Martha Stewart's Legal Troubles As Research Paper

Stewart and Bacanovic were convicted.

But for others there are still many questions about the case and the motivations of the prosecutors. Paul Craig Roberts (2004) believes the prosecutor criminalized Stewart's exercise of her constitutional right to declare her innocence. Claiming it constituted fraud for her to declare her innocence.

Nancy Shaw (2003) offers the opinion that the prosecutors charged Stewart with lying about a crime they cannot prove she committed. Shaw's theorizes that the reason for this is to make an example out of a celebrity's small infractions, comprising widely accepted business practices, trumped into allegations of wrongdoing and manipulation.

Joan Hemingway (2007) asserts the system and enforcement of insider trading regulations present opportunities for selective enforcement and the exercise prosecutorial bias. These prospects for selectivity and bias are due to the unclear and imprecise substance of the insider trading regulation and the unrestricted nature of the overlapping enforcement processes. Because of this, the potential for an actual witch hunt exists in which trading regulations may be used as a tool in a goal-oriented process to root out and punish market participates in accordance with a social, political, or economic agenda. Hemingway (2007) believes the Stewart case only emphasizes the need to assemble additional information regarding selectivity and bias in insider trading enforcement and institute reform.

References

Hemingway, J.M. (2007). Martha Stewart's legal troubles. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Hoffman, D. (2007, Summer). Martha Stewart's Insider trading case: A practical application of rule 2.1. Georgetown journal of legal ethics. BNET. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200707/ai_n19511828/pg_2/?tag=content;col1

Kennon, J. (NDI). Understanding insider trading: definition, history, and punishment. About.com. The New York Times Company. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/newinvestors/a/102702a.htm

NAI. (2004, March 9). Musings on Martha. In Our Opinion.Center for Individual Freedom. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/musings_on_martha.htm.

Rawls, K, L. (2009). Martha Stewart and insider trading. Faculty publications and presentations, Liberty University School of Business. DigitalCommons@ Liberty University. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=busi_fac_pubs

Richman, S. (2003, September). The fraud of insider-trading law, part 1. The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0309c.asp

Roberts, P.C. (2004, February 4). Fake crimes. LewRockwell.com. Creators Syndicate. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts29.html

Salceda, I.E., & Rodda, B. (1998). Getting the appropriate misappropriators: An analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. O'Hagan. About.com. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich, & Rosati. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://beginnerinvest.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&Ti=1&sdn= http://beginnersinvest & cdn=money&tm=190&gps=503_313_0_0&f=00&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.law.com/.regionals/ca/briefing/wilson/wilson21.html

Shaw, N. (2003) Martha Stewart does insider trading. Social text, Vol.21 Issue 4, 51-67. Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=17&sid=7bb9684e-b8d5-4a2b-8a59-e63415e80d72%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=12173672#db=aph&AN=12173672

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2006, August 7)Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic agree to settle SEC insider trading charges. SEC v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovi, 03 Civ. 4070 (RJH) (S.D.N.Y.). Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr19794.htm.....