Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Stewart Due in Court Today for Scheduling
Aired June 19, 2003 - 08:16 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, ANCHOR: Martha Stewart is due in Manhattan today to appear in a federal courtroom. The status conference is described as legal housekeeping to discuss routine issues in the case against the domestic maven.
She was indicted two weeks ago on five counts related to a stock trading scandal.
Our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, here with more on what is likely to happen.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nothing is routine when it comes to Martha.
KAGAN: It's just a beautiful thing.
TOOBIN: Exactly. It won't be beautiful.
KAGAN: No. But what is going to happen today in court?
TOOBIN: Mostly scheduling. But this is actually significant when it comes to the Stewart case, because she -- her legal interests and her business interests are actually quite different when it comes to scheduling.
When it's a business matter, the idea is get it over with, get the trial over and done with, let her either leave the company or get on with her life. The lawyers always want to delay things, stretch out the challenges, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
KAGAN: She needs to be there in court today, doesn't she?
TOOBIN: She has to be there in court. You know, not every judge requires every defendant to be in court for every session. But apparently Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum wants Martha Stewart there. So the circus will be on.
KAGAN: And so we'll be able to see outside of court because it's federal court...
TOOBIN: Federal court allows no cameras. But I'll be there.
KAGAN: You'll be there. We'll look for you, too, among the frenzy. Trial date is important?
TOOBIN: Very important. I mean, my guess, given a case like this, three to six months from now. There are a lot of legal challenges. There are some novel legal ideas in the indictment. Also there's the discovery process, getting access to the evidence. All of that will be contested. And there'll probably be some pretrial motions.
But I'm thinking three to six months, perhaps early next year.
KAGAN: Now one, you have to explain to me, and I've read about it and I still don't understand it. Some of her attorneys might end up on the stand for the prosecution. How can that possibly happen?
TOOBIN: Very unusual. The main novelty in this case is the securities fraud charge at the end. Well, basically what the government says is, Martha Stewart deceived her investors, tried to pump up her stock price, by putting out a false story to the press.
KAGAN: But that false story is that she was innocent. And, in fact, in this country aren't you innocent until proven guilty?
TOOBIN: That's right. But just to pursue the government's theory, the theory is that she sent her lawyers out to give newspapers, journalists, this false story so the lawyers may have to testify about what they knew and how they knew it.
How you get them to testify that way without having them violate the attorney/client privilege, I don't know. But that's the issue that the lawyers might have to testify about. That's one reason why the trial may be a few months off, because legal issues like that will have to be decided.
KAGAN: They'll have to figure that one out. But down the line, do you honestly see Martha Stewart's attorneys on the stand for the prosecution? Do you think that's going to happen?
TOOBIN: You know, the government tends to get what it wants, especially in federal court.
KAGAN: Really?
TOOBIN: I think there may be some -- there will undoubtedly be complicated legal obstacles. But they might get it.
KAGAN: All right. Now I want to talk about one that's kind of brewing on the horizon out there, Canada deciding that it will be OK for gay couples to marry.
Maybe not a big deal in this country, except that if a gay couple from the U.S. goes over, gets married and then wants that marriage honored over here in the states.
TOOBIN: You don't have to be a citizen of Canada, you don't have to be even a resident of Canada to get married in Canada. So gay people are likely to go over there in large numbers, get married and come back.
Very complicated situation here. Because under federal law there is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Congress passed a law to that effect. But some states, which are the main entities that regulate marriage, do allow domestic partnerships.
Undoubtedly, there will be test cases in individual states. But you know, gay marriage is something that is just becoming more and more prevalent. And it seems to me, even though the Congress is against it, time certainly seems to be on the side of gay partnerships, gay marriages.
KAGAN: It is more prevalent and yet it is a big red flag with a lot of folks. Touches a very sensitive nerve.
TOOBIN: It is. Does, indeed.
KAGAN: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for that.
