Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Martha Stewart Found Guilty

This is topic Martha Stewart Found Guilty in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003014

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-05-2004, 02:41 PM:

The jury of the Martha Stewart trial returned to the courtroom following three weeks of deliberation. Stewart was found guilty on all four counts. Stewart now faces up to 20 years and $1M in fines.

Sentencing will take place 10am on June 17th.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-05-2004, 03:10 PM:

Actually it was 3 *days* of deliberation.

She's a convicted felon now! [thumbsup]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-05-2004, 03:31 PM:

Why does it need to take over three months from conviction to sentencing? In England/Wales/N. Ireland (don't know about Scottish law, sorry), you're usually sentenced the moment you're found guilty. The only reason I know of for a delay is if the judge asks for psychiatric reports.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-05-2004, 03:58 PM:

Post-trial/Pre-sentencing investigations and motions.

The judge will send the case out to the parole/probation department to investigate the person's background. The parole department and their staffers will check up on sentencing statutes and/or sentences people have been given for similar crimes.

The defense has to make motions and appeals. If the appeal gets heard, there won't be a sentencing hearing until the appeal is over.

Once all of this (and other stuff) is over the judge reads the sentencing report then accepts, denies or modifies the sentencing guidelines set out by the parole department.

I'm betting, where you're from, all that is done pre-trial. We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? ...Yet.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-05-2004, 03:59 PM:

A typo, perhaps? Or did it seem like weeks instead of days..?

Or was I having a flashback to STAR TREK II -- "Hours would seem like days."

Even *I* couldn't tell you! [Confused]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 03-05-2004, 06:37 PM:

Its about time celebrities are held accountable for their actions!

At least there are some decent courtrooms in this country afterall. Not like Blake and Simpson in LA where the judges and attornys are incompetitent jokes, and all it takes is money and celibrity status to buy an aquital!

MARTHS GOIN DOWN! [thumbsdown]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-05-2004, 08:43 PM:

"We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? .yet"
The presumption of innocence is from the concept of british common law
It should take for ever for a judge to be able to render the penalty

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-05-2004, 09:06 PM:

I'm heartbroken over this witch hunt and verdict. If she goes to jail, HTF will I learn how to make my guests comfy when they visit and how to boil water without burning it?

I have a very good dyke friend named Martha who lives in Acapulco and wants to meet Will. She thinks he's hot. Why? I have NO clue!

>>> Phil

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-06-2004, 07:57 AM:

Randy writes:

quote:
I'm betting, where you're from, all that is done pre-trial. We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? ...Yet.

I don't think so: the sentencing system is just a lot simpler. In most trials the judge will pass sentence immediately after a guilty verdict. This will be based on what the law allows (i.e. the sentence could potentially be anything from an absolute discharge to the maximum provided by statute) and based on other sentences passed for offences with similar mitigating and/or aggravating factors. Presumably the judge researches this before or during the course of the trial.

So in a way, yes - the appropriate sentence is determined before a guilty verdict. Personally I prefer it this way, because neither the criminal nor (and more importantly) his/her victim(s) need be kept in limbo for months before knowing the sentence. Cases take long enough to come to court as it is.

The checks-and-balances system is that the offender can appeal against the sentence on the grounds of it being inconsistent with what others have been sentenced to in comparable circumstances. The prosecution can also appeal if it feels that the sentence is too lenient, compared to other similar cases. In practice this doesn't happen often, and very rarely indeed with serious cases. Judges know that if they pass an 'unusual' sentence they will be held to account for it, and therefore they try to make very sure that the sentences they pass are consistent.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-06-2004, 10:40 AM:

Good! Throw her in jail. I can't stand the bitch.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-06-2004, 01:32 PM:

Personal opinion shouldn't enter into it. It seemed pretty clear from the coverage of the trial that she had lied to investigators so unless one has an opinion that this should not be a crime the conviction was correct.

Also correct was the judge throwing out the other charge which tried to say that it was a crime merely to publically assert her innocence...like this was an attempt to defraud her own stockholders and that seemed a bit of a stretch so good that they tossed that charge. Saying that one is innocent of some crime unrelated to the business is hardly the same thing as making false statements about business prospects or other things about the business.

Why she wasn't charged with insider trading I don't know but maybe selling stock just because you heard someone who might have inside knowledge is selling isn't insider trading in and of itself.

But did she lie to investigators? Yup.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-07-2004, 02:52 PM:

Does this mean my K-Mart Martha Stewart tablecloth will be worth money? [Big Grin]

Hello eBay!

