Dateline NBC
Six jurors from the Martha Stewart trial
By
Dateline NBC
updated 3/8/2004 2:27:30 AM ET 2004-03-08T07:27:30

Unlike some other high-profile cases, the trial of Martha Stewart wasn't televised. But Dateline has an extraordinary look at what happened in the courtroom and the jury room. NBC’s Edie Magnus sat down, exclusively, with six of the jurors, and they took us through this highly-charged trial as they saw it, from the best seats in the courtroom: the jury box.

For five weeks a jury of eight women and four men had listened as federal prosecutors had built a case charging one of the most famous women in America with a series of felonies. And now they were about to enter the courtroom to deliver their verdict.

Edie Magnus: “Tell me about the walk from the jury room back into the courtroom.”

Chappell Hartridge: “Yeah, that was very tough.  We knew we were about to change two people's lives forever.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “I was shaking.  I couldn't stop shaking.”

Martha Stewart had spent decades building a homemaking, fashion, and publishing conglomerate. She made a fortune doing it.

Edie Magnus: “None of you apparently looked at Martha Stewart when you walked into the room.”

Chappell Hartridge: “No.”

Edie Magnus: “Why didn't you look at her?”

Chappell Hartridge: “I felt so sad for her. I didn't want her to read anything from my expression.”

Meg Crane: “Yeah. Same.”

Chappell Hartridge: “I purposefully looked away. That was a very tough moment.”

It was a moment they had come to from all walks of life. Adam Sachs, 38,  is an information technology specialist, Meg Crane, 64  a graphic designer, Dana D'Allessandro, 42, is a stay at home mom, Chappell Hartridge, 47, a benefits coordinator with Medicare, Jonathan Laskin, 48, is a paralegal and translator, and Rosemary McMahon, 50, is a teacher and was the foreperson of the jury. Yet even before they were summoned to jury duty, all six say they were familiar with the celebrity defendant. 

Edie Magnus: “When you were in the juror's box and you first saw Martha Stewart at the defendant's table, tell me what you were thinking?”

Rosemary McMahon: “I was thinking I was glad I was me because I felt very strongly at that point like better to be sitting here than sitting there. I had that thought. I really had that thought. I was like, you know, look at me.  I'm, you know, just who I am.”

Edie Magnus: “You were glad you weren't rich, famous and on trial.”

Rosemary McMahon: “I was so glad. I was glad.”

Edie Magnus: “Did you have a sense of how big a case this was?”

Jonathan Laskin: “You'd leave that courtroom and more times than not there'd be a lot of photographers out there. And you'd have headings on a newsstand that you weren't supposed to look at. And little bits of conversation that you would hear on the subway that you weren't supposed to listen to. And yes, there was a buzz in the air about it.”

Trial begins
When the trial got underway in late January, Stewart faced charges that included conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and giving false statements to federal investigators. All this, prosecutors said, to conceal the fact that she had used insider information to dump thousands of shares of ImClone stock before its value plummeted.

The company had just learned its promising experimental cancer drug wasn't yet being approved for sale. ImClone's CEO was selling off his shares before the bad news got out. And his stockbroker Peter Bacanovic -- a man who was also Martha Stewart's broker -- got word to Stewart. She immediately sold all her shares, too.

Months afterward, in several meetings with federal investigators, both Bacanovic and Stewart denied any wrongdoing, insisting they'd pre-arranged to sell her shares if ImClone stock dipped to $60, what is known as a stop loss order. Bacanovic produced a worksheet as evidence, with the notation "@60" scribbled next to ImClone.

Adam Sachs: “I actually looked at that possibility. And I said it's a possibility that they could have had an agreement. There's nothing says they couldn't.”

In fact, Peter Bacanovic had attested to this under oath, in a recorded interview with the Securities and Exchange Commission he denied ever giving Marta Stewart inside information.

Audio tape: “I did not get to be a first vice president at Merrill Lynch by discussing other people's business and by being indiscreet.”

Douglas Faneuil testifies
But the government's first key witness, an underling who reported to Bacanovic, told the jurors that his boss had done precisely that. Douglas Faneuil said there never was any earlier agreement to sell the stock at $60 a share. That was just something Martha Stewart and Boconovic made up later to cover their tracks.

Edie Magnus: “Doug Faneuil was the government's star witness. Tell me about listening to him and his story for the first time.”

Meg Crane: “Well, he seemed very young and almost vulnerable at first. But as his testimony went on, he became much more confident in what he was saying.”

Adam Sachs: “He was also very nervous.”

Edie Magnus: “You all found him rehearsed and yet you believed him?”

Meg Crane: “Oh, everybody was rehearsed.”

Rosemary McMahon: “I found him to be an intelligent person. I was shocked when I first saw him at how young he actually looked. I mean he was 28 at the time he testified, but he looked a whole lot younger.

Adam Sachs: “He was also clearly nervous when he first started. We all noticed that.”

Rosemary McMahon: “Very nervous. His hand was shaking when... he took the oath. And his voice actually cracked at a point when he was saying-- you know they were like, ‘What are you afraid of?’…You know all of that kind of thing. And he said, ‘I was afraid of this. I was afraid that I would have to, you know like testify against my boss. And it would come to this.’”

The star witness against Martha Stewart was hardly squeaky clean himself. In the early days after Martha Stewart sold her stock, Faneuil, like his boss, had also denied doing anything wrong. Now, on the witness stand, under a grant of government immunity from prosecution, he was telling a different story. Stewart, he said, had gotten inside information.

It was December 27, 2001, and Faneuil said his boss had instructed him to tell Stewart that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was selling his ImClone stock. Faneuil testified that he'd asked if he was allowed to do that, and Peter Bacanovic replied, “You've got to. That's the whole point.”

Adam Sachs: “Well, he was clearly, you know, telling as much as he possibly could to the government, you know, to come clean. He had the arrangement with them to tell the truth and to tell what he knew. And he was trying to do that, we all thought. And the cross-examination, of course, put him on the spot.”

Jonathan Laskin: “Oh, yeah.”

The defense was trying hard to undermine Doug Faneuil's credibility where it could. It turns out the government's star witness had a history of recreational drug use.

Edie Magnus: “What did you make of all the discussion of his drug use?”

Meg Crane: “I thought it was thrown in by the lawyers to make us think that he wasn't a credible person. That was, you know, kind of an aside.”

Chappell Hartridge: “It didn't have anything to do with the facts of the case.”

During his testimony, Fanuiel portrayed Stewart as arrogant, demanding, and overbearing. It would be the first of a series of unflattering portraits Stewart had to endure. 

Edie Magnus: “So much has been made of her demeanor. All of the courtroom sketches, for instance, no matter how hard they tried, she just looks harsh in every one of their drawings for some—“

Dana D’Allessandro: “She looks scared to me.”

Meg Crane: “Yeah, she looked strained at times. And like her teeth would clench. She looked very tense often.”

Adam Sachs: “Yeah. But a lot of times she just looked frightened. And I really felt for her.”

Edie Magnus: “Did she seem involved in what was going on?”

Group: “Yes.”

Edie Magnus: “She didn't seem to you to be above it all?”

Rosemary McMahon: “No. I didn’t get that impression.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “Actually, one morning I came in behind her or in front of her or whatever. And they were going to like let her go through first.  And she said, ‘No, I'll stand on line.’  And she got right on line.”

There was no special treatment for this high-powered defendant. And if Faniuel had put her on the defensive, it was about to get much worse,  from, of all places, the testimony of someone very close to her.

Pivotal witness takes the stand
A broker's assistant she barely knew had placed Martha Stewart at the center of a scheme that could put her behind bars. And now, the government had another witness who would score major points for its case: Martha Stewart's own assistant.

Edie Magnus: “They called to the witness stand Martha's secretary, Ann Armstrong… Tell me about the experience of listening to her?”

Meg Crane: “She was so distraught. It was very difficult…. I mean right from the start she didn't want to be there and she had to be there somehow. And--

Dana D’Allessandro: “She looked terrified.”

Chappell Hartridge: “Yeah, we felt for her.”

What Ann Armstrong was testifying about was especially damaging to Martha Stewart. And it so upset this woman to publicly implicate the woman she worked for, that she broke down in front of the jury.

Adam Sachs: “Yeah, when she broke down on the stand originally, it was just heart, you know, it was heartfelt… because she just really did not want to be there. And the last thing she wanted to do was talk about Martha.”

Rosemary McMahon: “Yeah. She had a lot of loyalty and a lot of respect for Martha Stewart. And that came out very, very clearly… And this hurt her deeply. And we felt that. We felt that in the jury room, that she was in pain when she was testifying.”

Stewart's longtime assistant told the jurors, she watched her boss change a phone message left by Peter Bacanovic on that fateful day in December to try to conceal the fact that the broker had given Stewart inside information that ImClone stock was about to implode.

In Armstrong's log, the original phone message, she testified, had said, "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downwards." Stewart, she told jurors, took the unusual step of sitting at her secretary's desk and changing that to something much more neutral.

Edie Magnus: “Martha sits down—“

Jonathan Laskin: “And types in, ‘Peter Bacanovic called re: ImClone,’ which was a really different message… And then got up from the computer. And as Annie said, she had never done that before. She had never sat down at her-- at Annie's computer to do anything. Got up from the computer, went to her door. Turned around and said, ‘Put it back the way it was.’ That was so dramatic and so believable. And that was a big piece of what we had to consider in terms of evidence.”

Rosemary McMahon: “That hurt Martha Stewart I think, a lot.”

Chappell Hartridge: “She ultimately gave the testimony that was going to bring Martha down. That was a very important piece.”

Adam Sachs: “And she was so loyal to Martha. And if Annie said it happened, you know that's what happened.”

The jurors were also told that Martha Stewart answered questions from investigators just four days after the phone log incident. She allegedly told them she didn't recall if there even was a written message from Peter Bacanovic on that day.

Rosemary McMahon: “That wasn't really believable because this is a woman who pays attention to details… I mean that's her life.. to pay attention to a lot of details. And she knew what was going on with her portfolio. She knew what was going on with her company. She knew what was going on in her office as she stayed… She was not thinking of other things. She was thinking of how am I going to work my business and all of my interests throughout the day. She was very me, you know meticulous and—“

Jonathan Laskin: “And even the defense said, ‘This is a woman who has a cell phone attached to her ear. She's on top of everything.’"

As the trial unfolded, the jurors who would stand in judgment of Martha Stewart, sometimes found themselves wondering how the defendant was holding up, wondering, what was she really feeling? Once in a great while, they got a glimpse.

Edie Magnus: “Was there any point in the trial at all where you were struck by Martha's demeanor?  Was there ever a time when you looked at her, just a moment that you remember from this trial?”

Meg Crane: “I remember once when was looking across the courtroom from the judge to the lawyer who was speaking. And she was in the view between. She turned and looked at me.  And it was a terribly sad look. And I was touched by that, and I looked away. I didn't really want to look at her if she was looking that way.”

Edie Magnus: “I'm just sort of curious, when you looked away, why did you look away?”

Meg Crane: “I didn't want her to get any signals from my expression, I think. You know.”

Jonathan Laskin: “And it felt like an invasion in some ways.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “It's hard to sit and judge.”

Afterthought proves illuminating
But the jurors were riveted by another prosecution witness, a friend of Martha Stewart. Mariana Pasternak was with Stewart, en route to Mexico on vacation in December of 2001, when Stewart got word from Bacanovic and sold off her ImClone stock.

Pasternak's testimony about all that wasn't terribly illuminating, they say, until the very end.

Jonathan Laskin: “That was probably the most stunning moment. It was towards the-- I remember it was towards the end of the day. And it was on direct examination. And Marianna Pasternak was talking.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “Well don't forget we were bored to death all day with—“

Jonathan Laskin: “--bored to death with the most boring documents. And then it seemed like she was just about over with her testimony. And the prosecutor asked, ‘Was there anything else you can remember?’ And at first it seemed like there wasn't. And then she said, ’Well I do remember one other thing. Martha said, 'Isn't it nice to have brokers to tell you these things.'’”

Rosemary McMahon: “We were stunned.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “And the judge said, 'Excuse me!’”

Edie Magnus: “So her most damming piece of evidence was offered as an afterthought?”

Meg Crane: “Yes. Yes.”

Edie Magnus: “What did you think when she said that?”

Dana D’Allessandro: “We were like, "Wow."

Chappell Hartridge: “Disbelief. I couldn't—“

Dana D’Allessandro: “That blew me away.”

Edie Magnus: “But you found that pretty incriminating?”

Chappell Hartridge: “Oh, very. Yeah. It took down two people with one shot because she mentioned Peter's name. ‘It's good to have a broker to tell you things.’”

