Stewart Unlikely to Get New Trial, Legal Experts Say

Martha Stewart’s claim that one of the jurors who convicted her lied about his arrest record is unlikely to win her a new trial, legal experts said Thursday.

Attorneys for Stewart argued in court papers Wednesday that she deserved a new trial because juror Chappell Hartridge failed to disclose a 1997 arrest on charges of assault and stealing from a Little League organization.

Stewart attorney Robert G. Morvillo said he would not have selected Hartridge had he known the man was accused of threatening to kill the woman he was living with and throwing her into a statue in her apartment.

But experts said that even if Stewart proved that Hartridge was dishonest, she would have to show that his background affected deliberations.

“They really have to show that this juror was simply unfit to serve, that he had some kind of bias that prevented Martha Stewart from receiving a fair trial,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor.

Trial experts said that to prove the charges leveled by Stewart’s lawyers, Hartridge would have to testify at an evidentiary hearing, which a judge would want to avoid at all costs.

“Judges want to avoid the perception that jurors themselves are being put on trial,” Mintz said. “This could open up a sideshow.”

Lawyers for Peter E. Bacanovic, the former Merrill Lynch & Co. broker convicted of plotting with Martha Stewart to obstruct justice, plan to join Stewart’s request for a new trial, Bacanovic spokesman Lou Colasuonno said Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum has not ruled on Stewart’s request. A spokesman for the government, Marvin Smilon, said prosecutors were reviewing the filing.

Stewart was convicted last month of obstructing justice and lying about her sale of a block of ImClone Systems Inc. stock just before it plunged in price. She faces sentencing June 17 and is widely expected to get 10 to 16 months in prison.

Hartridge was one of the most vocal jurors after the verdict, publicly calling Stewart’s conviction a victory “for the little guy.” Stewart’s attorneys said his remarks showed a bias against Stewart.

Paul Summit, a former federal prosecutor in Boston, said requests for a new trial based on juror misconduct rarely are filed because attorneys do not often have the facts to back up such claims.

But he said this claim may be the strongest thing Stewart’s attorneys have. Because the judge ruled frequently for Stewart throughout trial, dismissing the most serious charge of securities fraud against her, the defense has few rulings it can challenge, Summit said.