Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Martha gets 5 months  (Read 4229 times)

Dante Hicks

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
  • Whatchoo lookin at?
    • View Profile
Martha gets 5 months
« on: July 16, 2004, 10:47:14 AM »
What a load o crap. She'll remain free I guess pending her appeal.

Gotta love this biz.

 8)
One day it was so cold in Chicago that the lawyers had their hands in their own pockets.

daynee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2004, 10:49:06 AM »
Yeah, I just read that she was given a stay for her appeal. 

Do you mean load o crap because you think it was lenient?
If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.  ~ Voltaire, Candide

Dante Hicks

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
  • Whatchoo lookin at?
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2004, 11:01:17 AM »
i dunno really.  she's not a violent offender (never convicted anyway).  i guess in the name of justice it was fair..but i'd like to see the sentences for similar cases with similar criminal backgrounds as Martha, but for poorer folks.
One day it was so cold in Chicago that the lawyers had their hands in their own pockets.

daynee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2004, 11:10:53 AM »
I think I agree - She broke the law, and I'm not trying to say she should get off because she's a celebrity.  But I also think she's being used to set an example because she is a celebrity, and I don't really think that's right, either.  I think house arrest, probation, fines, and community service would have made more sense.  Is a 62 year old crafing and decorating guru really such a menance to society that she needs to be locked up? 
If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.  ~ Voltaire, Candide

Ginatio

  • Guest
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2004, 11:27:42 AM »
I'm not acquainted with the intimate details of the case, but I believe they couldn't even find her guilty of the more heinous conspiracy charges initially brought. She simply wasn't guilty of anything. Wait, I retract that... The only thing she was guilty of was panicking after she was being accused, and thereby lying under oath. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they tried her not on lying under oath, but that she intended to lie under oath... that is, even though her testimony under oath ended up being truthful, they found a way to prove that she *thought* she was lying... that's what I gleaned from all the CNBC coverage a few months ago, anyhow.

either way, she only benefited by what? 30k? she didn't do anything. this was a bunk case, and should've been thrown out if you ask me. I mean, *&^%, the jurors didn't even know what they were convicting her of... I also remember that interviews with jurors after the case indicated that they didn't have a firm grasp of the relevant facts in the case...

Is a 62 year old crafing and decorating guru really such a menance to society that she needs to be locked up? 

buster

  • Guest
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2004, 11:34:00 AM »
Ginatio, I agree with your conclusions, but I think the specific charge was lying to investigators, not even lying under oath.

I'm not acquainted with the intimate details of the case, but I believe they couldn't even find her guilty of the more heinous conspiracy charges initially brought. She simply wasn't guilty of anything. Wait, I retract that... The only thing she was guilty of was panicking after she was being accused, and thereby lying under oath. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they tried her not on lying under oath, but that she intended to lie under oath... that is, even though her testimony under oath ended up being truthful, they found a way to prove that she *thought* she was lying... that's what I gleaned from all the CNBC coverage a few months ago, anyhow.

either way, she only benefited by what? 30k? she didn't do anything. this was a bunk case, and should've been thrown out if you ask me. I mean, *&^%, the jurors didn't even know what they were convicting her of... I also remember that interviews with jurors after the case indicated that they didn't have a firm grasp of the relevant facts in the case...

Is a 62 year old crafing and decorating guru really such a menance to society that she needs to be locked up? 

daynee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2004, 11:37:49 AM »
At least she gets an appeal.  Just hope her lawyer(s) are worth their snuff.  What kills me is that I would be surprised if that DMX guy (or whatever his name is) gets less time for stealing and crashing cars, having a bunch of crack, and impersonating federal officers, and Martha loses her image, a big chunk of her business, and has to go to jail for lying to an investigator.  Not that it's right to lie or anything, the irony just kills me.
If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.  ~ Voltaire, Candide

Ginatio

  • Guest
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2004, 11:42:07 AM »
it's because we've allowed public opinion to dominate celebrity trials... It's not about a judge or jury deciding the case anymore, it's about public opinion deciding the case... The whole country is the Jury and the Media is the arbitrator.

At least she gets an appeal.  Just hope her lawyer(s) are worth their snuff.  What kills me is that I would be surprised if that DMX guy (or whatever his name is) gets less time for stealing and crashing cars, having a bunch of crack, and impersonating federal officers, and Martha loses her image, a big chunk of her business, and has to go to jail for lying to an investigator.  Not that it's right to lie or anything, the irony just kills me.

daynee

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2004, 11:47:18 AM »
I agree, but it still sucks.

And I am so hesitant to throw this out there, because I'm way too tired to get into a debate about feminism, but I believe that Martha gets the short end because she is a powerful, tough, successful woman.  I wonder if this whole thing would have gone this far if she was a man.  I'm not saying she didn't do anything wrong; I'm just saying the double standard is still out there.

it's because we've allowed public opinion to dominate celebrity trials... It's not about a judge or jury deciding the case anymore, it's about public opinion deciding the case... The whole country is the Jury and the Media is the arbitrator.
If we do not find anything pleasant, at least we shall find something new.  ~ Voltaire, Candide

Munkeysgrrl

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2004, 11:48:34 AM »
This whole thing is BS!  What about the Keating 5 (includes John McCain) who looted the savings and loans industry in the 80's?  Or Ken Lay, or our own President who did the same thing back in Texas? Make an example out of them.  Our system is a joke.
Loyola LA Here I Come!!