Martha Stewart's lawyers have filed motions for a new trial, according to the USA Today. I guess one of the jurors did not put on his jury questionnaire that he had been arrested on an assault charge that was later dropped.
I'm not sure that lying about this criminal record on the jury questionnaire is enough to prejudice Stewart's trial. It is unfortunate that someone would do that in a courthouse, however, I can't think of any reason the defense would strike someone for that alone. The only argument that seems plausible is that if he had disclosed this information the prosecutors would have used a strike on him. Then the panel would be comprised of different people and the verdict might have been different. This argument strikes me as a little attenuated.
If my liberty was at stake I would cling to whatever argument I could to show that I didn't receive a fair trial. However, if I was a Judge, I would have massive reservations about granting a new trial for this alone.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
That Juror's a liar!
-x-
