When U.S. Attorney Karen Patton Seymour finished speaking to the jury Tuesday evening, there was a collective sigh of relief in courtroom 110. It was over. All the witnesses had been called, the closing arguments were complete and Martha Stewart’s fate was ready for the jury to ponder. But that doesn’t mean Tuesday was boring. Martha’s defense team, headed by Robert Morvillo, put on quite a show. And since we’re talking about shows, it’s time to hear Tuesday’s Courtroom Oscar winners. Straight from Manhattan’s Federal Courthouse.
Call him the Godfather. Morvillo, Stewart’s lead attorney, has stage presence. And the audience was waiting for it—even celebrity journos like Barbara Walters were in the house (rumor has it she’s interviewing Martha after the trial). And what a show Morvillo put on. Standing at a microphone before the jury—his thick New York accent alternating between a whisper and nearly a shout—he repeatedly pleaded that the jury understand that the government’s case was built only on “surmise, speculation and guesswork.”
“The government has given you rhetorical argument, circumstantial evidence and Douglas Faneuil,” he roared. “Douglas Faneuil is the living definition of reasonable doubt.” Morvillo is the closest thing we’ve seen to a true TV-ready "Law & Order" performance.
And like watching Sam Waterston play a New York lawyer on the tube, it was difficult not to buy into his arguments at times. It is true much of the government’s case is circumstantial. It is true that there aren't many concrete records pinning Martha for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements. But it was also interesting to hear Morvillo concede a few major points:
“Just because someone makes an inaccurate statement, doesn’t mean they’re lying, doesn’t mean that they’re intending to deceive,” he said. What? Did he just say Martha lied? Well, let's call it spin. After all, he already admitted she heard former ImClone CEO Samuel Waksal was selling before she made her move to sell her own ImClone shares on Dec. 27, 2001. Morvillo's point was that no one as smart as Martha or her codefendant, Peter Bacanovic, would try to deceive the government (and if they were going to, they’d be much more coordinated). And how do you argue with the Godfather? Everyone was listening ... well, maybe everyone except Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, who appeared to doze on and off for the last hour of his presentation.
Best Performance by an Actress Who Could Never Be Confused With Martha: U.S. Attorney Karen Patton Seymour
Pity this woman. She had to follow Morvillo to the stage to rebut the defense arguments. At first she faltered. Without much of a clear narrative to tie the government’s case together she began methodically going through prior testimony and complex legal argument. C’mon. It was 4 p.m. and everyone in the courtroom was on Martha overload. (I’ve learned there’s just a point where you can’t possibly comprehend more testimony and rebuttal.) This was the time for some rhetoric and humor. Instead Seymour, a clear-headed, genuinely likable woman, went on and on until the judge gave her a five-minute warning. Then she shone.
“Smart people doing stupid things,” she said referring to Morvillo’s argument that Stewart was too intelligent to cover up a crime as badly as she did, “is what white-collar criminals do.” Now that’s a command performance.
Best Performance by a Judge Who Deserves Her Own TV Show: Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
Besides being a favorite of the jury, she became the court audience’s best friend Tuesday when she reprimanded Bacanovic attorney Richard Strassberg (yesterday’s winner of the coveted Best Performance by a Soporific Actor): “Please, please Mr. Strassberg, you cannot torture the jury,” Cedarbaum said after Strassberg suggested he had hours left in his closing statement. The audience roared. We knew what she was talking about.
Sitting through the painfully-long four hours of Sunday’s Academy Awards reminded me a little of the six hours I spend in Martha Stewart’s courtroom every day. So since both shows can drag at times without a Janet Jackson incident, it might be more interesting to present some Oscars for Martha’s trial down in Manhattan’s Federal Courthouse—especially as it wraps up with closing arguments this week. There’s always some command performance or another worth noting.
Best Performance By An Underestimated Actor: U.S. Attorney Michael Schachter
Schachter ate his Wheaties before trial Monday morning. This perennial whipping boy of Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum proved he finally had what it took to argue a major case. (This is a guy who probably was never the cool kid in high school. Besides whining like a baby who didn’t get his Jello when he loses an objection, his relentless monotone can often drive you nuts.) But you’d never know it Monday. With arms raised high above his head, he hammered how Martha tried to "lie, conceal and cover up" the truth about her suspicious stock sale while "leaving behind a trail of evidence.”
"Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic had two options—tell the truth or decline to be interviewed," Schachter said. (Read the next sentence like the Terminator:) "They chose an option the law does not allow—to lie, conceal and cover up. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were wrong. They made a series of mistakes and left behind a trail of evidence that could expose the truth."
While those quotes don’t sound too spicy, he kept us awake and left the press (the shadow jury here), speculating how many years Martha’s going to serve.
Best Performance By A Soporific: Bacanovic lawyer Richard Strassberg
Unlike fellow award-winner Michael Schachter, this guy can even put the judge to sleep (six times today). In his closing arguments—which he hasn’t finished yet—Strassberg argued it’s Douglas Faneuil’s (Peter Baconvic’s former assistant) story that should be doubted. But after repeating the lines: “It makes no sense because it didn’t happen and thus it can’t be trusted” a dozen times, it was difficult to follow his argument. The whole three-hour speech was short on refuting the evidence and long on character impeachment. But maybe that was the point—too bad the jury was too bored (or asleep) to hear it.
Best Performance By A Non-Speaking Actress: Martha Stewart
If Martha’s career goes south after the trial’s over, she’d be a compelling actress in a silent film—a bad silent film. Everyone asks me “what did Martha do today?” The answer? Nothing. Ever. She stares straight forward, only occasionally whispering to her lawyers. The second we get a break, her burly bodyguard comes into the courtroom and escorts her past the throngs of press like she was some kind of rock star leaving a concert. She has yet to utter a word that anyone in the courtroom could hear.
Watch tomorrow for awards for Stewart’s attorney, Robert Morvillo (call him the Godfather), Judge Cedarbaum (your fourth-grade teacher), and U.S. Attorney Karen Patrick Seymour (the anti-Martha). The press might get an award too. Any suggestions?
FEEDBACK
Name: Ron Hometown: Gurnee, Ill. This is a total waste of taxpayers money. Government prosecutors are just trying to justify their jobs, just like HR people try to justify their jobs. You don't reach the level of a Martha Stewart, and claim 100% honesty. It's not possible. You get there because you are crooked to some extent. If Martha gets punishment, then all CEOs, CFOs, COOs, CIOs, and Cxx's should be tried and punished. Can the government do that? This is puritanical thinking of the 18th century, and a witch hunt of the most expensive kind.
