America hopes to indict Martha Stewart on charges of insider trading. This is not new… America hopes to indict Martha Stewart on charges of insider trading. This is not new information, as the issue has been quite public since the investigation began more than a year ago.

Freedom of the press demands that this information be made public, but for Stewart, such publicity might be unfair punishment. Given the value of her reputation, it is possible that such information should be private until she has either been acquitted or convicted, possibly years from now.

My familiarity with Martha Stewart is limited to having purchased her plates at K-Mart. Also, bowls and a platter. They’re good plates and bowls, and the platter is also good, as measured by their ability to have food products on or in them.

The quality of her products has not been affected by the controversy surrounding her sale of 4,000 shares of stock in December 2001. People purchase her products because they bear her name. Now that her reputation is not as pristine as her silverware, the same people seem to have taken their shopping dollars elsewhere.

Innocence until the proof of guilt is a virtue of the American justice system, not necessarily of the American populace.

Since reports of the alleged insider trading, stock in Stewart’s company – Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia – fell from $19 per share, to an October low of $5.47, according to a June 3 New York Times article. The same article also noted that, on June 3, the stock fell by a margin of $1.89 per share. This drop came, consequently, on the same day that her company made public the expectation of an impending criminal indictment.

Clearly, Stewart has taken a hit as a result of the investigation.

Stewart sold 4,000 shares of stock in ImClone Systems, at about $58 per share. Allegedly, she did so in order to preempt stock losses resulting from the announcement that Erbitux – a cancer remedy manufactured by the company – had been rejected by the Food and Drug Administration.

Assuming the extreme scenario that, as a result of this announcement, the stock would have fallen to a price of $0, she stood to lose about $232,000. Judging from the stock losses her company has suffered, I imagine she has lost more than that as a result of the public investigation.

Serves her right – if she’s guilty.

But her guilt has not been determined, yet the punishment ensues.

My perspective of the American ideal leads me to find Martha Stewart – though not her kitchenware – rather distasteful. But the same ideal leads me to believe that the investigation has been inherently un-American, merely because it has been public.

The nature of celebrity in America is such that there would be a scandal if Stewart blew her nose on her shirt. She has a particular image, and failing to live up to that image will cost her dearly.

It comes as no surprise, then, that being infamous for alleged insider trading has had severe financial repercussions for her.

We need to keep in mind, however, that she hasn’t actually been proven guilty of anything. Most Americans, I imagine, would be more than capable of presuming innocence in the jury box. It’s expecting a lot, however, to ask us to be objective on a daily basis.

In cases like this one, where objectivity is the American way of doing things, the American thing to do would be to keep the investigation quiet. Otherwise, Stewart is being effectively punished before her guilt is certain.

At the same time, freedom of the press, equally American and equally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is essential to make sure our courts are accountable to the public.

These guaranteed rights, in this case, seem to be at odds. It’s simply not fair to say that the rights of the individual supersede those of the public or vice-versa.

Moreover, her crime was not a violent one, and while her alleged crime may have hurt others, no one is in immediate danger of losing life or limb. She is not a menace of whom the public needs to be aware.

For my money, defendants in cases such as this should have the right to decide. The absence of press coverage at a trial may compromise the fairness of the trial, but the victim, in this case, would be Stewart. Moreover, as a friend of mine suggested, the revelation that Stewart had chosen a private trial would convince consumers of her guilt – even if Stewart were acquitted.

It seems clear, then, that Stewart, and defendants in the same position, should have the opportunity to decide whether public defamation would be worse than a judge with the gloves off.

Marty Flaherty hopes Martha Stewart is guilty. He’s wondering how she could make a prison cell seem homey, and if her silverware works well for shank purposes. Reach him at [email protected].