Martha Stewart's lawyers tried to shake her friend's recollection, but it appeared the damage had been done. Now it was the defense's turn to make its case. The jurors were in for a big surprise. The jury was learning a whole lot about America's premiere homemaker Martha Stewart during her criminal trial. With documents and slide presentations, government lawyers exposed almost every aspect of this intensely private person's life.

Dana D’Allessandro: “I felt kind of-- I don't know. Sorry for her is the right word. When you know her whole life is being shot up on that screen, and it made me very uncomfortable. To see all your stocks and your personal e-mails and, I mean things that you never thought in a million years would be in open court. She was very private.”

Edie Magnus: "Did it ever inside make you resent Martha Stewart for the life she was living?”

Dana D’Allessandro: “Definitely not.”

Jonathan Laskin: “She apparently started from reasonably humble beginnings and worked her tail off to get where she is.”

Waiting for the defense
As the defense began its case, the jurors figured they were finally about to see something more flattering, to get Martha Stewart's side of the story. They'd certainly hear from friends to attest to her good character, they thought. And maybe even from Martha Stewart herself.

Edie Magnus: “How many of you wanted to hear from Martha Stewart?”

Jonathan Laskin: “I would have liked to have heard her side of the story, I guess.”

Edie Magnus: “Only you? You're the only one?”

But after much speculation about whether or not she'd speak for herself, Martha Stewart did not testify.

Edie Magnus: “You're not supposed to draw any conclusions from her silence. But did you?”

Group: “No.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “I thought she might, only because she is control of her company. And she's in control of basically everything. I thought she might want to be in control of this and get up there and talk.”

In fact, to the complete surprise of almost everyone watching the trial, including the jurors, Martha Stewart's defense team put no witnesses forward. The prosecution took four weeks to make its case. The defense made its presentation in less than an hour.

Rosemary McMahon: “The defense team just like-- don't believe it. It didn't happen so don't believe it. You know, it wasn't possible. You couldn't believe it. But we were sitting there going, but we saw this and we heard that.  And you know we have evidence of this. And you know testimony of that. So it was like, we need more.  You know? We were waiting. We were hoping. You know? At least I felt like I was—“

Dana D’Allessandro: “I was shocked—“

Rosemary McMahon: “You know okay, now the defense is ready. So now we're going to hear it. Now we're going to get, you know something—“

Dana D’Allessandro: “I was ready to hear her side, no matter who it was. No matter who they put on. I wanted to here from her.”

Jonathan Laskin: “Whether Martha or Peter took the stand, we thought there was going to be more from the defense.  We just almost were hoping they would put up more of a fight or something. Or give us more to chew on.  But it wasn't there.”

Rosemary McMahon: “Yeah, that was hard. That was hard.”

One thing Martha Stewart seemed to have going for her was a succession of celebrities who came to court to support her. But that doesn't appear to have worked.

Edie Magnus: “Martha Stewart had some big-deal friends come to court a couple of days. Rosie O'Donnell came. Bill Cosby came.  Did you feel like they were trying to influence you in some way by their presence?”

Chappell Hartridge: “I think…support.  I kind of think so.  It didn't affect, but I feel that they were trying to sway us in some way.”

Jonathan Laskin: “Yeah, I tend to agree that it was something about that. Yeah, there were people I guess who were trying to support her. But I don't know, it was the celebrity seat, kind of right behind Martha. And every so often, they would always-- there would be somebody else in that celebrity seat. And I don't know. I felt, are we being manipulated here in some way?"

Adam Sachs: “Yeah, I didn't think that at all. I thought that they were just her friends, and she had a lot of nice friends that were celebrities, and they showing up and showing support.”

Heading to the jury room
It was a light moment, one of the few during the trial. Now jurors were about to begin the most critical part of their job. After closing arguments, they got their instructions from Judge Miriam Goldman Cederbaum and headed into the jury room to  decide the fate of Martha Stewart.

Rosemary McMahon: “We did not, you know, discuss the case. We did not look at the case. We did not think about the case until she gave it to us. And then immediately it was like-- I think that was a relief almost, that we could finally begin to put some of this together and talk to one another.”

Adam Sachs: “It was very frustrating, not being able to talk to one another about what you were sitting through every day.”

Meg Crane: “But I had no idea how it was going to go when we got into the jury room. I had no idea.”

