Jewish World Review March 12, 2004 / 19 Adar, 5764
When Silence Isn't Golden: Martha Stewart's failure to testify holds a lesson for other celebrity defendants
According to some of the jurors in the Martha Stewart case, they hoped their guilty verdict would send a message to the rich and powerful. It is more likely, however, to send a message to a much smaller group: Stewart's co-celebrities facing trial for crimes ranging from murder to rape.
Stewart is vivid proof that the price of silence for a celebrity defendant can be conviction. For, say, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson, the Stewart trial offers a textbook example of how not to construct a defense.
The decision not to have Stewart testify in her own defense followed a conventional strategy. Defense lawyers are risk-averse; they usually prefer to play the cards they have rather than risk giving the government a better hand. Silence is a strategy that is normally adopted when you are more concerned about losing rather than gaining ground.
In this case, however, they held a bad hand. The trial was not going well. The defense had failed to significantly rebut the testimony or the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, and, by the time the government closed its case, the odds of a conviction were high without a dramatic change a witness who could reshuffle the deck. There was only one possibility, and that was Stewart herself.
Having Stewart testify would clearly have been a high-risk move, the ultimate legal Hail Mary pass; it might have yielded a hung jury, with one or two jurors willing to hold out against conviction.
Stewart's lawyers had obvious reasons to keep her off the stand. They wanted to avoid the personal and professional embarrassment of a cross-examination and, particularly, a cross-examination disaster. She would have faced a series of extremely difficult questions: For instance, why did she change a critical computer message from her broker and then change it back?
More important, Stewart had been portrayed as a petty tyrant, a boss with a nasty side who relished every vice of power short of beating her underlings with a riding stick. To the jury, she was worse than a stranger; she was a menace. If those personality traits appeared on the stand, she might assure her conviction.
A trial, however, isn't about the defendant but about the jurors, and jurors want to hear from the accused. They often view themselves in the shoes of both the victim and the alleged perpetrator. They want to know why an act occurred, but, more important, whether they would or could commit the same act under such conditions. Stewart needed their empathy.
Of course, to successfully testify, the famously perfectionist Stewart would have had to reveal her vulnerabilities, her imperfections. For instance, was it a humbling level of understandable fear and confusion that caused her to change that computer message? In the days since the verdict, a few jurors have revealed that at various points they indeed felt sorry for Stewart. Her unwillingness to speak for herself surely prevented her from capitalizing on such feelings.
Stewart and her lawyers should have heeded history. Celebrity criminal defendants who have testified have done well. Indeed, their training and experience in maintaining public images can be highly effective on the stand. Fatty Arbuckle testified in his murder trial. He was ultimately acquitted after a series of hung juries. Errol Flynn testified in his statutory rape trial and was acquitted. Charlie Chaplin testified in his Mann Act trial and was acquitted. (O.J. Simpson didn't, but then he was assisted by one of the worst prosecutions in history.)
The lesson of the Martha Stewart verdict may be most relevant for basketball star Kobe Bryant, who faces rape charges. In a he-said, she-said case, "she" will often win if "he" says nothing. To remain silent after the victim goes through grueling testimony can easily alienate a jury.
To testify or not to testify may be a more difficult question for Michael Jackson. There is no doubt that the jury will want to hear from him. However, because of his eccentricities his gender-bending persona, for instance, isn't likely to resonate with an average jury his attorneys will be disinclined to put Jackson on the stand. The prosecution will surely portray him as a freak who abused children brought to him under the false inducement of care and sympathy. His silence would leave such images largely unchallenged. Watch for the defense to attack the victim's mother with particular viciousness, trying to reduce the need to put Jackson on the stand.
In retrospect, there is an ultimate irony in the conservative defense strategy adopted by Stewart and her lawyers. As one of the nation's most successful businesswomen, Stewart was known for her aggressiveness and boldness in the marketplace. She made more than a billion dollars selling herself to strangers. Yet that chutzpah failed her when it counted the most: when she didn't take the opportunity to sell herself to a jury.
For defense lawyers and defendants, the court record Martha Stewart Litigating should be required reading in the months to come.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington
and the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributorJonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington Law School and a criminal defense attorney.
Click here to visit his website. Comment by clicking here.
03/09/04: Non-profits' executives avoid scrutiny, valid reforms
02/12/04: Reparations cause is coming up empty: Potential lawsuits destined to remain meritless in courts
02/03/04: Senate powder is the least of Congress' security concerns
01/29/04: Case of the Missing Evidence: Facts are often withheld from juries, which can lead to ill-informed
12/31/03: Celebrity is often its own best defense
12/27/03: U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear
12/17/03: Going for the gold in a competition of the corrupt
11/25/03: Will Malvo jurors spare life of young suspect?
11/11/03: The Black Tax: Of charlatans, crooks and victims and the reparations scam
11/04/03: Sniper case lacks appeal, public lessons of other cases
10/02/03: Is a soldier's life worth more than $650?
08/26/03: One justice wields too much power on today's Supreme Court. It's time to make the top bench much bigger
08/11/03: Don't let jobs grow on family trees
06/26/03: A Ruling That Only Goldilocks Could Love; We still don't know how much weight to give race in college admissions
06/24/03: 'Educating' Congress at the hands of lobbyists
06/12/03: Crooked arm of the law
06/10/03: Defense on lay-away
05/23/03: Innocence doesn't pay, either
05/15/03: A see-no-evil parole system
05/08/03: An American Gulag?
05/01/03: CUNY Law gives grads a cynical parting gift
04/22/03: Congress Must Send Spammers a Message
04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/14/02: DESTROYING A FAMILY TO SAVE IT
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02:
05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic
© 2003, Jonathan Turley