Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Securities fraud: Alleges Stewart "well knew" her personal reputation was critical to shareholders in her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Alleges she made misleading public statements in June 2002, after news of her ImClone sale broke, and intended to "defraud and deceive" her investors.
|
This will not fly. No matter how couched, the prosecution is asking the jury to effectively hold her criminally liable for protesting her innocence.
First, the jury instruction on this will be a mess. I can't even think how to write that one up as a prosecutor. Second, no jury is going to punish someone for a protestation of innocence, no matter how inartfully the prosecution stumbles to show that she did it for the malevolent purpose of merely propping her stock. Its nonsense. The judge will probably blow it out. Think of the horrible precedent that could emerge is criminal defendants could face additional penalties for saying they're innocent. The defenses to this charge are endless.
