MSO: Halted & Guilty

I am told by a federal criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor that someone who claims innocence on the stand and is later convicted can indeed be charged with perjury.
However, he says this is almost never done. He knows of 1 case.

It's kind of like everyone's belief that " no double jeopardy" means you can't be tried twice for the same crime. You can. Just not by the same governmental body. Look at Terry Nichols who was convicted on federal murder charges and is now about to be tried for the same crime on state murder charges. It's perfectly legal. The attorney says the federal government has the "pettit"
policy, which means they GENERALLY won't try you for a crime for which you were convicted on state charges.

Anyway, the lesson here is (and I don't know whether Martha followed it) that you should NEVER EVER EVER talk to the police, FBI, or any investigator without an attorney present. You have no obligation to answer any of their questions. I think if Martha had taken this tack, she wouldn't be going to prison for a few years (I hear the sentencing guideline for the offense level is 18-24 months).
 
Quote from Trader5287:

He's pecking at her again:

http://nypost.com/commentary/20049.htm


Geo.
More...

wow.

AS a young career woman in New York in the bull-market '60s, Martha gravitated to Wall Street, where she landed a job as a broker. The fly-by-night firm where she worked became heavily involved in a stock promotion that triggered a probe by New York State Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz.

In the course of the stock promotion, Martha put her friends into the shares. Then when the market crashed at the start of the '70s, she reassured her clients that everything would work out fine and to stay fully invested. Meanwhile, she herself secretly bailed out and quit the firm (which soon went bankrupt, anyway). Thereafter, she fled with her husband to the Connecticut suburbs.
In celebrity-filled Westport, Conn., Martha started a catering service. Her business partner, a high-fashion model named Norma Collier, subsequently claimed Martha lied to her about the business, stole clients behind her back, and ultimately drove her from the business entirely.
 
Me:
>If a defended goes to the stand and is asked one
>question "Are you innocent" and answers yes and is
>later convicted, are we able to get a perjury charge
>to stick? -- hardly.

TraderProfit;
>I am told by a federal criminal defense attorney
>and former federal prosecutor that someone who
>claims innocence on the stand and is later convicted
>can indeed be charged with perjury.
>However, he says this is almost never done. He knows
>of 1 case.

Yes Trader, you will notice that I did not say that one couldn't be CHARGED. I specifically said that that getting the charge to stick is nearly impossible.

The very reason they DON'T bring the charge of purjury more often in such as case is they can't generally get a conviction. Most folks in this country(juries) feel we should be able to proclaim out innocence everywhere without danger of prosecution.

JB

PS. I'll bet a hundred bucks if you get your sources to give you the case number of the one he knows, we'll look it up and find that the defendent did more than just say "I'm innocent"(my specific example), but rather told a entire raft of lies on the stand. I'll take the bet sight unseen.
 
Lied to a Grand Jury about the $280,000 that he received while attending Michigan from a booster named Ed Martin. Wound up pleading to a lesser charge of criminal contempt the day before the start of his perjury trial and received a 1-year probation deal, all due to the fact that Ed Martin died before the case came to trial.

The original penalty for lying to the Grand Jury was up to 5 years in Prison and a $250,000 fine.
 
Waggs, good to see you got back on your horse and showed up this afternoon. :D

I think everyone will agree that perjury under oath is, and should be, a criminal offense in almost every circumstance.

Quote from waggie945:

Lied to a Grand Jury about the $280,000 that he received while attending Michigan from a booster named Ed Martin. Wound up pleading to a lesser charge of criminal contempt the day before the start of his perjury trial and received a 1-year probation deal, all due to the fact that Ed Martin died before the case came to trial.

The original penalty for lying to the Grand Jury was up to 5 years in Prison and a $250,000 fine.
More...
:D
 
Hey wear that helmet! I think it was around 80+ here today. Should cool off a bit tomorrow. The wife says she will divorce me and take the dog if I get a bike. :(

Quote from waggie945:

It's 71 degrees here.
Gotta take the motorcycle out!

:)
More...
 
Quote from Shreddog:

I haven't read this entire thread, but after giving it some reflection, I feel bad for her, though I agree with the verdict. Here's why and certainly this is conjecture on my part. But it seems reasonable.

Her broker called her. He told her Waksal was desperately trying to sell ALL his stock. The broker doesn't know why, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it can't be good. She OK's the sale of her shares. She had no way of knowing that the FDA had ruled against Erbitux and she certainly didn't know that IMCL was going to get whacked the next day. Maybe she had an inkling, but if the news were less severe IMCL might only have gotten whacked for a few bucks. At the time who knew?

Now she and her broker know that this is not kosher, but he's a friend and he just stuck his neck out to do right by his client.

So the Fed's come calling. Do you hang him out to dry?

Tough call. We know what she did and she's going to prison for it. In all likelihood if she had sold him out and paid some restitution the Feds would have let her go.

But he went above and beyond to take care of you, wouldn't you try and do the same?

Maybe this is a naive interpretation of events, but so much of the criticism of her assumes SHE KNEW that Erbitux had been rejected and that IMCL was going to get the pasting it got. I highly doubt that.
More...

Yes but then she started lying over a measly 60k instead of just accepting guilt and paying whatever fines & reprucussions quietly and quickly.

Supposedely some paparazzi reporter got the scoop and made it public before anything could have been done to keep it hush hush. Hence she had to defend her reputation since MSO is a name brand oriented company.

BTW Martha is a bitch in case the stories do not hint it. Obviously she got too arrogant and let the ego carry her. Let's see, simple insider trading charges vs perjury & obstruction of justice. Not a tough choice. Pretty damn stupid for founder of a major corporation.
The insider trading charges may not have stuck anyway.

Screw Martha Stewart, I do not feel one litte bit bad for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top