Here's the text of a letter sent by Martha Stewart's appellate lawyer, Walter Dellinger, to federal prosecutors, informing them of a potential Brady violation -- that is, failure to disclose potentially exculpatory information to the defendant. The upshot of the letter is to renew a request for documents that may assist Stewart on appeal, but it also gives a good sense of the appellate argument to come.
Given Dellinger's considerable experience, including service as the Solicitor General (whose office argues on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court), it's not surprising that the letter is an example of excellent advocacy.
The only problem I noted with the letter is that it's addressed to "David N. Kelley," but the header on pages 2-10 reads "David E. Kelley." Someone has been watching too much "Boston Legal" . . . .
You'd think that they could have converted the .wpd version the file into a .pdf for us, instead of scanning the hard copy. Unfortunately, in the version currently available, I can't copy any of the text directly from the document. I imagine the OMM has the letterhead available in its letter macro, so making sure that we all know that OMM is representing Marth should not be an issue.
Does anyone know if that is the case, namely that OMM letterhead only gets added to documents at the printer (rather than being added to a .wpd file as a macro)? If so, that's a pretty lousy procedure.
Posted by: FN84 | October 07, 2004 at 04:12 PM
When I was at Munger Tolles (1998-2002), we used actual letterhead. A software macro won't get you the fancy feel of engraving. Of course, since MTO letterhead listed every current firm attorney, the letterhead had to be replaced periodically, no doubt at some expense.
Posted by: Tung Yin | October 07, 2004 at 04:41 PM
Of course, since MTO letterhead listed every current firm attorney, the letterhead had to be replaced periodically, no doubt at some expense.
At the no-good-firm-that-I-am-going-to-do-an-expose-on-once-they-can't-mess-with-my-bar-admissions, turnover was so high that we were told to "refresh" the macro each day.
Posted by: FN84 | October 07, 2004 at 04:47 PM
Why would she choose to begin her sentence if she has a possibility of winning an appeal? What if she wins after she's already served her sentence?
Posted by: Stef | October 08, 2004 at 08:27 AM
Why would she choose to begin her sentence if she has a possibility of winning an appeal?
Because she has more backbone than anyone I've ever met. She knows that she can survive (and perhaps grow from prison), and she would just like to get it over with.
A lot of criminal clients we've worked with dread the pre-trail almost as much as the outcome. (Which is odd in its own right, since the better the lawyer you retain, the longer the delay before trial). Probably that's because humans like certainty, and even a bad certainty might not seem as awful as the uncertainty of waiting for a win at trial or appeal.
Posted by: FN84 | October 08, 2004 at 08:50 AM
She knows that she can survive (and perhaps grow from prison), and she would just like to get it over with.
I agree with the first and third assertions -- that she knows she can survive and that she would like to get it over with. However, I seriously doubt that she will grow from prison. Whether you think she should or should not have been prosecuted, the fact is that she clearly violated the terms of section 1001. Perhaps her lies weren't significant in terms of harming others, but she made a deliberate decision to state falsely to the government that she had an agreement with her broker. In short, she expressed an attitude that it was okay for her to lie to the SEC and FBI to make them go away.
Her post-conviction statements do not suggest that she appreciates the wrongfulness of her conduct. Instead, she continues to wallow in self-pity and martyrdom. As long as she feels that she did nothing wrong, I don't see her "growing" in prison.
Posted by: Tung Yin | October 08, 2004 at 09:29 AM
As long as she feels that she did nothing wrong, I don't see her "growing" in prison.
I wonder...I would not be surprised is she came out like a Tony Robbins-typs. My reason: Everything that Martha has done, she has done very well. Unfortunately, she has thus far focused her talents on net ascetions to wealth (even choosing her work over her husband). Eight months in a (it seems) safe cage might cause her to reflect on her choices. It might also be good for her to live with poor people.
Of course, all this is speculation, on a particularly optimistic day.
Posted by: FN84 | October 08, 2004 at 10:37 AM
One other point. It probably hard to feel anything other victimized when the prosecution witholds Brady material and otherwise goes to great lengths to ignore your constitutional rights.
Let's not pretend that anyone related to this offense is virtuous. I think that people who use the prosecutorial sword for personal gain also had a lot of room for growth.
I'll never say that Martha wasn't wrong. But that doesn't make the prosecution's tactics right.
Posted by: FN84 | October 08, 2004 at 10:50 AM