TOOBIN: OK.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired June 19, 2003 - 08:16 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, ANCHOR: Martha Stewart is due in Manhattan today to appear in a federal courtroom. The status conference is described as legal housekeeping to discuss routine issues in the case against the domestic maven.
She was indicted two weeks ago on five counts related to a stock trading scandal.
Our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, here with more on what is likely to happen.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Nothing is routine when it comes to Martha.
KAGAN: It's just a beautiful thing.
TOOBIN: Exactly. It won't be beautiful.
KAGAN: No. But what is going to happen today in court?
TOOBIN: Mostly scheduling. But this is actually significant when it comes to the Stewart case, because she -- her legal interests and her business interests are actually quite different when it comes to scheduling.
When it's a business matter, the idea is get it over with, get the trial over and done with, let her either leave the company or get on with her life. The lawyers always want to delay things, stretch out the challenges, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
KAGAN: She needs to be there in court today, doesn't she?
TOOBIN: She has to be there in court. You know, not every judge requires every defendant to be in court for every session. But apparently Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum wants Martha Stewart there. So the circus will be on.
KAGAN: And so we'll be able to see outside of court because it's federal court...
TOOBIN: Federal court allows no cameras. But I'll be there.
KAGAN: You'll be there. We'll look for you, too, among the frenzy. Trial date is important?
TOOBIN: Very important. I mean, my guess, given a case like this, three to six months from now. There are a lot of legal challenges. There are some novel legal ideas in the indictment. Also there's the discovery process, getting access to the evidence. All of that will be contested. And there'll probably be some pretrial motions.
But I'm thinking three to six months, perhaps early next year.
KAGAN: Now one, you have to explain to me, and I've read about it and I still don't understand it. Some of her attorneys might end up on the stand for the prosecution. How can that possibly happen?
TOOBIN: Very unusual. The main novelty in this case is the securities fraud charge at the end. Well, basically what the government says is, Martha Stewart deceived her investors, tried to pump up her stock price, by putting out a false story to the press.
KAGAN: But that false story is that she was innocent. And, in fact, in this country aren't you innocent until proven guilty?
TOOBIN: That's right. But just to pursue the government's theory, the theory is that she sent her lawyers out to give newspapers, journalists, this false story so the lawyers may have to testify about what they knew and how they knew it.
How you get them to testify that way without having them violate the attorney/client privilege, I don't know. But that's the issue that the lawyers might have to testify about. That's one reason why the trial may be a few months off, because legal issues like that will have to be decided.
KAGAN: They'll have to figure that one out. But down the line, do you honestly see Martha Stewart's attorneys on the stand for the prosecution? Do you think that's going to happen?
TOOBIN: You know, the government tends to get what it wants, especially in federal court.
KAGAN: Really?
TOOBIN: I think there may be some -- there will undoubtedly be complicated legal obstacles. But they might get it.
KAGAN: All right. Now I want to talk about one that's kind of brewing on the horizon out there, Canada deciding that it will be OK for gay couples to marry.
Maybe not a big deal in this country, except that if a gay couple from the U.S. goes over, gets married and then wants that marriage honored over here in the states.
TOOBIN: You don't have to be a citizen of Canada, you don't have to be even a resident of Canada to get married in Canada. So gay people are likely to go over there in large numbers, get married and come back.
Very complicated situation here. Because under federal law there is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Congress passed a law to that effect. But some states, which are the main entities that regulate marriage, do allow domestic partnerships.
Undoubtedly, there will be test cases in individual states. But you know, gay marriage is something that is just becoming more and more prevalent. And it seems to me, even though the Congress is against it, time certainly seems to be on the side of gay partnerships, gay marriages.
KAGAN: It is more prevalent and yet it is a big red flag with a lot of folks. Touches a very sensitive nerve.
TOOBIN: It is. Does, indeed.
KAGAN: Jeffrey Toobin, thank you for that.
TOOBIN: OK.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
