They also could have asked to read the stenographic transcript from her interviews with the FBI and SEC officials or listen to the tape recording of those interviews or review the FBI agent's notes that record both the questions and Martha Stewart's answers. Oops, none of those exist, so never mind.

George:

You just aren't going to accept a guilty verdict, are you ?

Michael - Sure I am, I'm a lawyer, I've seen all sorts of people I didn't think the prosecution proved to be guilty, be convicted (I even had one juror confine after voting to convict that he would sure hate to be convicted on such poor evidence)(I also had the prleasure of seeing that conviction overturned on appeal and the defendant vindicated at a subsequent trial). On the other hand, I have reached my position on this case based on what I have read was actually presented and not based on my gut reaction to Martha Stewart. By way of personal disclaimer, I think her politics appalling, I'm a big fan of John Ashcroft (and accordingly, disapprove of Mr. Morvillo's comments about Ashcroft), but nonetheless, it looks like this case is just about corporate scalp hunting. After it was clear (to everybody but our genial host) that she didn't get a tip about the pending FDA action and at most got a tip about Waksal selling some of his shares, if I were the prosecution, even if I though she and the broker were a little disingenous, I would have left the thing to the SEC civil action. After all, even if you think she is not a nice person or disapprove of her craft projects as a matter of principle, this is not Al Capone we are talking about. The way the government locked itself into pursuing this case was, and is, absurd.

If she traded based on that knowledge it was illegal.

O.J. - Good point, except to be illegal something has to be against the law, and as the U.S. Attorney conceded when he announced the indictments that did not include criminal insider trading, a charge of insider trading could only be made as an extension of what has been declared to be insider trading. The securities fraud count was novel, an insider trading count would have been more than novel, more like a giant stretch. As the law now stands even if she received the tip that Waksal was selling that was market information and not nonpublic information about internal ImClone operations or business. I suppose we could all get comfortable with the criminality of particular actions being determined on a case by case basis after the fact, but on the criminal insider trading issue, unfortunately, the government agrees with me and disagrees with you, Orrin. The SEC, as a civil matter, on the other hand, is pursuing that theory. I certainly have less problem with attempt to extend the law on the civil side than on the criminal side, but in neither case does the government taking an expansive position seem to be one that I, as a conservative, can get really happy about.

It is against the law to trade on the information her broker gave her about the deals he was handling for the Waksals regardless of whether she was charged or not. And, since she then called Mr. Waksal to get confirmation before selling her stock, she was obviously trying to trade on even more insider knowledge, though we don't know whether he returned the call.

I'm little interested in whether she's convicted on which charges, she obviously engaged in criminal behavior and she's paying a significant price for it.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that issue since you refuse to take my word or the government's word on the subject. In any event, I just heard that the verdict is in and she has been found guilty on all counts. I wanted both you and Michael to know that I think that I'm handling the news well, although some of the ladies of the local Garden Club are outside in the street turning over cars and looting the liquor store, while shouting "No Justice! No Peace!" I saw that MSLO stock was up on news of a verdict, I assume that trading will be suspended as the stock heads for the cellar, so you can add the investors in MSLO to the list of those paying a significant price.

George:

Yes, you do seem to be taking it better than I would have predicted, given your blizzard of posts about this subject.