• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Federal Agent Perjury in Stewart Case

subgenius

Illuminator
S
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. secret service laboratory director was charged with committing perjury during his testimony at the trial of lifestyle trendsetter Martha Stewart and her broker, federal prosecutors said on Friday.

Larry Stewart, who testified for the government as an expert witness about the ink on a broker's worksheet, was charged with two counts of perjury in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court. Stewart, 46, of Bethesda, Maryland, surrendered on Friday to the Secret Service, according to court documents. He is not related to Martha Stewart.

Stock in Martha Stewart's company rose after reports of the perjury charges. Prosecutors later said the convictions of Stewart and Bacanovic should stand, although some legal experts had their doubts.

The perjury charges were related to testimony Feb. 19 and Feb. 25, in which Larry Stewart said he was involved in the original examination of the worksheet. He was actually involved in a later examination of the paperwork, the documents said.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney David Kelley said the alleged false testimony should have no impact on the Martha Stewart and Bacanovic convictions.

"The discovery that Mr. Stewart testified falsely in no way comprises the guilty verdicts returned against either defendant," he said in a letter sent to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum.
....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&e=1&u=/nm/20040521/bs_nm/media_marthastewart_dc

These mf'ers will do anything for a conviction. They are the real criminals.
 
Figures.

I still wanna know who she was supposed to have harmed in the first place to warrant Federal criminal charges (and where the Constitution gives them the authority to do this).
 
shanek said:
Figures.

I still wanna know who she was supposed to have harmed in the first place to warrant Federal criminal charges (and where the Constitution gives them the authority to do this).
Click to expand...

Oh, come on Shane, you know you can interpret the Constitution to permit just about anything! Everything affects Commerce!![/sarcasm]
 
This could wind up being another OJ case of "framing the guilty".

The expert testified that a document that purported to show a pre-existing deal was forged. Now it's revealed he wasn't involved enough to testify, and lied about that.

So, what did the people that WERE involved enough to testify conclude? Probably the same thing. Why substitute this bozo and have him lie? A rather stupid decision, IMO, whoever made it.

I'm quite willing to believe the document was still a forgery, and he just lacked the credibility to speak on it. But if I were a judge I would still nullify the conviction on that basis. Fraudulent prosecution is fraudulent prosecution, and must only be rewarded with failure. Promoting prosecutorial lawfulness and honesty is more important than the "correct" outcome of any particular case. That's why I agree with the OJ verdict even though I believe he probably did it.
 
Snide said:


Oh, come on Shane, you know you can interpret the Constitution to permit just about anything! Everything affects Commerce!![/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Interstate commerce, to be specific. And there's always the "necessary and proper" clause. Face it Shane, there are very few judges who agree with your interpretation of the Constitution :)
 
Nasarius said:
Interstate commerce, to be specific.
Click to expand...

Those words do not appear in the Constitution anywhere.

And there's always the "necessary and proper" clause.
Click to expand...

Which specifically says it applies only to the enumerated powers. Then we have the 10th Amendment again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom