not correct.

[Guest TommyTam]

Let's put some money together and send Martha a lovely glue gun, so she can start to decorate her new home. We soom will see Martha's new book: Martha Stewart Behide Bar Living - How to cook with only a toilet. :+ :+ :+

 

Tommy Tam

Best Asian Escort in the State

512-635-0379

Website: http://www.tommytx.com

Review: http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/tommytamaustin.html

for more information please send e-mail to austintt@hotmail.com or tommy@tommytx.com

[Guest]

> To say that nothing would have happened to her

>if she had told the truth is probably not correct.

>

So why didn't the SEC do anything? My understanding is that all of her troubles were related to the lies and cover-ups.

[Guest YFSC]

>> To say that nothing would have happened to her

>>if she had told the truth is probably not correct.

>>

> So why didn't the SEC do anything? My understanding is that

>all of her troubles were related to the lies and cover-ups.

 

They may still, and there has been speculation about that among the "consultants" to the media. Among other things, they could bar her from ever being an officer or a director of a publicly-held corporation again, if they wanted to go that far.

[HooBoy]

Dear Tommy,

 

That was what I was trying to get at in my earlier post here.

 

Who give a crap. This sort of insider trading happens on Wall Street and even in Austin, Texas.

 

But I wanna know how to have a book for escorts who do stupid things, end up in jail and have to redecorate.

 

Hell, I live in hotels and I am constantly redecorating my room. I even travel with a hammer and nails.

 

Maybe I should write a book.

 

God I can't even figure out Macromedia's Nightmare Weaver much less write. And I can't really decorate, but the housekeepers love me because I tell them I'm Mr. Bean, I tip well, I make up my bed and clean the bathroom in the morning before I let them in and I put the room all back the was it was before I leave.

 

I did threaten the New York Hilton I was going to repaint the room and change the carpet. That got me downgraded quickly and I am no longer welcome at Hilton's and I think I'm in the Starwood computer as being difficult.

 

However, I never complain and I realize the Front Desk people are the most powerful people in the hotel, so usually I am treated quite nicely.

 

Did I digress?

 

Gosh, you'd think I was a queer or something.

__

 

The above written as a regular guy, not the owner of a website and has no official meaning, just unofficial BS.)

__

 

--garbo the hoo

[woodlawn]

>> To say that nothing would have happened to her

>>if she had told the truth is probably not correct.

 

> So why didn't the SEC do anything? My understanding is that

>all of her troubles were related to the lies and cover-ups.

 

They DID do something; they called in the US Attorney's Office, and she got prosecuted for the lies she told the SEC investigators.

 

SEC has an ongoing program that looks for significant trades in the shares of public companies relating to announcements about earnings and other events that affect share price, as such trades can be a telltale sign of insider trading. When they find what could be a case of insider trading they investigate and, if they feel criminal charges may be warranted, they call in the US Attorney's Office. SEC itself does not bring criminal prosecutions.

[woodlawn]

>Let's put some money together and send Martha a lovely glue

>gun, so she can start to decorate her new home.

 

If you get arrested for being a prostitute, can we make jokes about that too?

[Luv2play]

I remember reading early on that the authorities determined that given the case law, it would be difficult to secure a criminal conviction on an insider trading charge against Martha Stewart. However, I also understand that she still faces a civil insider trading charge by the SEC, I believe, and she may face fines and or other penalties in this regard. So she is not out of the woods yet, even if she has a successful appeal (which seems unlikely but then I heard an expert on the radio today saying there had been a miscarriage of justice in their view). I guess we have to stay tuned to see how this plays out.

[Guest TommyTam]

Sure you can! But I still charge you come to visit! :P

Tommy Tam

Best Asian Escort in the State

512-635-0379

Website: http://www.tommytx.com

Review: http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/tommytamaustin.html

for more information please send e-mail to austintt@hotmail.com or tommy@tommytx.com