Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Martha Stewart Case
Aired February 11, 2004 - 07:18 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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: More potentially damaging testimony in Martha Stewart's trial. Stewart's assistant told the jury that her boss altered a phone message from her broker concerning ImClone stock, and then wanted to change it back.
Our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, in the courtroom again yesterday, back with us here.
Good morning.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Howdy.
HEMMER: In a word, you say this day was awful for Martha Stewart, and I want you to describe that to us. But let's go ahead and set up what happened in court yesterday. Then we'll talk about it.
Ann Armstrong on the stand yesterday said -- and we can put it on the screen -- "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward." That was the original message that was given to Martha Stewart.
Then she testified that Stewart came over, typed over that message so it would read, Peter Bacanovic, re: ImClone, regarding ImClone.
And then on the stand yesterday in answering questions Ann Armstrong -- I'm quoting now: "She" -- meaning Martha Stewart -- "instantly stood up and, still standing at my desk, she said 'Put it back, put it back the way it was.'"
How much damage was done with that testimony?
TOOBIN: Enormous, because you have to remember the context. What else was happening this day? What else was happening in this day is that Martha Stewart knew that she was being investigated, and it was serious. And she was meeting with her criminal defense lawyers, and she realized that this phone message was going to be perhaps the critical piece of information in the investigation of her.
So, what does she do? For the first time ever in her life, according to her secretary, she sits down at her secretary's desk, alters a phone message, also a first. Then, in fairness, has second thoughts and says change it back. But it is critical evidence about consciousness of guilt. Why would you sit at a -- why would you alter a phone message, even if you later alter it back, unless you realized it was very incriminating?
HEMMER: So if -- let me play the other side of this.
TOOBIN: Sure.
HEMMER: If she knew it was wrong, that's why she went back and changed it back. Would that not tell the jurors that she wanted to correct the record and make sure she knew and understood that she can't be dealing this way?
TOOBIN: Well, defense attorney, that's possible.
HEMMER: All right, counselor.
TOOBIN: That is one interpretation. But it's just the simple act of altering a document that is incriminating to you. Even if you alter it back or direct that it be altered back, it's very hard to change that impression in the jury.
Even worse for Martha Stewart was the fact that Ann Armstrong was such a reluctant witness. Doug Faneuil, who is, as we remember, the main government witness so far, you could tell he hated Martha Stewart. He hated Peter Bacanovic. He spun everything in the most incriminating way.
Ann Armstrong clearly loves her boss, and that made her testimony that much more devastating, because she didn't want to be there. She was there reluctantly. She knew how bad this testimony was. That's why, I think, she was in tears the day before, because she didn't want to be saying what she was saying, and it hurt a lot.
HEMMER: If you and I have talked about one trial in our time here at CNN, we've talked about 100 times, I have never heard you say, to this day, it was an absolute awful day for a defendant in any court case.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, this -- you know, it's a white-collar case. So, you know, you're not going to have blood on the streets. You're not going to have, you know, eyewitness testimony to a shooting. I mean, this is as bad as it gets in a.white-collar crime case, because alteration of documents comes up all the time in criminal cases, because it is clear evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Now, you know, this case is a long way from over. There is a lot more evidence. The other evidence yesterday involved what testimony Martha Stewart did give to the SEC. There was no transcript to that testimony, so there is confusion about what was actually said, much less whether it was true or not. So, she has a lot of other opportunities for defense. But, you know, I thought it was bad.
HEMMER: Catch your cab back downtown, right? Back in the courtroom. Thanks, Jeff. Talk to you tomorrow.
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 February 11, 2004 - 07:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: More potentially damaging testimony in Martha Stewart's trial. Stewart's assistant told the jury that her boss altered a phone message from her broker concerning ImClone stock, and then wanted to change it back.
Our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, in the courtroom again yesterday, back with us here.
Good morning.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Howdy.
HEMMER: In a word, you say this day was awful for Martha Stewart, and I want you to describe that to us. But let's go ahead and set up what happened in court yesterday. Then we'll talk about it.
Ann Armstrong on the stand yesterday said -- and we can put it on the screen -- "Peter Bacanovic thinks ImClone is going to start trading downward." That was the original message that was given to Martha Stewart.
Then she testified that Stewart came over, typed over that message so it would read, Peter Bacanovic, re: ImClone, regarding ImClone.
And then on the stand yesterday in answering questions Ann Armstrong -- I'm quoting now: "She" -- meaning Martha Stewart -- "instantly stood up and, still standing at my desk, she said 'Put it back, put it back the way it was.'"
How much damage was done with that testimony?
TOOBIN: Enormous, because you have to remember the context. What else was happening this day? What else was happening in this day is that Martha Stewart knew that she was being investigated, and it was serious. And she was meeting with her criminal defense lawyers, and she realized that this phone message was going to be perhaps the critical piece of information in the investigation of her.
So, what does she do? For the first time ever in her life, according to her secretary, she sits down at her secretary's desk, alters a phone message, also a first. Then, in fairness, has second thoughts and says change it back. But it is critical evidence about consciousness of guilt. Why would you sit at a -- why would you alter a phone message, even if you later alter it back, unless you realized it was very incriminating?
HEMMER: So if -- let me play the other side of this.
TOOBIN: Sure.
HEMMER: If she knew it was wrong, that's why she went back and changed it back. Would that not tell the jurors that she wanted to correct the record and make sure she knew and understood that she can't be dealing this way?
TOOBIN: Well, defense attorney, that's possible.
HEMMER: All right, counselor.
TOOBIN: That is one interpretation. But it's just the simple act of altering a document that is incriminating to you. Even if you alter it back or direct that it be altered back, it's very hard to change that impression in the jury.
Even worse for Martha Stewart was the fact that Ann Armstrong was such a reluctant witness. Doug Faneuil, who is, as we remember, the main government witness so far, you could tell he hated Martha Stewart. He hated Peter Bacanovic. He spun everything in the most incriminating way.
Ann Armstrong clearly loves her boss, and that made her testimony that much more devastating, because she didn't want to be there. She was there reluctantly. She knew how bad this testimony was. That's why, I think, she was in tears the day before, because she didn't want to be saying what she was saying, and it hurt a lot.
HEMMER: If you and I have talked about one trial in our time here at CNN, we've talked about 100 times, I have never heard you say, to this day, it was an absolute awful day for a defendant in any court case.
TOOBIN: Well, you know, this -- you know, it's a white-collar case. So, you know, you're not going to have blood on the streets. You're not going to have, you know, eyewitness testimony to a shooting. I mean, this is as bad as it gets in a.white-collar crime case, because alteration of documents comes up all the time in criminal cases, because it is clear evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Now, you know, this case is a long way from over. There is a lot more evidence. The other evidence yesterday involved what testimony Martha Stewart did give to the SEC. There was no transcript to that testimony, so there is confusion about what was actually said, much less whether it was true or not. So, she has a lot of other opportunities for defense. But, you know, I thought it was bad.
HEMMER: Catch your cab back downtown, right? Back in the courtroom. Thanks, Jeff. Talk to you tomorrow.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
