The Binary Circumstance

It was reported today that Martha Stewart’s lawyers have asked for a new trial, based on the fact that one of the jurors lied his way onto the jury.

Martha Stewart requested a new trial Wednesday, saying one of the jurors who convicted her failed to disclose a checkered past that includes an arrest on assault charges.

Stewart’s lawyers said juror Chappell Hartridge has been sued three times and has been accused of stealing money from a Little League group — but improperly left the accusations off his jury questionnaire.

The lawyers said Hartridge, who called Stewart’s guilty verdict a victory for “the little guy,??? showed a clear bias against Stewart that damaged her right to a fair trial.

Among many other questions, potential jurors for the Stewart trial were asked whether they had been in court before, been sued or been accused of any crime.

How ironic that Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to the government and potentiall put in prison by a man who lied to the government, allegedly stole as much as $50,000 from a Little League baseball team, and was arrested for beating his girlfriend, a gender-based crime.

Included in the Stewart court filing was an affidavit from the [the ex-girlfriend], who said Hartridge was “occasionally physically abusive??? to her during the four months they lived together.

Hartridge “dishonestly suppressed information concerning a gender-related incident in order to be able to sit in judgment of a well-known and highly successful woman in a case alleging false statements,??? Morvillo wrote.

The juror also failed to disclose on his jury questionnaire that he had been sued three times, the Stewart filing said. The papers said civil judgments had been entered against him in each case.

The Stewart team sought a new trial under a 1984 Supreme Court case that said convicts can seek new trials if they show that a juror lied in jury selection and that the truth would have provided a basis to remove that juror.

I think Martha gets a new trial.
See also: Martha and Peter Running Red Lights

UPDATE: What I Learned Today linked to this post and added a link to an opinion by Professor Bainbridge that Martha Stewart’s attorneys are grabbing at straws with this motion.

If people can have their lives destroyed and be sent to jail for lying to the government by a juror who also lied to the government to get on the jury, it’s only more evidence that our courts have no rational basis whatsoever. But I already knew that. I hope Professor Bainbridge is proven wrong.

Since the government is so hot to convict people simply for lying to them, they will certainly bring charges against the juror who allegedly lied to them, Chappell Hartridge. He will be tried and convicted and sent to jail, hopefully by jurors who lied about their past to get on the jury. They can then go on TV and claim it as a victory for the big guys. This is what will happen if the scales of justice are balanced, if everyone, the big guys and the little guys, is treated the same.

If Chappell lied, the cost of his lies is potentially many times greater than the cost of Stewart’s lies when you consider the damage to the lives of Stewart and Bacanovic and the possibility that taxpayers will have to pay for a new trial.

| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 31st, 2004 at 9:09 pm and is filed under Courts and Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a reply. Pinging is currently not allowed.