Stewart requests retrial
NEW YORK — Martha Stewart asked a judge on Thursday to grant her a new trial, citing charges that a government witness at her first trial lied repeatedly on the stand.
The request, considered a long shot by legal experts, came four weeks before Stewart and former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic are to be sentenced for lying about a well-timed stock sale by the celebrity homemaker in 2001.
The motion argues that the conviction is tainted by newly unveiled perjury charges against Larry Stewart, a Secret Service laboratory director who was called as an expert witness at the trial in February.
Prosecutors say Larry Stewart, no relation to Martha Stewart, lied on the stand about the role he played in ink-analysis tests conducted on a worksheet prepared by Bacanovic. Larry Stewart has not entered a plea.
Papers filed in Manhattan federal court called his testimony “pivotal scientific corroboration to a prosecution based primarily on circumstantial evidence.”
“Simply stated, a verdict that rests upon such a corroded foundation cannot stand,” the papers argued.
The filing also said several other Secret Service officials were in court, monitoring the trial, and were aware of the alleged perjury but did not say anything about it.
“Their silence is scandalous and not the way we expect the government to conduct itself,” Martha Stewart’s lawyers, Robert Morvillo and John T. Tigue, said in a statement.
Lawyers for Bacanovic also filed a request for a new trial Thursday, making arguments similar to those in the Martha Stewart motion, said Bacanovic spokesman Lou Colasuonno.
Prosecutors declined to comment. They are expected to oppose both new-trial motions.
The government has insisted the perjury charges do not undermine the convictions. Bacanovic was acquitted on a charge of falsifying a document — the subject at the heart of Larry Stewart’s testimony.
The government called Larry Stewart to discuss a worksheet that prosecutors said Bacanovic doctored by adding a notation of “(at)60” to make Martha Stewart’s sale of ImClone Systems Inc. stock appear to be part of a prior plan.
The main contention of Larry Stewart’s testimony was that the ink used to make the “(at)60” mark was different from ink used on other parts of the worksheet. Defense lawyers never contested that point.
Still, lawyers for Martha Stewart tried to portray Larry Stewart’s testimony as critical to the entire case because it was aimed at discrediting what prosecutors described as a cover story for the stock sale.