Martha Stewart's First Amendment Defense

The McLaughlin Group ^ | Mar. 7, 2004 | Lawrence O'Donnell

[tvn]

Lawrence O'Donnell on this morning's McLaughlin Group stated that Martha Stewart's appeal should be based on vioation of her First Amendment rights.

O'Donnell argued that it should be the Constitutional right of every American to lie to anyone - including government employees- except in a proceeding where testimony is taken under oath.

[tvn]

It is noted that there is also another Constitutional argument which can be cited in support of the Stewart appeal. Under the Fifth Amendment, a citizen cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Interviews of potential defendants by federal officials can be found to constitute illegal process designed to force a person to become a witness against himself.

The Stewart appeal aside, these Constitutional issues are of critical importance to all citizens.

[John Thornton]

Even Bill Clinton didn't attempt to justify lying as a "First Amendment" issue. My advice to Martha is, "Knock yourself out, girl."

[anniegetyourgun]

Morvillo, the red-nosed donkey...had a very bulbous nose. And if you ever saw it, you would even say it grows. Everybody sing....

Frankly, I'm tired of lawyer games - and sometimes the law is an ass.

[trek]

"O'Donnell argued that it should be the Constitutional right of every American to lie..."

Duh! O'Donnell states the obvious. After all the First Amendment is designed primarily to protect political speech. Not exactly your fountainhead of truth and light.

[raloxk]

Funny to see Lawrence the elitist defend Martha.

you can tell from his attitude, that he is outraged that idea people of his social/economic stature are suppose to obey the same rules the citizenry is.

[OpusatFR]

"Interviews of potential defendants by federal officials can be found to constitute illegal process designed to force a person to become a witness against himself."

How does this differ from perjury?

If it is different from perjury, it sets a pretty hair-raising spector for the future.

[Boundless]

> Even Bill Clinton didn't attempt to justify lying
> as a "First Amendment" issue.

Well, that's the point. Slick's most famous lie was made
under oath.

> My advice to Martha is, "Knock yourself out, girl."

She didn't have to consent to those interviews.
She didn't have to answer the questions.
But she did.

At the outset, Martha had plausible deniability that the
original stock tip was insider info. It could have ended
with that, but the Feds gave her a shovel, and she began
digging herself a hole.

Yes, the case is political. Yes, if it had been stockholder
Jane Doe, it would never have been persecuted (sic). But
it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the way Martha
mis-handled it.

[lainde]

bttt

[Endeavor]

amen annie

[Blue Screen of Death]

I think we should be required to be as truthful with the government as they are with us.

[MACVSOG68]

Under the Fifth Amendment, a citizen cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Interviews of potential defendants by federal officials can be found to constitute illegal process designed to force a person to become a witness against himself.

Martha had every opportunity to invoke her 5th Amendment rights if she believed a criminal prosecution might result from her answers. She chose otherwise, voluntarily providing the evidence for her prosecution.

[BipolarBob]

Lying to investigators is called obstruction of justice. She should have simply refused to answer. Where did this clown get his law degree?

[hedgetrimmer]

Agreed. I became concerned about this when I heard on of the charges was that she lied to an SEC lawyer. The legal commentator discussing this acted positively gleeful about it. I always understood the potential penalty for lying under oath, but if not under oath, I am not clear how she could be charged on this.

[freekitty]

I think Martha Stewart has exercised her First Amendment Rights far more than the norm.

[agooga]

Bullcrap. She should have just kept her big, gaping maw shut and refused to answer any questions-- that is the essence of "not being compelled to incriminate oneself." Instead she lied to investigators, misleading them, messing with evidence, and creating lies and alibis to intentionally throw them off her trail. That is precisely the definition of "obstruction."

She's done and no hack attempt to pervert the Constitution is going to protect her from going down.

[Seruzawa]

I'm just disgusted at the idea that someone can be not guilty of a crime but still go to jail for attempting to coverup a crime they didn't commit. Lying to the cops shouldn't be a felony if the defendant isn't guilty of the reason they are being investigated.

Remember Bernard Goetz? He was not guilty of using a gun to defend himself. But he was guilty of possessing it. Insane. Legal mumbo-jumbo.

[an amused spectator]

several quick points:

• Are we required to "lawyer up" upon the appearance of federal investigators? Those saying that Stewart was stupid to talk to them are inviting that conclusion.
• To those saying that she could have pleaded the Fifth: I'm sure that the investigators didn't threaten her. Not.
• In the beginning of the Republic, roving bands of prosecutors didn't roam the countryside, armed with an unlimited checkbook drawn on the public treasury. As a matter of fact, the colonials had a history of starving the judiciary, which I'll bet extended to the law enforcement community as well.
• I don't like Martha Stewart - she's guilty of being a Clintonite. But I believe that the government is out of control.

The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct

[Capt. Tom]

Bullcrap. She should have just kept her big, gaping maw shut and refused to answer any questions-- that is the essence of "not being compelled to incriminate oneself." Instead she lied to investigators, misleading them, messing with evidence, and creating lies and alibis to intentionally throw them off her trail. That is precisely the definition of "obstruction."

I think you have a good take on her problem.

All she had to say was "I got a call from my broker who told me about the stock being sold by people who have a better grasp of the stocks future than I, and based on that I sold mine because I thought it would go down.

They couldn't, and didn't charge her with insider trading.

She got in trouble by claiming advance stock arrangements with her broker to have the stock sold if certain situations came into existence. Then told some more lies.

Strangely she got convicted of lying about something the Govt. couldn't get an indictment on. And she got indicted and convicted for lying. - Tom

[an amused spectator]

Bullcrap. She should have just kept her big, gaping maw shut and refused to answer any questions-- that is the essence of "not being compelled to incriminate oneself." Instead she lied to investigators, misleading them, messing with evidence, and creating lies and alibis to intentionally throw them off her trail. That is precisely the definition of "obstruction."

I'll bet you have no experience with the conduct of "investigators". They're not there to play tiddlywinks. They're there to get the answers they want, and they'll bully you under the color of authority to get them. If they can get a rich person like Stewart, imagine what they'd do to me or you.

...no hack attempt to pervert the Constitution...

There's not much of a Constitution left.

[templar]

Appeals generally concern only issues brought up at trial; they are a legal review of what took place in the trial itself, not a place to present new arguments or new evidence. If a constitutional argument wasn't brought up at trial, it won't be considered on appeal. Legal incompetence could be cause for appellate reversal, if the constitutional issues were valid arguments that would have probably had an effect on the outcome of the trial, and the defense lawyers simply ignored or were unaware of them. I doubt that her legal team was grossly incompetent.