Prosecution Expert Accused of Perjury in Martha Stewart Trial
As business sections around the nation are reporting, Secret Service lab director Larry "no-relation" Stewart has been charged with perjuring himself during his testimony in the Martha Stewart trial. In particular, he is accused of testifying falsely that he participated in an ink-test for the famous "@60" notation, when in fact he allegedly did not participate in the test.
Larry Stewart has not been convicted. And we're not criminal lawyers, but even if he is convicted, Martha Stewart's prosecutors may have something resembling a "harmless error" argument, since the jury acquitted her broker of the document falsification charges. (We say "something resembling" because we're not sure that the district court judge could have committed literal "error" at all by admitting testimony not then known to be perjurious, though presumably appellate review can be had, if necessary, of her ruling on Martha Stewart's planned motion for a new trial.)
It is disturbing, nevertheless, that a government expert should stand accused of perjuriously falsifying the basis and reasons for testimony offered in federal criminal proceedings. It is fair to wonder whether such incidents are rare, or whether they are symptomatic of more systematic institutional pressures on federal agents offering expert testimony in criminal proceedings.
Larry Stewart has not been convicted. And we're not criminal lawyers, but even if he is convicted, Martha Stewart's prosecutors may have something resembling a "harmless error" argument, since the jury acquitted her broker of the document falsification charges. (We say "something resembling" because we're not sure that the district court judge could have committed literal "error" at all by admitting testimony not then known to be perjurious, though presumably appellate review can be had, if necessary, of her ruling on Martha Stewart's planned motion for a new trial.)
It is disturbing, nevertheless, that a government expert should stand accused of perjuriously falsifying the basis and reasons for testimony offered in federal criminal proceedings. It is fair to wonder whether such incidents are rare, or whether they are symptomatic of more systematic institutional pressures on federal agents offering expert testimony in criminal proceedings.
2 Comments:
Why don't you post equal time showing he was found "not guilty?" I guess that isn't as newsworthy...
We did. See:
http://www.daubertontheweb.com/2004/10/larry-no-relation-stewart-acquitted.html
Post a Comment
<< Home