FACT: Martha Stewart was ACQUITTED of securities fraud

[johnfunk]

Peter Goldberger, the appellate lawyer guru from Ardmore, PA, points out that the news is mischaracterizing the Judge's dismissal of the securities fraud count against Martha Stewart. He writes,

Judge Cedarbaum did not "toss" or "dismiss" or "throw out" the securities fraud charge against Martha Stewart, as all the news stories have been saying. She found Stewart Not Guilty on that charge, that is, she acquitted her.

Peter is correct. Martha was acquitted on that count.

More here -- including a link to a .pdf of the acquittal ruling.

Someone should start mentioning this over in FReeperland, don'tcha think?

[Eric J in MN]

1. The broader issue is that the Bush Administration doesn't

The broader issue is that the Bush Administration doesn't hesitate to stretch the law in prosecuting people.

The Martha Stewart charge:
she said "Not Guilty" and that is a criminal-act of securities-fraud, because it might have caused people to buy stock in her company.

The charge of "sailor-mongering" against GreenPeace for hanging a banner on a boat is another case in which the Bush Administration is stretching the law.

Intent of the Framers? Intent of Congress?

The extremist Bush Administration doesn't care about intent, just in seeing how much they can stretch the law to imprison people.

[forgethell]

7. It's not just the * administration

Most federal prosecutors that I have read about seem to abuse the power that they have, sooner or later. The answer is not just a change in administration, but removal of some of the powers and immunities of prosecutors.

A federal prosecutor is a very powerful, and largely independent, individual. Posts like this tend to attract people who want power, for whatever reason. All the more reason to limit the amount that they can get.

[aquart]

2. Of course not. It would upset them.

They know that declaring one's innocence if a prosecutor believes you guilty is fraud.

Besides, we don't want them to shoot the judge.

[displacedtexan]

4. Didn't Ken Lay do that (for real)?

Remember that Enron video, in which Lay assured everyone that Enron's biz was booming? That was right before the crash.
Lay LIED about the biz while he touted the stock to employees.

Where's Lay's trial?

[sadiesworld]

3. If she had an R after her name...

she would be busy planting tulip bulbs across the northeast (as we speak).

[ironflange]

5. According to Conan O'Brien,

When the judge announced this, she had an assistant burst into tears.

[unblock]

6. it is known as a 'directed verdict'

meaning that the prosecution had their chance and failed so miserably that the judge was entitled to find 'not guilty' without sending it to the jury.

for the judge to do this, the prosecution has to fail to address a key requirement of the charge. an example would be failing to mount any evidence of intent at a murder trial. without intent, manslaughter might apply, but murder would not.

now, if the prosecution did present such evidence but it was really lame, then the judge cannot do this; he must refer it to the jury because the jury decides matters of fact. the judge decides matters of law.

so on martha's case, the judge is saying that the prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to build a case on the securities fraud charge, in the sense that even if the jury decided everything the prosecution said was true, then she still would be 'not guilty' of the charge.

[spanone]

9. The Ashcroft judiciary will be remembered for years. Scary.

[gulliver]

8. They needed "securities something" for political reasons.

They couldn't just charge here with obstruction of justice and lying to a federal officer. That doesn't look like someone doing something about "corporate scandals." So I'll bet they through in the securities charge to make it a financial prosecution for the newspapers. That's my cynical view of it anyway.

She should be acquitted of all charges stemming from actions she took pursuant to other charges not brought or those for which she was acquitted. In other words, it should be treated as entrapment if she did something slightly illegal to defend herself from charges that were not justified. The false charges created the crime.