Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (11803)	10/11/2003 7:25:47 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793677

I am a "Martha Stewart Fan" when it comes to the lawsuit. Not in to her otherwise. A couple of posts from a law blog. The "count 9" really frosts me. She is charged with obstruction because she said she was innocent of the other charges. This can't stand. ___________________________ ProfessorBainbridge.com A corporate law professor's eclectic mix of law, business and economics, current events, and wine Martha wins a round Reuters is reporting that the judge in Martha Stewart's civil securities fraud case has refused to stay discovery in the civil case. This is a win for Martha because most of the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case are also potential witnesses in the civil case. With this ruling, Martha's lawyers should be able to depose them on the civil side, which will also be useful on the criminal side. In addition, the judge handed Martha a PR win by noting from the bench that: "I read this indictment. I tell you something ... we have seen a lot more serious obstruction cases. This is not the strongest obstruction case I have ever seen. This is not John Gotti," the judge said, according to a transcript of the pretrial hearing, referring to the notorious Mafia figure. __________________ More Martha With respect to my post the other day about Martha Stewart's indictment, an astute reader emails to ask whether I'm talking about the "infamous Count 9 of the criminal complaint instead of to the overall obstruction charges that form the basis for the rest of the complaint"? I'm only talking about count 9. I agree with the reader's assessment of that count. He writes: If you were thinking only of Count 9's charge that by publicly proclaiming her innocence, she was engaging in criminal securities fraud, I agree with you. In fact, even if she is, indeed, guilty, something bothers me if the government is allowed to publicly make allegations against her but she is not allowed to publicly deny them. Meanwhile, Tung Yin of the Yin Blog has a very interesting post providing a good deal of detail on the legal merits of the obstruction of justice charge. I don't dispute his assessment that what Martha did could be criminal (in a hyper-technical sense, IMHO), but I still don't get why it is criminal as a matter of sound public policy or, especially, why as a prudential matter a prosectutor should have brought Count 9. I agree entirely with the first reader's assessment that it is unfair to let the government fling allegations, which they end up deciding not to charge somebody with, and then let the government prosecute that person for having denied the allegations the government decided it couldn't prove. Why isn't that just whacked? Turning to the obstruction counts, however, I'm also skeptical of them as a prudential matter. It also seems to me that aggressive prosecutorial use of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 undercuts the requirement that the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Granted the 5th amendment only gives you a right to remain silent, but shouldn't you be allowed to tell the cops "I didn't do it" without getting hauled up on charges later -- especially if they end up deciding not to charge you with the underlying crime? I mean, I can't tell you the number of times I've told a cop I didn't see the stop sign. [Ed: After reading Prof. Yin's helpful follow-up post, I added the underlined sentence for further clarification.] I should note that Prof. Yin, to say the least, seems receptive to the prudential component of my argument: Now, all that's left is to wonder, should the alleged lie in the actual case with the actual circumstances be a crime? And if so, is it really worth prosecuting? That's a totally different question, and certainly I can see arguments to be made that Stewart's alleged false statement really isn't worth the government's attention and time -- but for her celebrity status. Exactly, if the defendant wasn't Martha Stewart (and if we hadn't already had Enron and so on), this case never happens. My friend Tom Smith makes this point quite pithily: Steve Bainbridge is right on about Martha Stewart. He is perhaps too polite to add, however, that the ill-defined insider trading laws are perfect tools for ambitious prosecutors who want to go on scalp-hunting expeditions. Is Martha the most egregious insider trader in Manhattan these days? Hardly. But she is a high profile celeb with a reportedly obnoxious personality that the press would love to see fall. The Bonfire of the Vanities with the feds roasting their marshmellows on the flames. professorbainbridge.com