CASE STUDY: MARTHA STEWART OF LIVING OMNIMEDIA
Sanjay Gokhale
Indiana Wesleyan University
July 26, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. MARTHA STEWART AND PETER BACANOVIC
MSLO AND TALENTED MARTHA STEWART
Martha Stewart is the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, L.L.C. (MSLO). Since Martha is an icon known for her imagination and creativity, no wonder that it is reflected in her products. They are comparable to the top brands in the country, which shows her class. MSLO is comprised of four business units. They are Publishing, Internet, Broadcasting and Merchandising. Its headquarters is in New York and it employs approximately 760 people with annual turnover of $327.9 million dollars (Martha-Stewart-Living-Omnimedia,-Inc.).
Martha
…show more content…
The indictment separately charged Stewart with securities fraud in connection with her artificial manipulation of the price of MSLO common stock” (Justice Government Press Release, 2003). The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty (Custom edition for Indiana Wesleyan University. 2007. p. 230).
The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that expert witness Lawrence F. Stewart, director of the Forensic Services Division of the United States Secret Service, had committed perjury in his testimony on behalf of the prosecution. Motion for new trial was denied by the court on the basis that defendants cannot escape the fact that the jury acquitted both defendants of making false statements relating to the existence of the $60 agreement, and the fact that ample evidence supports the charges (Custom edition for Indiana Wesleyan University. 2007. p. 42).
Stewart did not enter into a plea bargaining agreement. A plea bargain is an agreement in which the accused admits to a lesser crime than charged. In return, the government agrees to impose a lesser sentence than might have been obtained had the case gone to trial. This saves costs, avoids risks of trial, and reduces
Since 2002 Martha Stewart was investigated by the SEC and the FBI for Inside Trading but it is interesting that she wasn’t found guilty or accused on any of those charges; she was charge for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and false statement. It was her un-ethical behavior what drove her into innumerable allegations and public embarrassments. There are at least four issues in this case where ethics play a very interesting and critical role; Freedom of speech, Conspiracy, Right of property and Inside trading.
Plea bargaining may have advantages in America’s and Canada’s Justice System, but it also proposes an advantage for the accused criminal. It gives the defendant the opportunity to reduce sentence and provide a better, more comfortable stay in correctional facilities. It gives the opportunity for guilty criminals, who know a guilty sentence will be there if facing a jury, to plead guilty to the case for one’s own benefits. Rather than spending time presenting a losing case in front of a judge and jury, and losing plenty of money in court fees, the case can be wrapped up in a matter of agreement. Guilty defendants seem to be in a win-win situation and can use plea bargaining as a total advantage.
More than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas, also known as, plea bargaining. Plea bargains are used every day at both the federal and state court level. They certainly have their “proponents” as well as their “opponents”. A plea bargain basically is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. That agreement is usually in the form of a defendant pleading guilty to a “lesser” crime with a reduced sentence in return for the prosecuting authority not having to expend the time, energy, expense and manpower in seeking a conviction in a trial of a more serious charge. An evaluation of the evidence against the defendant is usually a significant factor by the prosecutor in determining whether or not a plea bargain should be offered. If the prosecutor’s case is strong, the chances of a plea bargain being offered to the defendant are lessened. While at the same time, if the prosecutor feels that his evidence is on the weaker side, the probability of a plea bargain being offered is enhanced.
A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant and their attorney on one side, and the crown prosecutor on the other side. A plea bargain may give the defendant a lightened sentence, in exchange for either confessing to some crimes, or giving information that is related to the offence, for example, the location of stolen goods or the names and locations of other participants, as well as their part in the offence.
The plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence
Plea bargaining is when the defendant and prosecutor negotiate an agreement between each other where the defendant pleas guilty to reduced charges.