=TMP=

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-07-2004, 03:23 PM:

Watch Sunday Mornings soon for a new edition of her show....
"Martha Stewart Prison Living"

Mark

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-07-2004, 03:54 PM:

All things considered I would not be troubled if she ended up with only a couple months + probation + a fine. It's not clear who was harmed by her actions--yes, insider trading hurts others in the market but she wasn't charged with that--except that we do need to keep people honest so the regulators can do their jobs. So for her lying to investigators who have the duty of policing the markets she does deserve to be punished but she didn't steal from anyone let alone do violence.

Those who wish her put away long term are saying this for their own personal feelings about this woman that have nothing to do with the crime she committed, same as those who've been proclaiming her innocence all along despite fairly clear evidence. Neither sentiment should play any role in this.

It's the Enron and Worldcom people whose actions wiped out many people who should be doing the hard time.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-07-2004, 04:46 PM:

I predict that Martha will get a new trial. How is that possible you ask?

She will claim (as do all criminals who are convicted) that her lawyer was incompetent. This incompetcy claim is the basis for the majority of new trials granted in this country today. And although he is supposedly one of the best white collar criminal lawyers in the country, expect to see him fall on his sword publically and claim it was his fault for not putting on a more vigorous defense and putting Martha on the stand. (When interviewed at the time of trial his response was the goverment had no case so his defense reflected that).

If one was really Machievellian and into conspiracy theories one could even think that the lawyers gambit was good idea. If they win he is a hero and if not he falls on his sword and she gets a second bite at the apple by way of new trial.

I just wish people were bright enough to put into their contracts with their lawyers that the lawyer has to return x% of the money if they are convicted. [Big Grin]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-07-2004, 04:47 PM:

I agree with you, Steve

-Claude

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-08-2004, 06:16 PM:

Of course what I said was based on some level of contrition. If she drags this thing out with appeals saying the judge was wrong, the jury was wrong, her own lawyer was wrong, everyone was wrong but her, then I certainly would not be so lenient.

::slams gavel down::

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-08-2004, 09:43 PM:

I think the whole Martha Stewart trial thing is just a stupid side show rife with hypocrisy. Granted, the acts for which she was convicted were illegal. But I doubt if she will do any time for them. The convictions will be appealed, and ultimately she may just be given a hefty fine. And that's probably okay.

The problem I have with this deal is how she is being used as the high profile whipping boy for all the sins committed by corporate America. There are much bigger fish to fry than this lady.

The folks who we should be demanding serve very long jail sentences and pay extreme fines are those rat bastards committing much worse crimes behind the walls of Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and many others. All of this stuff is just the frost on the tip of a gigantic iceberg.

If you rip off a few hundred bucks from a 7-Eleven, you'll do some serious hard time in "gen-pop" of a tough prison. The greedy devils who rip off money by the hundreds of millions are well connected. So they often do little jail time, and any time they serve is typically at some nice minimum security "Club Fed" site. Not only is white collar crime tolerated in this country, I believe it is actually encouraged via the good ol boy network.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 03-09-2004, 01:23 AM:

quote:
The problem I have with this deal is how she is being used as the high profile whipping boy for all the sins committed by corporate America. There are much bigger fish to fry than this lady.

Fuckin' A Right On Bobby. I can not stand coporate America. Bunch of money grubbing self righteous bastards they are. Only concerned abou what mom and pop operation the can fuck up next to contimue to put more money in the pockets of the upper class in the company while bending over every American and screwing them up the a$$ with no shame. Whom ever coined the phrase let the Buyer beware had to of been bleeding from the asshole.

[ 03-09-2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: William T. Parr ]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-09-2004, 04:18 AM:

It's fuckin' eh! Gee, Todd, no wonder you can't stand it!

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 03-09-2004, 08:01 AM:

There you go Daryl. I edited it. Happy Now? [Smile]

By the way. has anyone pointed out to you yet that your last name also happens to be Ice Cubes real first name? [Eek!]

Yep it is true. He was born O'Shea Jackson.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-09-2004, 09:03 AM:

Well you've almost got it now.

He named his kid O'Shea Jackson Jr... he must have been drunk at the time like his parents. He really should have named the kid O'O'Shea Jackson if he wanted to get it right.

There are a lot of O'Shea's in the movie industry. Some are pretty closely related some aren't.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-09-2004, 01:51 PM:

Daryl:

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fate of my dear, beloved Martha Stewart but, in light of recent postings here in this thread, I shall ask this question here...

Rumors have been circulating throughout Hollywood that George Lucas, Terry Gilliam and some folks from Disney people have approached you about doing "Daryl O' Shea and the Little People."

Would you care to confirm or deny these rumors?

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 03-09-2004, 02:12 PM:

Oh,Oh..... Get the chains and hand-cuffs out! Here we go
again...

fjn [Wink]

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 03-09-2004, 11:09 PM:

And whoever said "The Political Forum" was dead?! [Big Grin]