Finally behind closed doors, they started deliberating. The future of an icon's vast financial holdings... and perhaps, her very freedom were at stake.

Adam Sachs: “The case was never presented from start to finish. It was very clearly a little bit here, a little bit there.”

Jonathan Laskin: “We were really working on a big puzzle. And we're sitting in a different chair than anybody else out there who is getting their news through various media sources or gossip or how they feel about Martha Stewart. “

Dana D’Allessandro: “When we first got in there, I think that there were so many different stories. There was Martha's story, there was Peter's story. There was Doug's story. And we had to really, I think, start from the beginning. 

Edie Magnus: “And were you generally in agreement about what you thought had occurred?”

Jonathan Laskin: “Well, we talked a lot about that. And I think the first thing we did was look at Doug Fanueil's testimony and say, ‘Okay. How do we feel about his credibility?’ And we went around the room and we talked about it. And I think we ultimately felt that it was essentially credible."

Edie Magnus: “You believed him?"

Jonathan Laskin: “Basically on all the essentials, yeah. I mean, we all agreed that he was very rehearsed, and we did take a long look at that. But he-- you know a lot of the other witnesses and the evidence supported what he said.”

Edie Magnus: “Was there one witness who most persuaded you of Martha Stewart's guilt?”

Rosemary McMahon: “Annie Armstrong?”

Adam Sachs: “I think Annie Armstrong was a key witness. Because we all believed her 100 percent.”

It was Ms. Armstrong, Martha Stewart's own assistant, who had testified that Stewart had altered the Bacanovic phone message, the one that lead her to dump ImClone stock that day.

Jonathan Laskin: “As we started putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and the sequence, we realized, yeah. This was a crucial, crucial thing.”

But what of the so called stop loss agreement? Did the jurors buy it? Remember, Martha Stewart had claimed that she sold her ImClone stock, not because of Bacanovic’s tip but because they had pre-arranged to sell if ImClone stock sank below $60 a share.

Rosemary McMahon: “We looked in our notes. We looked in the data. We looked in the testimony, the exhibits. We looked at everything we could look at… We believed you know that there was a possibility that this agreement existed, but we couldn't find any evidence that that agreement was used on that day. We in fact we found the opposite.”

All the evidence indicated to them that this stop loss scenario was hatched after the fact. And they weren't buying the defense's central argument, that two people as sophisticated and well heeled as Stewart and Bacanovic would never have made such a foolish blunder.

Edie Magnus: “At one point they said to you in their closing, ‘Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic are far too smart to have taken part in this,’ I believe he called it a confederacy of dunces.”

Chappell Hartridge: “But you know that's what it all boiled down to. They were so, so smart, but yet they were so dumb.”

The jurors deliberated together for the better part of three days, and at night, apart from one another, they all still obsessed about the case.

Meg Crane: “When we went home, it was very difficult to sleep because we were thinking it over. Like are we really, you know, being thorough enough.”

They checked and re-checked the evidence, they say, and they slowly concluded that Stewart's defense hadn't offered up a case because it really didn't have one. They deliberated right up through midday Friday, then broke for lunch, then returned, and went over each charge a final time. It was 2:30 in the afternoon and it was unanimous.

Edie Magnus: “Was it easy?”

Rosemary McMahon: “No. No, it was, I think one of the most difficult things we've done.”

Meg Crane: “We tried five ways to Friday to take it from different angles. To work it through. And that was it. We were -- we just could not have done anything else. We're sorry about that, frankly.”

Edie Magnus: “Do you feel sorry for Martha Stewart?”

Meg Crane: “I'm terribly sorry it happened the way it did… Yeah. I feel sad, yeah. The whole process is very sad.”

Martha Stewart and the others were summoned into the courtroom. The moment of decision had arrived.

Chappell Hartridge: “And as we were entering the courtroom about to deliver the verdict, I definitely didn't want to look at-- I didn't want her to read my face, you know, my expression. That was a tough moment.”

Adam Sachs: “It was gut-wrenching.”

Jonathan Laskin: “Yeah, it was really pretty overwhelming.”

Martha Stewart was very encouraged at the end of this trial. So much so that she wrote on her own website, Martha Talks, that she was very optimistic she would soon be exonerated. And she would be back to the business of developing creative homemaking ideas for all of her loyal fans. And you all came back and, boom, convicted her on all counts. Guilty as charged.

