March 9, 2004

JUST DON'T LIE:

In Martha case, justice was served, but it wasn't exactly fair (Dan Abrams, 3/09/04, Jewish World Review)

Last Friday on "Hardball with Chris Matthews," Chris asked me, "Was justice done in the Martha Stewart case?"

It's a complicated question for me, so I kind of waffled. On the one hand, I said she was likely guilty of the charges she faced. And yet I wondered whether the charges should have been filed at all.

It's a troubling case: Based on the testimony, it's clear Stewart and her broker lied about why she sold her Imclone stock. They conspired to concoct a story. And she did it in effort to throw investigators off. So Justice was served and justice was done.

But there's something about not charging Martha Stewart with the crime of "insider trading," but charging Stewart for lying during investigation, which never went anywhere criminally.


He's certainly right that she should have been charged with the underlying crime too.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2004 9:21 AM
Comments

Somewhere on the Web it was mentioned that because of her immorality Viacom (in order to maintain their standards) had canceled Martha's show and replaced it with "Janet Jackson Living" aimed at 14-18 year old girls with garment issues.

It's a good thing.

Posted by: h-man at March 9, 2004 11:18 AM

Can someone explain to my why it was well and good to charge Nixon "not for the crime, but for the coverup," but to charge Clinton with nither, and to charge Stewart with only one, but to do so very ambivalently and weepily?

Posted by: Timothy at March 9, 2004 12:20 PM

Not defending Martha here. But the substance of this case, outside of true Insider Trading, seems awfully slippery.

1) Federal Investigators (who can do or say virtually anything, including the same lying the accused is now guilty of) can coerce and intimidate witnesses into potentially damning testimony. Two allegedly reasonable people are going to have a presumably factual conversation that can later be used as evidence in a court of law. However, one of the two parties is entitled to lie with impunity, while the other will go to jail for doing the same.

2) These same investigators can scare Martha, et al into lying to cover up the real crime (if there is one here).

So....

3) Try the alleged conspirators for lying but not for the crime you were investigating when they lied to you?

I'm willing to be out in left field here, but the grounds for an appeal should prove interesting.

Posted by: John Resnick at March 9, 2004 3:10 PM

John, I'm standing right next to you, and I think we have plenty of company. The idea that, outside of a court of law or grand jury under oath, you can be punished for lying to an Official Government Person ™ but the same individual can lie to you with impunity is an outrage.

Posted by: Kirk Parker at March 10, 2004 2:04 AM

In most cases, prosecuting someone for lying to a government official is a reasonable thing to do.

Let's take the archtypal situation. There's been a murder and law enforcement has three suspects. One of the suspects, though innocent, lies about where he was at the time of the murder. The result is that law enforcement wastes time, money and manpower chasing down the truth, which, usually, makes it less likely that the real criminal will be apprehended and convicted. Think of it as tacit, albeit unintentional, abetting of a crime.

I think what makes us (other than OJ) queesy (sp?) about prosecuting Martha is that we are uncertain about whether there even was an underlying crime and about whether the government ever thought that there was. Doesn't this give the government a lot of power to create a crime?

To take another hypothetical, suppose that I am a philandering President. A secret service agent, knowing that I was actively philandering at a certain time and thus innocent he's investigating, comes to me and says that he's investigating the illegal leak of protected information. The SS knows that the leak took place at a certain time and wants to know where I was. I lie. The SS agent proves that I was lying. Should I then be prosecuted for the very real crime I was tricked into committing?

Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 9:15 AM

David:

I know you believe that businesses and businessmen should be immune from the law, but can you explain how you'd maintain trustworthy markets if insiders are free to trade on inside information?

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 9:22 AM

Actually, it's the other way round. To put it in Rawlsian terms, if asked to choose before knowing whether they would be insiders or outsiders, everyone would choose to let insiders trade. It's taken us seventy years of screwing up to get to the point that we think the market depends on prohibiting insider trading.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 12:39 PM

David:

Given the overall briliance of your comments here, I can't believe I know something you don't.

It isn't much, though: queasy.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at March 10, 2004 12:54 PM

David:

Man, you've got Cato-syndrome bad.

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 1:05 PM

I was astonished to score 54 on the libertarian quiz that's going around the internet.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 1:49 PM

Thanks, Jeff.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 1:49 PM

David:

What does it have a whole section on steel tariffs?

Posted by: oj at March 10, 2004 1:55 PM

Oh, how I long for the halcyon days of steel tariffs, when steel was cheap and easily available.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 10, 2004 3:11 PM
« THE SON ALSO FREEZES (via Glenn Dryfoos): | Main | C'MON SWEETIE, PRAYING MANTII DO IT (via Bradley M. Cooke): »