What is Plea Bargaining? Plea Bargaining is the pre-trial arrangement, which happens in a criminal methodology. Amid this system, the respondent and has his lawyer sits on one side, and the prosecutor is on the other. The litigant either consents to argue "blameworthy" or "no challenge" to a wrongdoing. Another component for plea bargaining would likewise be because the respondent uncovers data, for example, area of stolen merchandise, names of others taking part in the wrongdoing or affirmation of different crime’s, for example, a series of robberies. Consequently, a decrease in charges, or rejection of a few charges, this must be endorsed by the judge, before tolerating can occur. On the off chance that the judge does not concur, at that
Plea bargaining has become an essential part of our criminal justice system. A vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by plea bargaining. Despite the rights that an accused has under the US Constitution, many will still accept a plea bargain. You are presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a trial by jury and to have an impartial judge. Even though you have these rights under the Constitution very few defendants are choosing to use them, instead relying on a plea bargain deal to be
According to Timothy Sandefur’s In Defense of Plea Bargaining article, “a plea bargain is a contract with the state. The defense agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime and receive a lesser sentence, rather than go to trial on a more severe charge where he faces the possibility of a harsher sentence.” We are also told in The New York Times Article; Federal Law on Sentencing is Unjust, Judge Rules that “about 97 percent of federal criminal convictions nationwide were the result of plea bargains.”
The history of plea-bargaining dates back to early the 1800s during the Commonwealth v. Battis case. The plea-bargaining is a process of negotiation that usually involves the defendant, the prosecutor, and the defense counsel. The plea-bargaining is a practice by which prosecutors charge a defendant with a less serious crime in exchange for a guilty plea. The defense attorneys and their clients will agree to a plea of guilty when they are unsure of their ability to win acquittal at trial. Prosecutors may be willing to bargain because the evidence they have against the defendant is weaker than they would like it to be. Plea-bargaining offers prosecutors the additional advantage of a quick conviction without the need to commit the time and resources
One reason a plea bargain may occur is because a prosecutors evidence is not as strong as they would like. Prosecutors want their cases to be as strong as possible so that they can expect a win. If they are unsure of what the outcome may be, they prefer to find a way to avoid going to trial. Plea bargains offer prosecutors a speedy conviction without committing to the necessities of a trial. However, this does not only help the prosecutor. The accused may find reduced charges, reduced defense costs, and sometimes even a shorter sentence than originally planned.
An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.
A plea bargain (“offer”) is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecuting agency may offer the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a proposal of a lighter than the maximum sentence. This opportunity allows defendants to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial on a more serious charge. This also allows all involved parties to keep the court’s calendars light without exhausting resources of a court, potential public defenders, and prosecutors who are all salaried for by the expense of tax payers. If every case in the criminal justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down.
You know how sometimes you’re waiting in line, and the person a few spots ahead of you is in an argument with the cashier? It sucks. That one person is holding up the entire line just because they are incapable of coming to an agreement with the cashier. And now, because of them, your entire day is thrown off, simply because two parties could not reach a mutual agreement with each other. In a nutshell, this is plea bargaining. Imagine that the person a few spots ahead of you is a prosecutor and the cashier is the defendant in court. It is the exact same thing. Plea bargaining is a term used when the two parties reach a mutual agreement in a court of law. Usually it involves a little bit of give, and a little bit of take from both parties,
Plea bargaining is when the prosecutor and defendant make an arrangement in which the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge. In hopes with the Judge being lenient with their sentence. Many criminal cases are based off of plea bargaining, it's a negotiation process where the defendant and the prosecutor discuss what charges they will be accounted for if not all. Sometimes it may lead to a reduced sentence, which also saves the time of everyone going through a trial and having to go through the process of trying to solve a case. The judge can not be there through the discussion of the plea bargain, and nor does a plea bargain take place in a court room. Plea bargaining is more of a private situation with just the prosecutor and defendant. It also has it's advantages and disadvantages. Most times plea bargaining becomes controversial, and It does get heated because no one wants to sit in prison. A crime is a crime and the person who commits the crime has to face the consequences of his/her actions. Plea Bargaining just makes things a little more less complicated then what it needs to be for a defendant and the prosecutor.