That if Martha Stewart and everyone involved had told the truth from the beginning, there would not have been an "Obstruction of Justice" charge. True.
They'll nail her for making false statements and by so doing, obstruction of justice, unless the jury loves her and wants to send a message to the gov't to leave our diva-gurus alone. I doubt it. The conspiracy charge and the securities fraud charge will be difficult to prove, so I think these two charges are in there to overload the defense and also as a bargaining chip for the prosecution if they want it. I'm not certain, but I don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard applied in these types of trials, as it would be for a murder trial where lives hang in the balance. I believe it's "preponderance of evidence" which is easier to prove. They'll send her to a country-club prison in upstate NY for a few years. Maybe after that experience, she'll have a new recipe for tossed salad?
Havent been following the case... but im a bit confused. What was being obstructed if they govt already dropped the insider trading charge? peace axeman
Yeah but perhaps not for the reason people think about: it can be for the reason that these marginal insiders compete with the true big insiders who profit from their information monopoly because they are nearly untouchable http://faculty.som.yale.edu/~ab364/it.pdf <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=424813>
gms, maybe there is a lawyer here who can say definitely, but I believe any time one is on trial in a criminal case the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". When it is a civil case it is "preponderance of evidence".