Name: Pat Hometown: Malvern, Penn. Wow, what can I possibly say about this article "The Defense Rests" by Barney Gimbel. Oh, I came up with a word, "MEOW." It sounds more like an article by Barney Fife. Shame on you!!! You would have never wrote about a man like that, brave soul that you are. I am glad you're having such a good time kicking someone when they are down, this wasn't reporting or journalism, it was rag work.
Name: Michael Hometown: Phoenix You are wrong on all counts. I have read the breifs and followed the evidence. There is no significant evidence against Martha Stewart and frankly no case. Her attorney and his documentation was far more credible then the government witness. Her manager was far better than the government's inferences. There has been no direct evidence of illegal activity on the part of the Defendant at all. You are so wrong.
Name: Bob Hometown: Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. I believe this is what you might call a "show" trial..selective enforcement for sure. When you see all that is going on with Wall Street, this is nothing. For my part, I'd like to know why those SEC lads, testifying before Congress, still have their jobs. Why should the N.Y. Attorney General have to do their jobs? Now that the cat is out of the bag, they are going to form a special division to watch out for illegal timer training. I believe these guys should be paid to be proactive, not reactive. How could such massive abuse be going on right under their noses? People respect what you inspect, and the mutual fund industry obviously had no respect for the SEC.
Name: Christine Hometown: Vancouver Witchhunt. Much ado about nothing. As unpleasant as Martha Stewart may be, she has brought glamour back to the kitchen and home, THE place where good old fashioned values originate. Bottom-line, this is about $40,000; busfare in the grand scheme. Get to work and find the real criminals.
Name: Jan Hometown: Marin County, Calif. For all of you who want to condemn Martha, you should go see the movie "The Passion of the Christ" and take a look at yourselves as being the same group of people who crucified Jesus!!! You are all hostile, jealous and ignorant. Her friend Marianna should especially feel ashamed, for life. If Martha goes to prison, you should all go to prison. Look at the contributions Martha has brought to the entire world! How has she hurt you or anyone else? She took advantage of a lead and then tried to cover it up. How many of you wouldn't do the same? And if you wouldn't, look at your family, friends, co-workers, presidents, doctors, lawyers, etc. and tell me that they wouldn't do the same. You are casting stones when you should be looking at your own sins. If she goes to prison, you all should go to prison. The brokerage business is made up of deceptive practices, as are many other institutions that we are supposed to trust. I'm sure millions of people everyday are doing far more serious "crimes" than Martha did. Do you really think we should be spending tax dollars to put someone like Martha in prison?! Do you think she is going to harm you or society? You are all operating out of hostility, fear, ignorance and judgement because the world is out of balance in a negative spiral. Look in the mirror. Are you so perfect?
Luckily the judge and jury didn’t see it. But the press in Martha Stewart’s courtroom had a good laugh Tuesday—mostly at her expense. After hearing how Stewart charged her now infamous $17,000 Mexican vacation to her company, a handmade sign on a clipboard arose from one of the press rows that read I WANT TO WORK AT MSLO. PAID VACATION DAYS AND PAID VACATIONS. A couple of snickers from the reporters followed.
While the domestic diva's excesses haven't risen to the level of former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski’s $2 million Roman toga party, we’re learning that not only was Martha a tough boss, but she was also pretty cheap. (She even tried billing her best friend, Mariana Pasternak, for her share of that 2001 vacation.) This from a woman who makes $900,000 a year in salary plus a bonus of no less than $300,000 and some 150,000 stock options—not to mention the $2.5 million Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia pays her annually for the use of her house in Westport, Conn. Even her business manager, Heidi DeLuca, who writes the checks for her 40-odd personal employees, is paid for by MSLO. Now she might seal her boss’s fate.
DeLuca testified Monday about a Nov. 8, 2001, conversation in which Peter Bacanovic, Stewart’s codefendant and former Merrill Lynch broker, supposedly referred to ImClone’sstock as a “dog” that should be unloaded at $60 or $61—an important detail as much of the case hinges on whether the jury believes that agreement existed. If it does, the defense believes, what the government has called false statements might appear as mere mistakes rather than criminal acts. But Tuesday, prosecutors did a pretty good job making DeLuca’s memory look hazy and possibly wrong—or maybe even fabricated. (This is, of course, the same strategy the defense used against the key prosecution witnesses.)
The government claims Stewart was tipped that ImClone founder Sam Waksal was frantically trying to sell his shares back on Dec. 27, 2001. But rather than asking jurors to decide between the government’s version of the story and Stewart’s, NEWSWEEK has learned her lawyers will simply argue in their closing statements Monday that prosecutors have failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the government, they will argue, and the government has not met that burden. You can't put her in jail if there is a smidgen of doubt, a source close to the case said. (Martha has avoided the stand, so she never had to explain inconsistencies in her statements or expose herself to risky government cross-examination.) As for the defense's arguments Wednesday, Martha's team took precisely 10 minutes before the defense rested. The only witness called, Stephen Pearl, was put on the stand to dispute a niggling detail of a minor meeting and was subsequently torn apart by the prosecution. Still, the issue at hand was such a small detail that it is unclear whether it will influence the jury.
But while Stewart is still worth close to $1 billion, if this case doesn’t go her way, her gravy train will likely run out. Like most company executives, if she gets convicted of a felony, she loses her job—and her benefits, according to MSLO’s filings with the Security and Exchange Commission. But along with this, she also loses what has defined her life—her business and her fans. “At my age, there’s no time for an unexpected, undesirable, unwanted hiatus,” Stewart told ABC’s Barbara Walters last November. “None. Especially one that you can’t really control.”
But arguably she’s already alone. Aside from her bodyguards and her daughter, she shows up to court without any entourage. And save a few stricken, diehard fans, no one is protesting on the courthouse steps. Maybe her best bet to stave off loneliness would be to take all the reporters down to Mexico. Just don’t forget me.
Debbie Stewart’s first trip to New York wasn’t to climb the Statue of Liberty or stroll through Central Park. It was to try to understand for herself why Martha Stewart, the diva of domesticity, was on trial in Manhattan’s Federal court. And she says she isn’t even one of Martha’s fans. “I just couldn’t see why she was on trial,” says Stewart, who is not relatedto Martha. “I read the newspapers and watch TV, but it seems to me what’s happening in the mutual fund industry is the real problem. Not Martha. I don’t even understand the charges, really.”
Well folks, let’s face it. Debbie Stewart isn’t alone in her confusion. (Though she did show more dedication than most in her search for answers—driving almost three hours from Waterbury, Conn., to get a seat in the courtroom.) Since the trial started, countless TV pundits have discussed Stewart’s “insider trading case” (it’s not), how she lied under oath to the FBI (she didn’t) or how she defrauded investors a la Enron (apples and oranges).
“I understand you want to make this an insider trading case,” Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum told prosecutors Monday. “The evidence does not make this an insider trading case.” But maybe this confusion is exactly what the government wanted in this case, some experts say. If the public mentions Martha Stewart in same breath as the corporate fraud trials of former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski, Adelphia’s Michael Rigasor Jeffrey Skilling, Enron’s former chief executive, then have they confused not only the public, but the jury too? “Prosecutors can certainly have that motivation,” says Melinda Haag, a former U.S. attorney in charge of prosecuting white-collar crimes in northern California. “The sexier the case seems, the more important the jury will think their job is. And if you’re going for sexy here, you want to prove that securities fraud charge.”
But that seems doubtful as the judge entertained more arguments by the defense to drop the charge—the most serious on the indictment. Securities fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years has long been the most controversial aspect of the case against the gardening goddess because she has been accused, critics say, of being charged with a crime simply for asserting her innocence. Cedarbaum has called the securities fraud charge a "novel" approach and has shown an inclination to dismiss it. And in arguments Friday and Monday, she was clearly looking for a legal rationale to do just that.
Stewart's lawyer said he had 14 distinct reasons why the securities fraud charge should be dismissed, and he demanded—and ultimately got—the right to argue them at length Monday. Among them: Selling the ImClone stock at $60 was prearranged, former ImClone CEO Samuel Waksal received no tip, and that was all that investors cared about at the time.
“You’re slicing the onionpretty thin,” the judge said.
“I am slicing the onion exactly as it was intended to be sliced,” Morvillo responded.
And if the judge does dismiss the securities fraud charge, Stewart and her co-defendant Peter Baconovic may be able to take advantage of the jury’s confusion. Forget the public. And forget, for all her efforts, Debbie Stewart.
Juror No. 4 may already have chosen sides in the Martha Stewart case. When she laughs, he laughs. When she’s mad, he’s mad. And when she speaks, he listens. No, we’re not talking about the domestic diva herself, but Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum—the overlooked star of the trial in Manhattan’s federal court.
So far, she’s played an active role in shaping the case against Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. And if the last few days in court are any indication, she’s carefully and fairly considering every aspect of a case that could determine Stewart's potential fate. So far, she’s essentially killed two of the charges against Martha with specific rulings limiting what the government can argue.
Cedarbaum barred prosecutors Tuesday from arguing that phone records show Stewart and Bacanovic conspired to cover up why Stewart sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock on Dec. 27, 2000—making the conspiracy charge hard to prove. (The government says Bacanovic ordered his assistant to tip Stewart that ImClone founder Sam Waksal was trying to sell his shares. Stewart and the broker say they had arranged days earlier to sell ImClone at a fixed price.) Worse for the prosecution, on Friday, Cedarbaum blocked the government from calling expert witnesses as they try to show Stewart committed securities fraud.
So as the government winds up its case this week, prosecutors will have a hard time arguing two of the more damaging charges in the case. And this is all because of a very soft-spoken judge that’s often been overlooked by legal experts. Before the trial, she was thought to be a “lightweight” or “second tier,” according to lawyers familiar with her background. “Today, she’s proven to be truly pretty fair,” says Columbia Law Professor John C. Coffee, “and able to handle some of the best lawyers without flinching.”
Cedarbaum, a 74-year-old veteran of the federal bench, is certainly no Lance Ito, who was notorious for letting lawyers' antics take center stage. She’s made it clear there’s only one rule of law in her courtroom. And it’s not Stewart or any of her flashy defense attorneys. So there’s no doubt why courtroom sketches make her look severe with overdramatic facial features and a gnarly scowl. But those drawings couldn’t be farther from the truth. Sure, she has dramatic features, but Cedarbaum could best be described as your fourth-grade school teacher. One who knows you’re old enough to tie your shoes, but sometimes still need to be kept in line (not at all unlike the celebrity lawyers in this case).
Last week, Richard Strassberg, the lead attorney for Bacanovic wouldn’t stop pressing a point Cedarbaum had already ruled against. The judge interrupted. “Please, Mr. Strassberg, I have permitted you to reargue any number of times, and there comes a point when you have to abide by my rulings.” She often chides Stewart’s lawyer, Robert Morvillo, for talking too much. “Please, we really don’t need speeches,” Cedarbaum has said countless times.
But that’s not to say the government hasn’t gotten it’s share of reprimands. The judge coyly reminded U.S. Attorney Karen Patton Seymour to keep “what we call a poker face” after Seymour shook her head when she didn’t agree with one of the defense lawyer’s questions. Co-prosecutor Michael Schachter was once scolded for repeatedly leading a witness: “Mr. Schachter, I don’t think you understand the meaning of a leading question,” Cedarbaum said. Laughs followed but it solved the problem.
Lawyers love to say judges favor one side or the other. Cedarbaum was known as pro-government before the case, but these days, she’s really only seems to have one constituency—the jurors. Her rulings often aim at making sure they’re not confused by different evidence or testimony. And at the end of the day, like a teacher, she wishes them a good evening, reminds them to do their homework (don’t listen to media coverage), and sleep well. They nod and smile back as if they wanted to say, “Yes, Judge Cedarbaum” —in unison.
FEEDBACK
Name: Jay Hometown: St. Petersburg, Fla. I find it remarkable that a case of this nature is investigated by the U.S. Attorney's office like a simple traffic stop. No tape recorder? No video? No notes? What a clever way to keep the real facts away from the jury. If it were not so unprofessional, it would be laughable. In some jurisdictions, the prosecution's failure to protect the "evidence," i.e. her "statements," by recording or video[taping] when those means are readily available, would preclude the admission of the statements. It's a weak case, poorly and carelessly investigated, and poorly tried. I hope the tape recorders have been running out at Enron!
Name: Ceboia Hometown: New York This claim about weakness of recollection is nonsense. I can remember exactly certain dramatic phone calls over six years ago like when a grandchild died. Recollection varies with the individual, the subject and its importance at the time. As to Glotzer, she probably wrote down the questions even before she had the interview, since she is a professional and was probably intentionally trying to catch the witness.
