Legal Opinion
United States v. Stewart
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 8, 2004No. 03 CR.717(MGC)PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
Defendants Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic have moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Cr.P. 33 on the ground that an expert witness for the Government has been charged with committing perjury in his testimony. Because there is no reasonable likelihood that this perjury could have affected the jury’s verdict, arid because overwhelming independent evidence supports the verdict, the motions are denied.
BACKGROUND
Stewart and Bacanovic were indicted on criminal charges arising from Martha Stewart’s December 27, 2001 sale of 3,928 shares of stock in ImClone…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- United States v. Wallach, Rusty Kent London, Eugene Robert Wallach, A/K/A "E. Robert (Bob) Wallach," and Wayne Franklyn ChinnCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Avila v. QuartermanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- United States v. Martha Stewart and Peter BacanovicCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- State v. WidmerOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- United States v. MeregildoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- IAR Sys. Software, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.