Stewart Seeks New Trial on Grounds That Juror Lied

Martha Stewart sought a new trial Wednesday arguing that one juror lied on the jury selection questionnaire and made public statements after the trendsetter’s conviction showing his bias against the rich and famous.

The motion papers, filed in Manhattan federal court, said that the juror’s comments to reporters “are glaring proof” of the juror’s state of mind and that Stewart had been cheated of her right to an impartial jury and a fair trial.

The papers concern Chappell Hartridge, who was the first juror to speak to reporters immediately after the jury convicted Stewart of lying to investigators over a suspicious stock sale.

Hartridge, who lives in the Bronx, could not be reached for comment.

“Hartridge’s characterization of the verdict immediately after he was released from jury duty as ‘maybe ... a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market because of these kinds of transactions’ evidences a clear class bias on his part,” the papers said.

Stewart’s lawyers said the fact that Hartridge sought compensation from the media for post-trial interviews shows he wanted to make money from his jury experience.

They described Hartridge as “a man with a checkered history, who deliberately concealed his prior experiences with the legal system so that he could empower the ‘little man’ and profit from the process.”

A spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office had no comment.

“We are reviewing the motion and will respond at the appropriate time,” he said.

Stewart, who built a media empire on tips for gracious living, was found guilty March 5 of conspiring with her former Merrill Lynch stockbroker to hide the reason behind her sale of shares in the biotech company ImClone Systems Inc. on Dec. 27, 2001.

She was convicted of one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings. She is scheduled to be sentenced June 17.

Hartridge was a member of the panel composed of eight women and four men who returned their verdict on the third day of deliberations.

A key part of the argument for a new trial rests on allegations that Hartridge made significant omissions when he answered a questionnaire used to select the panel. Defense lawyers said this information was clearly called for in specific questions and that Hartridge signed the form under penalty of perjury.

In particular, Stewart’s lawyers said he failed to admit that he had been arrested for assault on a woman with whom he was living and that he had been sued on at least three occasions.

Defense lawyers said they would have challenged his inclusion on the jury had they known those facts.