What Morvillo is avoiding is asking Glotzer whether she refreshed her recollection before testifying before trial…probably because he doesn't want any notes of hers to become marked as evidence in the trial for fear something worse is in the notes. But I don't think it is nonsense that Martha might not recall the details since she was in a plane on the way to vacation. Trying to reconstruct the conversations later is always a problem.
But for heavens sake what are we talking about here? $44,000? How much is the government spending for this trial when one considers all the organized crime, including white-collar crime. If she were a man, this would have stayed at the SEC. Or is this just a trial to give the prosecutor some experience? In any event I think it is really overreaching and Martha must resist and fight this or lose control of her corporation if convicted of a felony.
Name: Marshall Hometown: Columbus, Ohio She is an ex-broker who knew the rules. Plain and simple. Male, female—doesn't matter. If she had a "standing agreement" to sell if the stock fell to $60 where was her "stop-loss" confirmation? Did she have a discretionary trading account? And if her broker went on vacation, who was to watch the stock and sell it if it fell to $60? She made a decision based on information not known to the general public. This is illegal, and she knew it. Sorry, Martha, you used poor judgment on this one.
Name: Barbara Hometown: Highlands Ranch, Colo. Thank you for your coverage of the Martha Stewart trial. I have been wondering, what exactly was her crime? Lying? No kidding! When did lying become a crime in the U.S.? Before former President Clinton or after? Something smells foul here. Why are they going after Martha Stewart when there are so many real corporate hucksters, liars and thieves seemingly getting away with stealing billions? Answers anyone?
Name: Linda Hometown: Brownwood, Texas I am waiting for Martha's friend who was on her private plane on their way to a Christmas vacation in Mexico to testify. The friend’s ex- husband owned or owns shares in ImClone too, according to news articles, so it seems to me that Martha's friend probably will shed some light on what Martha knew or talked about after Martha called home. Martha comes off as wanting to be a big player, trying to be important and one of the guys. To me she is a greedy, self-serving, arrogant egomaniac.
Name: Patricia Hometown: Perry Hall, Md. There seems to be a lot of recalling of memory in this case which I believe should not be allowed as evidence in this trial. Perhaps this case should have been tried right after the stocks were sold. I also believe that if it were an ordinary person who sold their stocks this would never have gone to court. I myself do not see what Martha did wrong by selling. When people have lots of money like Martha those people are always wining and dining, so to speak, to make more money. I also believe that the businessmen in this world are so jealous of Martha that this is the real reason this case has gone to court. To end with, if you can't have credible witnesses on the stand, then don't even put them on the stand. Keep the liars out of the case and out of the court room!
Two years ago today. Do you remember who you talked to on the phone? If so, can you recount exactly what they said? The answer is probably no. (I can’t even remember who I talked to yesterday.) But prosecutors in the Martha Stewart trial are pinning much of their case against the domestic diva on the memories of government lawyers who say she lied to them in interviews more than two years ago.
Yes, memories. No one at the FBI, Securities and Exchange Commission or U.S. Attorneys Office bothered to record the interviews they made in January 2002. No audiotape. No camera. Barely even handwritten notes. But when SEC lawyer Helene Glotzer took the stand Tuesday, she recounted Stewart’s testimony like it was yesterday—something experts say is almost impossible.
Glotzer says Stewart told her and her colleagues on Feb. 4, 2002, she didn’t know whether there was a record of the now infamous December phone message from her broker Peter Bacanovic relating to her sale of ImClone Systems stock. Yet her assistant, Ann Armstrong, testified earlier in the day that less than a week before that SEC interview, Stewart stood by her as she called up a computerized phone-message log. Armstrong said the fateful Dec. 27, 2001, telephone message initially read, “Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward”—a reference to the stock sale at the center of the trial.
“She instantly took the mouse and put the cursor at the end of the sentence and highlighted back to the end of Peter's name and then she started typing over that,” she said. The new version then read “Peter Bacanovic re: ImClone,” Armstrong said Stewart’s answer to the SEC, prosecutors charge, amounts to a false statement. She is charged, with Bacanovic, of conspiring to cover up the real reasons behind her Dec. 27, 2001, sale of ImClone stock. Prosecutors say the message shows that Bacanovic wanted to tip Stewart to secret information that ImClone's founder was dumping his shares. Glotzer also said that Stewart told authorities that she placed her order to sell ImClone shares through Bacanovic (rather than his assistant Douglas Faneuil), another statement that prosecutors have challenged as a lie.
Predictably, Glotzer’s memory was the first thing defense attorneys attacked during cross examination. “Isn’t it fair to say that it’s not possible for you to remember exact words from a conversation you had two years ago?” asked Richard Strassberg, one of Bacanovic’s attorneys.
“Pretty close to exact words, if not exact words,” Glotzer responded.
But that’s virtually impossible, experts say. Psychologists have long known that our memories are easily embellished. We add imaginary details through wishful thinking or to make a more logical story. Often once people commit to something, they are most likely to recall things that reinforce those beliefs. More controversially, memory may be falsified through suggestion and manipulative questioning, bringing some eyewitness testimony and “recovered” memories into doubt. And we all forget things, too.
“It’s a rare person who can report actual details of a verbal exchange two years ago with any fidelity,” says Dr. Stephen Read, a psychiatrist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies how human memory works. “Memories can be reshaped unconsciously to conform to what they believe to be true.”
This doesn’t mean Glotzer or her pals are making up what Martha told them years ago. It just means that some of the details the government’s case may have gotten lost in the shuffle of time. Read says it’s difficult for most people to reconstruct specific phrasing. Makes sense. On that day in January, how many conversations did Glotzer participate in? By definition, Read says, memory is an approximation of what really happened.
“That’s called reasonable doubt,” says New York defense attorney Greg Markel, “and that’s what wins or loses cases.”
FEEDBACK
Name: David Hometown: Park Ridge, Ill. Didn't they cover ethics when you went to journalism school???? They did when I went to (engineering) school. Except that, then, we knew when we did the wrong thing, we had role models all around. That was a bad column on spin doctoring, a very bad column. Why do you even listen to those "whores"? Shame on you and your profession. Soon, you journalists will be down there with used-car salespersons, lawyers and politicians. (Alas I think it may be too late.) Whatever happened to responsible journalists?
Name: Noel Hometown: Grosse Pointe Park, Mich. The press should watch the proceedings by closed circuit TV, so they would not have any potential to influence the jury because of their reactions. From my perspective, Professor Isaacs is right, most reporters can't cover their way out of a paper bag. This allows the good ones to be really great.
Name: Mixon Hometown: Lexington, Ky. I can't stand Martha Stewart—I'm not a fan. But the guy who should be punished is the stockbroker ... the operative word being GUY. If Martha were a man this whole thing would have been brushed under the rug long ago. A male with her image and clout would have been tapped to testify against the stockbroker—not the other way around. Martha's biggest crime? Being a difficult FEMALE power broker in a patriarchical society. Her real crime seems to be that of being an aggressive, pushy broad. But since when is that a felony?
Name: Howard Hometown: Highland Village, Texas It's good for the little guy to see that the wealthy are being charged and prosecuted, most especially a person such as Martha that is presented as someone with such good taste.
Everyone knows presidential debates are won not on television but in the media afterwards, in the spin room. It turns out trials have their own spinners—at least trials as prominent as Martha Stewart's.
This trial’s “spin room” lies between the wooden pews in the courtroom. That's where the public relations folks lurk—all three of them. (Martha pays their tab personally.) Her people earn their day’s pay: during any break in the proceedings, reporters crowd around them looking for a juicy quote or insight (ever notice a quote from “someone close to the case”?). Often, they even sit in the press rows and gossip with reporters during the trial. Just as with political campaigns, their opinions are biased and unabashedly so.
Reporters often agree with them—maybe just to keep the conversation going. Take five minutes on Monday:
“That guy handles the truth recklessly,” says one flack after Douglas Faneuil, the government’s star witness, finished testifying. “If you believe what he says, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.”
“Yeah, he just pleads ignorance when he doesn’t want to answer the question,” replies a reporter. “He was well trained. I mean, I can’t believe people aren’t covering the fact that this witness is lying on the stand.”
Doubtless, some legitimate reasons explain the presence of such spinmeisters. Lawyers for the defendant are certainly busy, and these guys act as reporter’s emissaries But I was surprised to see how large a role they play in the daily proceedings. “What’s happened in the public-relations world is that they’ve realized reporters don’t have a clue how to cover a story, so they give them a little help,” says Stephen D. Isaacs, a journalism professor at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Does that mean that the PR guys dictate what you’re reading here? (I’ll admit to having talked to them from time-to-time.) Probably not. Still, their message sticks with you. And that’s the whole point. Martha’s folks don’t spread disinformation. They just try to get you on their side. And, I’ll admit, sometimes it’s hard to resist.
Not unlike Janet Jackson’s infamous “breastgate”incident last week, it’s hard to miss hearing about the Martha Stewart trial on television at any given time. (How the jurors do it is beyond me.) There are the live reports from outside the courthouse, the pundits weighing in on whether the jury thought today was better than yesterday and the screaming tabloid headlines. But these days, one of the better places to see how trial’s going from Martha’s perspective, is to check out how her stock his doing. Literally.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, the domestic diva’s company, is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. So far, MSLO’s stock price has mirrored the day’s events in court. Seems obvious right? Two weeks ago, the stock was close to a 52-week high at just over $13.50 a share. Why? Well it was the day the prosecution bungled turning over documents that seemed to impeach the prosecution’s star witness, Douglas Faneuil. But after Faneuil took the stand last week, the stock started tanking. His credibility was seemingly great enough to bring shares down to below $12 at the end of the week. “There’s no doubt that the stock price is a weathervane for how the case is doing in court,” says Douglas Arthur, a senior analyst at Morgan Stanley, who follows Martha’s company. “Sometimes, I don’t even need to read the press reports myself. I can just check the stock price.”
Since her legal troubles began, Martha Stewart's business has deflated, in the words of a tabloid reporter, like an undercooked soufflé. At the end of 2003, the stock was hovering around $9 a share (back in 2000 it was almost $40) but as soon as the trial date approached last month, it began to rally. Arthur says it’s proof that investors appear to be more optimistic that Martha will beat the charges. But it’s not that simple. While analysts assume the business has staying power beyond the personal fate of Martha herself, a recent Morgan Stanley report says “it’s clear that the tsunami of negative p.r. has badly damaged the business and some product lines may never fully recover, regardless of what happens on the legal front.” Even after the battle-scarred founder stepped down in June, attempting to distance herself from MSLO (she retains the title of chief creative officer and remains on the board), the company that bears her name continues to founder.
Worse, while the company drifts, her competitors seem to be gobbling up the house-and-home category that Martha reinvented almost single-handedly. As ad pages plummet at Martha Stewart Living (down 37 percent this year), Real Simple [[www.realsimple.com]] has emerged as a viable and fresher alternative. On the TV side, her show, "Martha Stewart Living," which had been declining in ratings for several years, has now been moved out of the desirable late-afternoon time slots in many major markets (now viewed by insomniacs in New York and Boston at around 2 a.m.) Meanwhile, cable’s "Trading Spaces" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" have seen their ratings shoot through the roof. It gives us the same house-and-home fix Martha used to, except it's quicker and more irreverent. Even the market share of her merchandising—those fluffy towels in eggshell colors—is being eaten up. Wal-mart is introducing its own line of "Everyday" products whose design and presentation mimic the "MS" products sold at Kmart.
But some investors aren’t worried. One, who owns more than a million shares of the company, said he only bought into the company after he saw the price of the stock become undervalued last fall. If Martha beats the charges, he says the advertisers will come back and the brand name will resurface on top. “I feel I’m taking the Warren approach,” he says. “I bought a good franchise during bad times. I think that’s the situation that we see here. It’s a franchise, a unique property and the public favor will swing back to her when this is all done with.” But until then, the trial is certainly not good for business. Would you sign a contract with a company whose founder is on trial? And if she’s convicted, it’s going to take a pretty darn good strategy to save her name—and her company. If the stock price is any indicator, there’s still hope.
FEEDBACK
Name: Caitlin Hometown: Chicago Do I understand correctly that the government’s star witness was also given a pass on drug charges? If so, the government has let this witness go without charges on lying to federal investigators *and* drug charges in order to “get” someone for lying to federal investigators. Which would seem to be trading down. Especially when you consider that someone who works in the securities industry lying about securities trading is far more serious than an end-customer lying about their personal trading. I guess we can presume that the star witness does not raise large amounts of money for the opposition party.
