Reply
Fri 5 Mar, 2004 01:15 pm
The following is a bit of a story on the Martha Stewart trial that was just posted on CNN today (
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha/index.htm?cnn=yes ):
Quote:NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The judge in the Martha Stewart trial -- in a technical ruling that was a blow to Stewart's ex-broker Peter Bacanovic -- ruled Friday that jurors can consider a telephone log plus the testimony of a witness in deciding if Bacanovic committed perjury.
Under federal law, finding someone guilty of perjury requires the testimony of two witnesses. The jury had asked Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum if a phone log kept by Stewart's assistant, Ann Armstrong, is independent of her testimony at the trial.
Can anyone offer a plausible rationale for the judges decision here. If I write something down and then I also testify to it in court aren't both really testimony of one witness?
If the log was someone else's and had been proved accurate in the cout room then I could understand how it could be considered two witnesses testifying but, The log is from the same person as the court testimony.
????
I'm not a lawyer but it sounds odd to me. If a log entry and testimony about a log entry are two different witness then the prosecution could really slam dunk it by submitting the record of the court testimony and have three witness.
That's about the same as my line of thought.
Fishin': I haven't followed the case, and I'm not really familiar with perjury law. That being said, I have no clue how a person's notes can function as independent testimony -- unless the notes are considered business records, i.e. records kept in the ordinary course of business. If that's the case, then I suppose the notes could constitute independent testimony (although I'd still be rather dubious about that).
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace