|
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -
Prosecutors who put Martha Stewart first behind bars and now under house arrest are opposing her bid for a new sentence in light of a recent Supreme Court decision on sentencing rules.
In an April 1 letter to the New York federal judge who oversaw Stewart's trial and sentencing last year, U.S. attorney David Kelley described Stewart's punishment as both "appropriate" and "lenient."
The six-page missive to U.S. District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum is a response to Stewart's request for a new sentence in light of a Supreme Court ruling in January that found federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory but advisory. That decision effectively gave judges the power to dole out punishments as they see fit, not as the rules dictate.
In light of the high court's decision, courts around the country have been reviewing criminal sentences to see whether they should be lowered or increased. Last month, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals referred Stewart's sentence to Judge Cedarbaum for possible revision.
Stewart, 63, and her former Merrill Lynch stockbroker were convicted and sentenced last year for conspiring to cover up a government insider trading probe of a personal stock sale made by Stewart in late 2001.
Last summer, Judge Cedarbaum sentenced Stewart and Bacanovic to five months in prison each and two years of probation. Stewart was also sentenced to five months of home detention.
Stewart, who chose to serve her prison term early and is now about to begin her second month of house arrest, received the lightest possible sentence under federal guidelines.
Electronic bracelet: not a fashion statement
According to the prosecutors letter to Judge Cedarbaum, Stewart is asking the court to reduce her sentence in one of two ways: one, by freeing her now from home confinement and also probation; or, two, allowing her to work 80 hours per week instead of the 48-hour limit currently in place.
Under the second option, Stewart also wants her electronic ankle bracelet removed and more freedom to travel on business. In a Web chat with supporters last month Stewart complained that the clunky gadget is irritating and uncomfortable.
Stewart cites several factors in her plea for leniency, including her floundering company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (Research). Stewart also highlights her age, her history of charitable deeds, and her law-abiding past.
Stewart has maintained throughout the three year-old scandal that she did nothing wrong when she sold her stake in ImClone Systems (Research) on the eve of a negative public disclosure that pummeled the biotech company's share price.
In arguing for the removal of her ankle monitor, Stewart cites two new television shows set for the fall and now in development. Stewart will star in both a daily syndicated talk show and a spinoff of "The Apprentice" reality show.
Stewart, according to prosecutors, claims the device means she can't wear skirts or dresses during filming and that the limitation hurts her ability to star on television.
"Minor inconvenience to one's ability to star in a television show is insufficient ground for resentencing," prosecutors state in their letter. They also urge Judge Cedarbaum to deny Stewart's request for other reasons, including Stewart's lack of remorse and her company's revitalized stock price.
A big gamble
Legal experts say Stewart is taking a risk by asking a court to revisit her punishment now that the hardest part -- the prison term -- is behind her. They say that prosecutors have little choice but to oppose the move and the resulting battle is likely to resurrect details of the case and Stewart's behavior that are perhaps better left in the past.
Indeed, prosecutors, in their opposition letter to Judge Cedarbaum, dredged up damaging charges about Stewart's alleged filing of one or more fraudulent expense reports to her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.
But David Chesnoff, a Las Vegas-based lawyer for Stewart, defended her request and told CNN/Money that the prosecutors' objections show once more that they are "overreaching" in their pursuit of the lifestyle expert. He said Martha Stewart Living needs her full attention now and he indicated that her confinement is hindering a much-needed turnaround at the company.
Indeed, Martha Stewart Living has paid a steep price for its founder's legal woes. Until Stewart announced her decision to go to jail early rather than await the outcome of her appeal, the company's share price was near all-time lows.
In February, Martha Stewart Living reported its second consecutive annual loss since its 1999 initial public offering due to severe advertising losses in its magazine division, a falloff in sales of Stewart-branded home furnishings at Kmart, and the suspension of its television production unit.
"She went to jail when she didn't have to in order to benefit the company," said Chesnoff. "She's seeking some changes in the sentencing in order to have more time to work. Her company wants her to be able to travel for the company and to be on television. It's part of an overall business plan and the government's reaction is more of their overreaching."
Chesnoff said Stewart will respond to the prosecutors' objections in a formal reply to Judge Cedarbaum that will be filed late Monday or Tuesday.
It's not clear when Judge Cedarbaum will rule on Stewart's sentencing request. Stewart's lawyers have asked, over prosecutors' objections, for a court hearing on the matter.
Meanwhile, there is no set timetable for the appeals court to rule on Stewart's case. A decision could take weeks or months.
|
