United States vs. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic occurred in 2004, and it is often regarded to be one of this century’s most sensational court cases. The trial occurred in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum presided over the case. Robert G. Morvillo served as Ms. Stewart’s attorney, and Richard M. Strassberg served as the attorney of Mr. Bacanovic. The lead prosecution attorney was Karen Patton Seymour. Perhaps, though, it is best to begin by inspecting the facts of the case. In 2001, Martha Stewart was CEO and chairwoman of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and Peter Bacanovic was Stewart’s stockbroker at Merrill Lynch. Samuel Waksal, a friend of Stewart as well as …show more content…
Morvillo, Ms. Stewart’s attorney, argued that the defendants actions were not incorrect, stating, “Think that through, ladies and gentlemen. If you were on that plane, and somebody tells you somebody else is selling his stock, would you have thought you couldn’t sell the stock because they told you somebody else is selling?” Here, Morvillo appeals to the jurors’ sense of what a rational person would do in the situation of Ms. Stewart. Additionally, if Ms. Stewart had no reason to believe her actions were unjust, she would not engage in misleading investigators. Furthermore, Mr. Morvillo stated, “There will be no direct evidence introduced by the government that Martha Stewart conspired to obstruct anything. No witness will appear in this courtroom during the trial to say, ‘Martha told me to do something unlawful.”’ Here, the defendant’s attorney outlines the notion that Stewart did not knowingly attempt to engage in wrongdoing. Richard Strassberg, attorney for Bacanovic, argued, “Would Peter Bacanovic jeopardize his entire career all for a lousy $450 commission? It simply makes no sense because it didn’t happen. The government is wrong. They’ve rushed to judgement. They’ve charged an innocent man.” Like Morvillo, Strassberg takes this opportunity to emphasize the morality of Bacanovic. Lastly, and perhaps most notably, Morvillo stated that the prosecution’s case was based upon “speculation, surmise, and guesswork” in an attempt to discredit his opposition. The arguments of the defense attorneys focused upon the pre-existing agreement between Stewart and Bacanovic to sell the stock if it went below $60 per share, as well as tax loss selling. Additionally, Morvillo cited Ms. Stewart’s selling of ImClone stock prior to December 27, 2001 in efforts to demonstrate the idea that her actions were part of a pattern, rather than part of an incident of insider trading. Thus, Stewart would have no reason to lie to government
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
The jury was shown videos of more normal times for the family, when things seemed to be going well. Expert testimony also played a role in the outcome of the first trial. The evidence presented in this case was able to help the jury come to a decision when determining Mrs. Yates final
Kristin Rossum is a former toxicologist convicted of the November 6, 2000 murder of her husband Greg DeVillers. It was concluded that he died from a lethal dose of fentanyl his wife stole from the medical examiner's office where she worked. She is serving a life sentence in a California prison. Greg DeVillers was lying unresponsive on the bed and she claimed he committed suicide. His body was surrounded in rose petals & nearby was their wedding photos.
In the media it is not uncommon to hear stories about celebrities and the uber-wealthy being acquitted of crimes that the common person would be convicted of. For instance, last year Caitlyn Jenner rear-ended a woman after speeding on a rain-slicked highway. The woman died in the fatal crash, and charges of vehicular manslaughter were brought up against Caitlyn, yet the Los Angeles District Attorney dismissed the charges. Ethan Couch’s case is similar except it easier to place blame on the teen as his blood alcohol level was measured at three times to legal limit while he was speeding, the crash resulting in the the deaths of four pedestrians and brain damage to his friend. Despite pleading guilty to four counts of manslaughter, the judge accepted
When someone has committed a crime, they are put on trial and they go through the motions of the judicial system. In 12 Angry Men, Reginald Rose creates a play that displays the judicial system in its truest form. It tells the story of the jury, as they have to come to a unanimous verdict of whether the defendant is guilty, innocent, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of murder. The main conflict that the jurors face in the play is whether to charge him as guilty or not. Through the conflict in the book, the flaws in the justice system are illustrated and reasonable doubt appears.
Furthermore, Jay’s testimonies were inconsistent with his prior statements. The prosecutor argues that Jay has always been consistent on the main points with police and some people he has told. There are many inconsistencies with multiple versions for each point. For instance, when asked
She urges jurors to remain skeptical of eyewitness identifications of defendants, and demonstrates how mistakes have been made. This book is built around descriptions of cases in which Loftus has been involved as an expert witness for the defense. The book begins with a brief description
However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.
John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders.
Innocent people who are incriminated under improper evidence are hanged. Parallel in the McMartin day care abuse case, the McMartin family, who administrate the establishment, and other members are accused illegally of having abused sexually numerously of the children under their vigilance. The accusations used against the McMartin
It is fraud, you know it is fraud! What keeps you man?" (Miller 78). Those who were unhappy did not believe the court was protecting the innocent people the way they should. Some members of the community think that the court is not handling the prosecutions correctly and their decisions should be revised.
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
Carr believed that business was like a game, where everyone put on their game face and hostility to receive the most monetary gain from established laws. Furthermore, Bowie refuted this stance by providing the negative consequences of this adversarial environment. Showing how firms, are utilising trust to succeed at their goals, to greater effect than any hostilities. While Bowie clearly established his stance against Carr, Bowie missed opportunities to nail Carr on other weaker points in his argument for Business Bluffing. In conclusion, the act of lies cheating and deception, skirting the edges of the law just to make a profit, much like poker, should stay as a game and out of
In those lines, Hawthorne quickly turns the questions back to Martha as if he knows that he does not have the evidence to support these claims. This is what adds to the hysteria. The court is convicting people of a crime without the proper evidence and they are basing the verdict solely on the statements of others.