Putting the bitch in her place?
 Originally, I did not follow the Martha Stewart case, as she is certainly not a household name in my neck of woods. I did find it rather surprising, however, to find out what she was convicted for, and how.
Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators after she had been accused of insider trading. She was not charged with insider trading. So essentially a jury found her guilty of lying when she denied a crime the prosecutors didn't even attempt to get her convicted for.
If there is a high-profile case demonstrating what is wrong with the legal system, this is surely it. In any common sense system, the accusers should have the burden of evidence to build up a convincing, complete case fact by fact. Not so here.
Following the case in the media, it is hard to understand what evidence exactly made the jurors conclude Martha Stewart was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I fear this is yet another case where jury psychology dictates a guilty verdict when the accusation is deemed to be "probably correct," not almost certainly correct, as it should be. It is an interesting fact that the stock market, when it learned that the jury had a verdict, predicted it would be an acquittal. The market is not always right.
I think Rocketman has a very good point when he argues that this follows from a general resentment towards rich and successful women. Can anyone come up with a similar court case against a man ending in a conviction?
It will take some good persuasion to convince me that Daniel Glick is not correct in his assessment of this case:
This is not a victory for the legal system. This is a victory for the notion that, if the government decides to investigate you, they will find something to charge you with. It is a victory for legal nit-picking and bureacratic ass-covering. And it is a defeat for the presumption of innocence.
I will also suggest that the Enron and WorldCom scandals have made people cry out for blood, and this is it. If Enron had not happened, Martha Stewart would not have seen a courtroom in this case.
Martha Stewart has appealed, but most experts think it will be a long shot, even though the trial judge strangely refused the defense to discuss the insider trading law..
1:40:30 PM 
|