Name: Gene Hometown: Fayetteville, N.C. I think it only normal for an investor to have questions for the broker when rumors are flying about the status of stocks in which they have investments. Who should an investor call if not their broker? “Investment 101” places the responsibility of the broker in the role of advising the customer should the customer not follow the advice of the broker? If they pass information to the customer that is in violation of securities code-it would appear to me the brokerage firm is culpable; not the investor. If a brokerage firm gave me information that would prevent a loss I would certainly take that advise. Isn’t that what brokers do? Should the customer not take the advise? It is my opinion that the courts are pursuing the wrong person here.
Name: Caryn Hometown: Los Angeles I’m a little confused. Stewart supporters seem to think they’re the lawyers, judge and jury in this case, since they’re convinced of the verdict without even having a trial. Imagine if the American judicial system actually worked this way. Tear down the courthouses, lay-off the professionals and don’t bother appointing a jury. Martha and Michael Jackson fans know best. God help the country if decisions of the law actually worked this way. Since Martha is obsessively posting as much biased information in her favor on her newly developed website, it would be nice to see postings of the prosecution’s opening statements, which I’ve yet to see on the internet. I suggest Stewart supporters out there wait for all the evidence to actually be presented and for the trial to end before making an educated decision. Come on people, this isn’t so called reality programming here, it’s reality. Check your constitution.
Name: Danny Hometown: Atlanta After reading Robert Morvillo’s opening statement, I realize the press and the prosecutors leaves quite a bit out of the picture. Especially, when it comes that she sold other company shares on Dec. 21, and that she had a pension fund set-up that was heavily invested in Imclone that was sold off a couple of months earlier, and 1,000 shares of personal stock sold through a tender offer. I think this case has got totally got out of hand, and waste of tax payers money and it has totally destroyed and disrupted the defendant life based on he said she said. If she is given prison time, I think its time all are liberties are at stake. I realize the press has a self responsibility to be unbiased, and report all the facts not just what is sensational. Its a sad day when someone is brought up on charges because they say there innocent and cannot use that in a court of law. I thought that is one of the reasons America broke away as a colony from Great Britain in 1776.
Name: Alex Hometown: Edgewater, Fla. It seems to me that Martha Stewart has already been hung out to dry even before the trial has started. she didn’t steal from her company or hundreds of people didn’t lose their jobs because of this like Enron and other companies which were destroyed. I feel that she’s on trial because of who she is and how she made it in the world of so called men!
Name: Tricia Hometown: Anchorage, Ala. Reading the above story regarding the media’s response IN COURT over remarks made by either prosecution or defense calls to mind the Bill of Rights which is our constitutional bible in the United States. Martha simply is not being given a fair and impartial trial. There is no way that the snickers and comments made by 75 members of the press can be ignored by the jury. Having served on juries, I can tell you that the process of listening, absorbing and processing the information given in a court of law can be slow and painstaking. Allowing any subjective commentary will interrupt these processes and affect the outcome. With this behavior today, a mistrial is the only permissible outcome and a call for the clearing of the courtroom by all media for the next trial the only permissible action. Perhaps, the Judge should also recuse himself due to improper handling of the court.
Covering the Martha Stewarttrial only seems glamorous when you walk up to the U.S. courthouse in downtown Manhattan. Television satellite trucks line one side of the street and paparazzi crowd the other. This is at 7:30 a.m. The trial itself doesn’t even begin until around 10 o’clock. But all us reporters who pray to a get a seat have to wake up early so we can spend the day analyzing the back of the domestic diva’s coiffed head.
But this week, Stewart and her co-defendant Peter Bacanovic seem like just a side show. The focus (and the camera lenses) have moved to the government’s key witness, Douglas Faneuil, Bacanovic’s 28-year-old former assistant. He’s the guy who holds the keys to Martha and Peter’s jail cell as he’s the only one who witnessed what happened in the aftermath of Dec. 27, 2001 when Martha sold almost 4,000 shares of Imclone. He’s also the guy that has graced the cover of countless tabloid newspapers and has been talk show fodder for weeks speculating on his importance. (You can tell when an important witness is appearing by looking at how many television anchors show up in court—four turned up on Wednesday).
By looking at Faneuil, however, you can’t see the pressure he’s under. On the stand, he’s clear, calm and composed. His answers are direct, to the point and avoid saying anything remotely different than the government’s case. In fact, one of the first questions Bacanovic’s lawyer asked him was if he had taken acting classes. But while his answer was a firm “no,” that’s not entirely the truth. It’s called preparing a witness and it’s taught in Law School 101.
“A good prosecutor will make a witness, especially a key witness, ready for any possibility,” says Melinda Haag, a former federal white collar crimes prosecutor in San Francisco. “If a witness knows where a lawyer is going with every question, than it’s harder to be trapped.”
In fact, the government in this case spent days working on this very problem. Faneuil even admitted having made “15 to 20” visits to the federal prosecutors office in preparation for this week’s testimony. And on Wednesday, it showed. There was no tripping up Faneuil- even on cross examination. Bacanovic lawyer David Apfel tried to suggest that Faneuil had been a government witness only in exchange for a lesser sentence for his role in the Stewart case. (In October 2002, Faneuil pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge that he had accepted gifts in exchange for covering up that he had told Stewart about Waksal’s shares.) Apfel said the feds could have charged Faneuil with a felony.
“In part, you have lived up to your end of the bargain because the quid pro quo was very high?” Apfel asked, implying that Faneuil may be lying on the stand to save himself.
“I’ve lived up to my end of the bargain because that’s the agreement I signed,” Faneuil responded.
Apfel had no immediate response.
The defense team, further aiming to hurt his credibility, didn’t stop there. They had him admit on the stand that he had used marijuana and ecstasy during his time at Merrill Lynch (though not on the job). Earlier, one of the most lively debates took place between the judge and the prosecution and defense lawyers about how much testimony to allow about Faneuil’s drug use resembled a scene from the anti-drug propaganda movie “Reefer Madness.” Bacanovic’s lawyers wanted to be able to ask about why the government had not tried to prosecute Faneuil for smoking marijuana while on vacation in Jamaica after he had signed an agreement to cooperate with the government. In that agreement, Faneuil said he would not commit any crimes. Faneuil said he did not believe smoking marijuana was illegal in Jamaica.
“What is your belief based on?” Stewart lawyer Robert Morvillo asked him.
“Based on the ubiquity of marijuana use in Jamaica,” Faneuil responded, to big laughs from the courtroom.