Meg Crane: “There wasn't any way we could have done otherwise.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “I think that was shocking to me that people were absolutely shocked… I was surprised when I came after we read the verdict. We came back into the room.  And I had called my husband and I said, ‘So did you hear?’ And he says, ‘I almost fell off my chair.’ I said, ‘Why?’"

Edie Magnus: “Your own husband didn't think you'd convict her?”

Dana D’Allessandro: “That’s what shocked me.”

Rosemary McMahon: “My daughter had the same reaction when she called. And she goes, ‘Mom, I'm seeing this on TV.’ You know? And I was like, ‘Are you surprised?’ She said, "Yeah.’”

Edie Magnus: “And I'm sure you heard the audible gasp in the courtroom when your verdict was announced. And the rush of press to leave the room.”

Those of us on the outside saw at that moment saw the mad dash of reporters from the courthouse, waving signs and screaming out the jury's decision. Inside the courtroom, the jurors’ eyes finally turned to Martha Stewart.

Chappell Hartridge: “Well, what stuck out in my mind is the non-reaction from Martha... I was waiting for her… It was as if she -- I don't know. I expected a reaction out of her. And nothing.”

Edie Magnus: “Do you think she deserves 20 years in jail?”

Rosemary McMahon: “I don't know if that's for us to decide.”

Adam Sachs: “I personally do not. She could do much better you know, good outside working with others than she would in a federal penitentiary.”

Edie Magnus: “How do you feel about the fact that according to most of the experts, it's very likely she will do some hard time for this.”

Chappell Hartridge: “Well she should. She was convicted of a felony. And she should do some time.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “She did have choices, too.”

Rosemary McMahon: “That's what the law allows.”

Edie Magnus: “Not to put too fine a point of it, she will have to leave her company. Her TV show will go off the air. She's a convicted felon.

Rosemary: “I think that's sad. But I know that, you know, we looked at the evidence. And we found guilt.”

Chappell Hartridge: “It's not as if she was framed or Peter tricked her into doing this. She knew fully well what was going on.”

Dana D’Allessandro: “We followed the law. I mean we really did.”

Edie Magnus: “In its closing remarks, Martha's defense team told you that this was, in effect, much ado about nothing.”

Rosemary McMahon: “The judge was very clear.”

Jonathan Laskin: “I wouldn't call it nothing, that laws were broken and lies were told. And money changed hands through means that were not altogether on the up and up. I think you have to think about what people were doing, how they were behaving, how they were acting, how they handled themselves after they did something that they had to have known was wrong. And I think all of that is-- it's not nothing. I think it's important.”

Edie Magnus: “A lot of people have speculated about whether or not you know in an age of big corporate scandals you were trying to stick it to another big business person on behalf of the little guy.”

Group: “No.”

Rosemary McMahon: “That never, ever, ever came up in the jury room.”

Edie Magnus: “Let me ask the women here something. Did you ever wonder whether or not Martha Stewart was being targeted because she was a woman?”

Rosemary McMahon: “I did.”

Edie Magnus: “Please tell me.

Dana D’Allessandro: “I didn't know that much about Martha Stewart. I mean, of course you know Martha Stewart and Kmart and you know, I just thought that anybody who could create what she's created, and because she's a woman, I thought, you know, maybe people are going after her just because she's a successful woman. And, you know, sometimes it's a cruel world.”

In the end, these men and women are left to wonder about her motives, a multimillionaire who got into trouble trying to save thousands of dollars, a calculating executive, who grossly miscalculated and got caught in a lie.

Rosemary McMahon: “I think at some point if you tell the truth you're probably in better shape from the beginning.”

Jonathan Laskin: “And the sooner you tell it, the better it is for you, because I think –“

Rosemary McMahon: “--the lie takes on a life of its own.”

Jonathan Laskin: “And what was this quote from Shakespeare that we both remembered? Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”

Meg Crane: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Lawyers for Martha Stewart say they plan to appeal her conviction. She still faces additional legal battles. Shareholders in her company are suing her for driving down the value of their stock, by getting in trouble with the law. She is also a defendant in a civil suit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, formally charging her with insider trading, a count she did not face in criminal court.

© 2013 MSNBC Interactive. Reprints

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,

Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments