my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Martha Stewart Found Guilty (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Martha Stewart Found Guilty Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-05-2004 02:41 PM                     The jury of the Martha Stewart trial returned to the courtroom following three weeks of deliberation. Stewart was found guilty on all four counts. Stewart now faces up to 20 years and $1M in fines. Sentencing will take place 10am on June 17th.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 03-05-2004 03:10 PM                        Actually it was 3 *days* of deliberation. She's a convicted felon now!  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-05-2004 03:31 PM                        Why does it need to take over three months from conviction to sentencing? In England/Wales/N. Ireland (don't know about Scottish law, sorry), you're usually sentenced the moment you're found guilty. The only reason I know of for a delay is if the judge asks for psychiatric reports.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-05-2004 03:58 PM                     Post-trial/Pre-sentencing investigations and motions. The judge will send the case out to the parole/probation department to investigate the person's background. The parole department and their staffers will check up on sentencing statutes and/or sentences people have been given for similar crimes. The defense has to make motions and appeals. If the appeal gets heard, there won't be a sentencing hearing until the appeal is over. Once all of this (and other stuff) is over the judge reads the sentencing report then accepts, denies or modifies the sentencing guidelines set out by the parole department. I'm betting, where you're from, all that is done pre-trial. We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? ...Yet.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-05-2004 03:59 PM                     A typo, perhaps? Or did it seem like weeks instead of days..? Or was I having a flashback to STAR TREK II -- "Hours would seem like days." Even *I* couldn't tell you!  |  IP: Logged Will Kutler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1506 From: Tucson, AZ, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-05-2004 06:37 PM                     Its about time celebrities are held accountable for their actions! At least there are some decent courtrooms in this country afterall. Not like Blake and Simpson in LA where the judges and attornys are incompetitent jokes, and all it takes is money and celibrity status to buy an aquital! MARTHS GOIN DOWN!  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-05-2004 08:43 PM                     "We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? .yet" The presumption of innocence is from the concept of british common law It should take for ever for a judge to be able to render the penalty  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 03-05-2004 09:06 PM                  I'm heartbroken over this witch hunt and verdict. If she goes to jail, HTF will I learn how to make my guests comfy when they visit and how to boil water without burning it? I have a very good dyke friend named Martha who lives in Acapulco and wants to meet Will. She thinks he's hot. Why? I have NO clue! >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-06-2004 07:57 AM                        Randy writes: quote: I'm betting, where you're from, all that is done pre-trial. We have a problem with that because of the presumption of innocence. Why write up a sentencing report if the person isn't guilty? ...Yet. I don't think so: the sentencing system is just a lot simpler. In most trials the judge will pass sentence immediately after a guilty verdict. This will be based on what the law allows (i.e. the sentence could potentially be anything from an absolute discharge to the maximum provided by statute) and based on other sentences passed for offences with similar mitigating and/or aggravating factors. Presumably the judge researches this before or during the course of the trial. So in a way, yes - the appropriate sentence is determined before a guilty verdict. Personally I prefer it this way, because neither the criminal nor (and more importantly) his/her victim(s) need be kept in limbo for months before knowing the sentence. Cases take long enough to come to court as it is. The checks-and-balances system is that the offender can appeal against the sentence on the grounds of it being inconsistent with what others have been sentenced to in comparable circumstances. The prosecution can also appeal if it feels that the sentence is too lenient, compared to other similar cases. In practice this doesn't happen often, and very rarely indeed with serious cases. Judges know that if they pass an 'unusual' sentence they will be held to account for it, and therefore they try to make very sure that the sentences they pass are consistent.  |  IP: Logged Ken Layton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1452 From: Olympia, Wash. USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 03-06-2004 10:40 AM                     Good! Throw her in jail. I can't stand the bitch.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-06-2004 01:32 PM                    Personal opinion shouldn't enter into it. It seemed pretty clear from the coverage of the trial that she had lied to investigators so unless one has an opinion that this should not be a crime the conviction was correct. Also correct was the judge throwing out the other charge which tried to say that it was a crime merely to publically assert her innocence...like this was an attempt to defraud her own stockholders and that seemed a bit of a stretch so good that they tossed that charge. Saying that one is innocent of some crime unrelated to the business is hardly the same thing as making false statements about business prospects or other things about the business. Why she wasn't charged with insider trading I don't know but maybe selling stock just because you heard someone who might have inside knowledge is selling isn't insider trading in and of itself. But did she lie to investigators? Yup.  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-07-2004 02:52 PM                     Does this mean my K-Mart Martha Stewart tablecloth will be worth money? Hello eBay! =TMP=  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-07-2004 03:23 PM                     Watch Sunday Mornings soon for a new edition of her show.... "Martha Stewart Prison Living" Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 03-07-2004 03:54 PM                    All things considered I would not be troubled if she ended up with only a couple months + probation + a fine. It's not clear who was harmed by her actions--yes, insider trading hurts others in the market but she wasn't charged with that--except that we do need to keep people honest so the regulators can do their jobs. So for her lying to investigators who have the duty of policing the markets she does deserve to be punished but she didn't steal from anyone let alone do violence. Those who wish her put away long term are saying this for their own personal feelings about this woman that have nothing to do with the crime she committed, same as those who've been proclaiming her innocence all along despite fairly clear evidence. Neither sentiment should play any role in this. It's the Enron and Worldcom people whose actions wiped out many people who should be doing the hard time.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan M. Crist Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 531 From: Hershey, PA, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 03-07-2004 04:46 PM                     I predict that Martha will get a new trial. How is that possible you ask? She will claim (as do all criminals who are convicted) that her lawyer was incompetent. This incompetcy claim is the basis for the majority of new trials granted in this country today. And although he is supposedly one of the best white collar criminal lawyers in the country, expect to see him fall on his sword publically and claim it was his fault for not putting on a more vigorous defense and putting Martha on the stand. (When interviewed at the time of trial his response was the goverment had no case so his defense reflected that). If one was really Machievellian and into conspiracy theories one could even think that the lawyers gambit was good idea. If they win he is a hero and if not he falls on his sword and she gets a second bite at the apple by way of new trial. I just wish people were bright enough to put into their contracts with their lawyers that the lawyer has to return x% of the money if they are convicted.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.