And as cross examination continues this week, the laughs may well stay on the government’s side. Practice does sometimes make perfect.
There was nothing subtle about the New York Post’s headline Wednesday morning. SHE’S A LIAR, the front page read, referring to the government’s opening statement against homemaking diva Martha Stewart. Now if you believe what the judge in the federal case says, the jury didn’t read that. They’re simply not allowed. So continuing this logic, Martha then really isn’t being tried in the media as some pundits say. She’s being judged only by what happens in the wood-paneled courtroom in downtown Manhattan. There’s no doubt the jury will decide the fate of Stewart and her codefendant, former Merrill Lynch broker Peter Baconovic. But if the jury’s not reading the Post’s inflammatory headline, does the media have any role in Martha’s fate?
The answer is yes, experts say, and if you were sitting in the courtroom you’d agree. For example, when Martha’s attorney, Robert Morvillo said that the only way his client and Bacanovic could have engineered a conspiracy and cover-up was by “carrier pigeon,” the press erupted in laughter. But the jury? They really only started chuckling after seeing the media’s reaction. This happened again and again during Tuesday’s testimony. Reporters often give away what they think in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. When Baconovic’s lawyer mentioned his client came from an immigrant family, some journalists even rolled their eyes and whispered to their colleagues. “Come on,” one reporter snickered.
Reporters covering trials often look like pigeons. Their heads bob up and down furiously trying to juggle both listening and scribbling in spiral notepads that don’t forgive messy handwriting. Now imagine some 75 of them doing so in unison and you’ll have a good picture of what it looks like on any day at Martha’s trial. There’s almost no random citizens in the crowd—just some assorted family members of Martha's and Baconovic’s. The media, including me, often unconsciously creates the atmosphere in which the jury does its work. Call it trial by the media. And experts agree it can be a problem.
“It’s essentially a third party’s input into the credibility of witnesses,” says John Q. Kelly, a former New York City prosecutor who recently represented Nicole Brown Simpson's family in the O. J. Simpson civil trial. “The laughter, the sighs, the gasps. It all has an effect on the jury.”
It’s probably not a huge impact, lawyers and jury consultants say, but journalism schools teach reporters that they should avoid being part of the story. That’s not the real world though—just ask any correspondent under fire in Baghdad. Or any reporter sitting day after day in a courtroom listening to one outrageous statement after another.
FEEDBACK Name: Sydell Hometown: Valencia, Calif. “Unfair, unfair. I would have dumped my stock if I learned that the biggest shareholder had dumped his. This was a very human thing to do. It is done constantly among big stockholders. Should Martha be found guilty, I hope the plaintiff folks sentence Martha to community work where she can influence young women in cooking skills to would make them employable in society.”
Name: Floyd Hometown: Michie, Tenn. “If the facts support her as guilty, then she is not entitled to more favorable treatment in jail than the average prisoner gets. Just because she's a celebrity, doesn't entitle her to better treatment than any other person convicted of a crime! We don't need anymore O. J. Simpson trials!”
Name: Vivian Hometown: Pontotoc, Miss. “I think it is a disgrace that the Justice Department is after Ms. Stewart. What about the guys who headed Worldcom and Enron? They STOLE millions from people all over the world. What and from whom did Ms. Stewart steal? Also, why are the reporters so intent on describing her clothes, her purse, her shoes, her hair—do they do this for the guys? In my opinion, this case is based on one thing—a lot of men are terribly jealous of the success that Martha Stewart has had. This case should be dismissed, and the Justice Department should go after the Worldcom and Enron men as fervently as they have pursued Ms. Stewart.”
Name: David Hometown: Ballwin, Mo. “Eighty percent of the people in the ‘Joint’ talk their way in. Ms Stewart, is a tough, smart lady, and as long as she keeps her mouth shout and lets her legal team do their thing, she will come out a winner. No doubt in my mind.”
Name: Judith Hometown: Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. “Quite simply, I'm sure it's the overall consensus, if Martha were a man there’d be a meeting and no one would hear about it.”
Name: Lisa Hometown: Weston, Conn. “Welcome to Salem. This is a modern-day witch hunt. I have never tried one of Martha's recipes or even browsed through any of her paint chips. But as a social worker, I recognize unfairness and injustice when I see it. She's not just being attacked for her success, she is being punished for her gender. I am stunned at the judge's latest ruling. If the court had denied mentioning race in the case of any African-American, it would be an automatic appeal. I fear for Martha Stewart.”
For the first time, no one in Manhattan’s Federal courthouseobsessed over MarthaStewart’s wardrobe. Instead, the public, press—and even Martha herself—spent the first couple minutes in court Monday morning pouring over Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s latest ruling. To put it simply: after Martha finished reading it, her head briefly touched the table. Count it as the first time the domestic diva showed any hint of emotion—and it was for good reason. The day before opening arguments didn’t go too well for Martha. The judge’s ruling arguably handicapped her defense team right when they were planning their introductions to the newly empanelled eight women and four men in the jury box. There’s no way to tell if this is the pro-Martha jury her defense team had hoped for but many analysts say it wasn’t a great sign.
“This would not be a jury that I would be excited about,” says Phillip K. Anthony, president and CEO of Bowne DecisionQuest, a national jury consulting firm. “There’s no one on this jury who’s a sure bet.”
To be sure, no one in the courtroom got a real good look at these men and women—and what we are forced to rely on is some 500 pages of potential jury interviews recorded by the court. But what we do know is the jury is diverse. There’s a woman minister who counsels married couples, a computer technician and even a pharmacist born in Uganda. But there’s seemingly no die-hard Martha fans. No one who has recently painted their walls with an eggshell tint. No one who says they’ve served up some roasted pork with warm fruit chutney.
Stewart and her former Merrill Lynch broker, Peter Bacanovic, are accused of obstructing an investigation into her sale of shares of ImClone Systems Inc.,a biotech company founded by her friend Sam Waksal. The stock sale came just a day before ImClone shares tumbled on news that health regulators had rejected a key drug application by the company. But even more than the jury, the judge’s order, released just before she impaneled the jury, probably impacted tomorrow’s opening statements.
“It’s certainly going to force the defense lawyers to rewrite their opening statements,” says John C. Coffee, a Columbia law professor who specializes in white collar crime. “It’s also going to make them perhaps rethink their strategy.”
The six page ruling essentially handcuffed her defense, telling them they cannot say she is being prosecuted for proclaiming her innocence in the case or for asserting her First Amendment right to free speech. They can’t say the securities fraud charge is a “novel application” of securities laws, the government's motives in investigating or prosecuting Stewart were improper, or the lack of criminal insider trading charges means the government doesn't believe they committed such a crime.
To be sure, defense attorneys can still argue she’s a scapegoat for corporate America and the public’s (not the government’s) thirst for white collar blood. They can call her the female version of Horatio Alger who fights back when the world accuses her of improprieties. Working women jurors may also have sympathy for other women fighting to the top in a man’s world. But then again, women are often the group most polarized about Martha Stewart. They’re the ones largely watching her shows, reading her magazines and even commenting on her daily courthouse attire. (Men surveyed before trial say they don’t have much of an opinion on her.)
But will this jury, which includes a woman who recently sued her dry cleaner for damages over an antique dress, a translator and a man who blames the Enron scandal for losses in his mutual fund, side with her? All she can hope for at least one juror looks at her and realizes sees that the lighter shades of gray work both for pantsuits and legal defenses.
When Martha Stewart enters room 110 in Manhattan’s federal courthouse each morning, the reporters aren’t staring at her face to gauge how she’s holding up under the pressure. They’re checking out her jacket (black leather), pants (slate gray), hair (a tad ruffled), shoes (spike heels) and especially her bag (Hermes). These brief moments can be the high point of the day in the most closely watched of all the CEO trials currently underway. But they end quickly, and Martha, her lawyers, the team of prosecutors and the judge soon leave the courtroom to go behind closed doors and choose the jurors who eventually will decide the domestic diva’s fate. With nothing to do, the packed courtroom empties out, and people wait for the trial to start in earnest, once the panel of jurors is selected.
But make no mistake. Even though there are no courtroom theatrics, this is arguably the most critical stage of the proceedings, the one most likely to affect the trial’s outcome. In celebrity trials, jury casting is everything. And predictably, each side of the aisle has its perfect juror in mind. The government is arguably looking for some blue-collar New Yorkers who see the world in black and white, while Martha’s team wants those professionals who understand the lighter shades of gray.
“The bottom line in this case is whether the jury believes her or not,” says John C. Coffee, a Columbia law professor who specializes in securities fraud. “And that’s going to be a credibility and likeability contest that only a jury can decide.”
It seems obvious, right? If the jury likes Martha, she may get off. So, like many high-profile defendants, Martha turned to a jury consultant—a kind of behind-the-scenes casting director. Such consultants do in-depth demographic studies of potential jury pools, write jury questionnaires (the one used in this case it was more than 35 pages), develop profiles of ideal jurors, convene focus groups, help select witnesses and shape arguments to sway a jury. The use of such consultants is so common—indeed, almost expected—that it was no surprise when lawyers for John Allen Muhammad asked for the taxpayers to pony up for a $250-an-hour jury consultant in his sniper trial. (The judge said no.) Experts say Martha’s got one of the best, Julie Blackman, who worked on the trial of Frank Quattrone, which recently ended in hung jury. Consultants like Blackman often work from jury selection to closing arguments and have become a staple of the multibillion-dollar legal-services industry.
So it’s no surprise that Martha’s consultant sits right next to her legal team as the jury selection entered its fourth day behind closed doors Friday. So far, more than 140 potential jurors have been questioned out of a pool of 573 New Yorkers who filled out a questionnaire earlier this month. Questions, according to court transcripts, ranged from their opinions on whether cooperating witnesses involved in plea agreements should receive reduced sentences and whether the federal government is tough enough on “people accused of lying in interviews” to whether they believe defense lawyers are “less truthful than prosecuting attorneys.” But more importantly, the potential jurors were asked direct questions about how much they knew about Martha and if “the government is prosecuting Martha Stewart because she is a powerful woman in a man’s world.” (Juror 20 replied: “I can’t answer that. I simply don’t know why the government— [She stopped herself.] I assume that the government has its reasons for this prosecution.” She remained in the pool.) “I think, in general, Martha Stewart represents the kind of person jurors both love to hate and also love to love,” says Phillip K. Anthony, CEO of Bowne DecisionQuest, a national jury-consulting firm. “It’s going to be one emotionally packed jury.”
So what constitutes a perfect juror—at least in this case? The government, experts say, ideally wants dogmatic people who look at the world with a kind of school-principal approach—people who say rules are rules. Martha’s team, on the other hand, wants jurors who understand it’s a complicated world and that it’s hard to know all the rules. But weeding out undesirables is no easy task. While each side will be granted a limited number preemptory challenges (Stewart and her codefendant, Peter Bacanovic, each have five, the government, six) before the trial begins, this week’s goal is to get the judge to throw out potential jurors because of bias and thus not use up their limited challenges.
Take, for example, Juror 1—arguably perfect for the defense. She’s a former lawyer turned housewife who lives in a townhouse. She didn’t want to serve because she has to look after two teenage boys. After she left the judge’s robing room, where the interviews were conducted, transcripts indicated that the government suggested her burdens were too great and she should be dismissed. Martha’s attorneys thought she could afford a babysitter. (The judge asked her to find one.) After all, she only needs a fraction of the people on the jury to be undecided or find her not guilty to save her from jail.
Juror 38 would probably have been a defense-team dream. According to transcripts, she said she had worked at Credit Suisse First Boston and knew analysts who had followed Martha’s company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. “When I first joined the team, we had spoken about my interest in the company, and I had said that I read the magazine [Martha Stewart Living] a lot,” the woman said. At the urging of prosecutor Karen Patton Seymour, the woman was dismissed. But before she left, the transcript noted, she turned to Martha and said: “I’m a huge fan of yours. Good luck.”
Juror 108 described herself as a fan as well. Asked by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum to explain what she meant, the woman, a psychoanalyst, said, “I own a lot of Martha Stewart stuff. I think that she has been a very strong and powerful role model for a lot of women in our society.” The government sought her dismissal. The judge obliged.
The jury-selection chess game will most likely end Monday when the attorneys get to use their challenges (the judge literally pulls juror numbers out of a churning wheel). Each side needs to have an idea if that juror called is on their side and if it’s worth expelling them. (Think of it like a coach’s decision to use up that last timeout in a football game.) Will they get the perfect 12? We’ll have to wait more than a month to truly find out. But as the weeks drag on the courtroom audience is likely to start focusing less on Martha’s wardrobe and more on whether worry lines are appearing on her famous face.
