Blind Justice
The judge in Martha Stewart's trial has told her lawyers they may not point out the weirdness of the charges against her.
As Michael McMenamin noted in the October issue of Reason, the "securities fraud" charge against Stewart is "based on the fact that she denied to the press, personally and through her lawyers, that she had engaged in insider trading….In other words, her crime is claiming to be innocent of a crime with which she was never charged."
The Justice Department does allege insider trading in a related civil suit. But as McMenamin observed, "Before suing Stewart, the SEC had never gone after the customer of a broker who offered his knowledge of what another customer had done as a reason to make a trade."
Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum has ruled that such points are matters of law beyond the purview of the jury, which must stick to the facts of the case. Apparently, those do not include whether Stewart did anything she had reason to know would be considered a crime.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can we count on jury nullification?
you betcha
This transparent attempt by the SEC to appear to be DOING SOMETHING during last year's scandals are about to backfire on it in a big way. Only these idiots could make people believe that securities regulation in this country is TOO strict.
We can hope for jury nullification. We can't count on it. Americans have an evil streak where once we've built someone up, we love to knock out there knees. We can count of some of them on the jury.
My advice to Martha, so I can say I told you so, is that upon summation, she should fire her attorney, represent herself, and introduce the jury to nullification.
While I am not condoning the charges against Martha, let's at least get the story straight. Martha is accused of lying when confronted by investigators. Say you didn't rob the bank last night, but you weren't at home when the bank was robbed. You tell the police you were at home. You're not charged with robbing the bank, but you are charged with lying to the police. Similarly, Martha. She is not being charged with insider trading, but about lying to investigators about her actions.
Lookout kid, it's something you did
God knows when but you're doing it again!
"Only these idiots could make people believe that securities regulation in this country is TOO strict."
It is too strict. Our filing requirements, fair disclosure laws, and trading rules all help to move the market away from maximum efficiency in the hopes of benefiting some "common good." The results of which are negligible or counterproductive.
Joe,
You advocate state interventionism yet often admit that the state is overly heavy handed in the way it carries it out. I submit that when you hand people great power over others' lives, abuses of that power are inevitable. You can't sic a dog on someone but tell it to sic him nice. That's why government force should be a means of very last resort, used only when absolutely necessary, not just when an ideal use of that force might seem good on balance.
Well done Fyodor...unlike some *ssholes on this site, you've presented Joe (otherwise known as The ArchEnemy) with a nicely phrased argument.
To the *sshole who recently referred to The ArchEnemy as a dickus: shut up already. You're not helping.
Why thanks, notJoe! There's a place for sophomoric invective, but I get more jollies out of nicely phrased arguments, when I can think of them. 🙂 And in the long run, it likely helps the cause more!
fyodor at 6:36 p.m. to joe: I shall be shamelessly plagiarizing that cogent paragraph. Bravo.
To Joe's credit, he seems a very reasonable representative of the left. Maybe we need a hard-core Marxist commenting more?
As for Martha, even if she is convicted, I can't see her getting anything more than a slap on the wrist (probation or short ban from sitting on the board of a public company). The judge and jury have to know by now that the case is about 99% BS and 1% truth.
>at least get the story straight. Martha is accused of lying when confronted by investigators.
I've followed this case to date about as closely as I followed Martha's TV shows...uhhhh, NOT AT ALL.
But if the above description of the case against her is accurate (JIM: Say you didn't rob the bank last night, but you weren't at home when the bank was robbed. You tell the police you were at home. You're not charged with robbing the bank, but you are charged with lying to the police. )
what is the exact legal wrong?
IF I did not rob the bank and say I was at home (but I wasn't) am I required to supply a truthful alibi for my actions?
Under our Criminal Justice System, Martha says she's innocent and gets hit with a charge for lying. The system is going nuts.
Meanwhile, the feds lie a lot but usually seem to escape any kind of prosecution.
So we should rename the FBI. New name: the Federal Investigatory Bureau (FIB).
I know little of securities regulation, but I do know quite a bit about antitrust law, as I follow the Justice Department and FTC. And one thing I've learned: The greatest crime, in a government lawyer's eyes, is not settling the minute a defendant is targeted for prosecution. People forget that the overwhelming majority of prosecutions, regardless of category, are settled without any trial, which means there's little or no judicial oversight of prosecutors.
Martha Stewart strikes me as a classic victim of the "settle or we'll kill you" mentality that's prevalent in the DOJ. This case also demonstrates the government's distaste for people proclaiming their innocence. I've seen more than a few antitrust cases where people were prosecuted for acts of speech the government attorneys didn't like, rather than for any overt action.
Anyone know much about the jury. All I've heard is that one of them is a guy who got screwed by Enron. If he's typical Martha is truly up the proverbial creek, sans oar.
At the risk of seeming very naive, is one legally obligated to truthfully answer questions posed by the police, when you are not under oath?
ps, thanks Mona, plagiarize away!!
fyodor,
You don't disband the Army because of Lt. Calley.Y our advocacy of restraint (at the end of your comment) by the government, rather than its abolition, is much closer to the liberal view than the libertarian abolitionism that you start out with. And like the best work that appears on this site, it is much more a cautionary tale for the existing order than a call to arms against it.
The market apparently thinks Martha will get off the hook. MSO is near its 52-week high. Time for all of the Martha-haters out there to put your money where your mouth is and get short her stock.
Disclaimer: I am not your financial advisor. Do not sue me if you do this trade and subsequently lose your ass.
fyodor asks: "At the risk of seeming very naive, is one legally obligated to truthfully answer questions posed by the police, when you are not under oath?"
Yeah, if it is material to the investigation. It isn't perjury, but might be obstruction of justice.
And this might be a good time to add one of my favorite rants, because even some of the brightest people I've known have said they'd be delighted to talk to the cops about anything and everything given that "I have nothing to hide."
Look, cops and prosecutors trying to get a collar and conviction are not your friends. For many, whether you are innocent is, like, pretty irrelevant. And as laypeople (meaning non-lawyers) you do not know what the most seemingly unimportant or exculpatory statement can be twisted into.
If you are in their sights, do NOT say a word without a lawyer present. I am as jaundiced as they come about trial lawyers and the generally parasitic role attorneys have come to play in our society, but in this context your money is well spent and the good lawyer deserves it.
Ah, but surely we all remember our lessons in the minutiae of perjury and obstruction of justice from the Clinton kerfuffle. Its only a crime if its material.
So, to pick up on the analogy above, if you didn't rob the bank, it isn't material if you tell the cops that you were at home if you weren't. You are not obstructing their investigation, because whether you were at home or getting blown at the office by an intern are irrelevant to the question of whether you robbed the bank.
Can any lawyers in here comment on the distinction between the nature of the information one acts on? If a financial officer of a publicly held company files forms for the sale of stock based on information only he had, and then 300 shareholders (who do not have that inside info) do the same based on having seen the filing, are those 300 people guilty of insider trading? It almost seems as though this is the case against Stewart, that she acted on the advice of someone who witnessed a financial officer act, reasons notwithstanding. That the reason, i.e., FDA rejection, was patently obvious arises from the nature of the industry and in my mind is hardly enough of a circumstance to warrant prosecution, at least in my mind. No matter how much I despise Stewart.
Insider trading should be a violation of a contractual obligation, not a crime. Without a contractual obligation, to suggest you can not make use of information that comes into your hands is like a casino that refuses to let you look at your hole card.
We know the prosecutor who jails Limbaugh will be the next Democrat Attorney General. I guess if someone soaks Martha, they get Greenspan's job.