MARTHA STEWART. Cont'd.
I
t
was out of loyalty to Bacanovic that Waksal and Stewart became his clients.
It was out of loyalty to Waksal that Stewart invested in his company. It
was, presumably, out of loyalty to her mother that Alexis Stewart held her
head in her hands and wept as the verdict was announced. Reactions to the
verdict have been mixed. Cheryl Mendelson, a former lawyer and author of
Home Comforts: The Art and Science of Keeping House, says Stewart's
'domineering quality, united with her superiority in the domestic sphere,
has aroused great hostility'. According to John Small, editor of the website
savemartha.com, 'Martha Stewart was convicted for being Martha Stewart.' Yet
one fan's description suggests her tribulations may simply become part of
the package: 'She seems perfect, but she's not. She's obsessed. She's
frantic. She's a control freak beyond my wildest dreams. And that shows me
two things: a) that no one is perfect and, b) there's a price for
everything.' Unless she can get a discount, this could cost Martha Stewart a
million bucks and 20 years in jail.
Photo: Surprise verdict: Reporters rushed from the federal courthouse in Manhattan to alert news organizations with the verdict
Stewart
jurors swayed by her assistant, perplexed by her limited defence
Photo: One of the jurors of the Martha Stewart trial, Chappell Hartridge, speaks with reporters after the verdict was read on Friday. (AP/Masahiko Yamamoto)
NEW YORK (AP) - Jurors who convicted Martha Stewart of lying about a stock sale said they believed the key prosecution witnesses against the homemaking guru and were surprised that her team didn't put up a more aggressive defence. "We thought there was going to be more from the defence," juror Jonathan Laskin, 48, a paralegal and translator, told Dateline NBC in an interview with six jurors scheduled to air Sunday. "We . . . were hoping they would put up more of a fight or something. Or give us more to chew on. But it wasn't there." After the prosecution took four weeks to make its case, the defence presented its side in less than an hour. A jury of eight women and four men deliberated 12 hours over three days before returning guilty verdicts Friday on all four counts against Stewart - conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of making false statements. All the charges relate to an accusation that Stewart lied to cover up the reason she sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock Dec. 27, 2001 - avoiding a hefty loss when the company announced bad news the next day. Jurors said the most compelling testimony came from Stewart's assistant Ann Armstrong, who testified that Stewart changed a message from her broker, Peter Baconovic, informing her that he thought the ImClone stock price would start falling. "She ultimately gave the testimony that was going to bring Martha down. That was a very important piece," said juror Chappell Hartridge.