On the heels of my earlier post today on Richard Chesnoff’s NY Daily News op-ed, I clicked on the television to watch Martha Stewart‘s statement after her sentencing. Much to my surprise, my old friend David Chesnoff — one of Las Vegas’ best attorneys and Richard’s younger brother — was standing there next to Martha. Looks like Martha is strengthening her legal team.
Chez and I struck up our long friendship while toiling together for the same Houston law firm in our first job of out of law school in 1979-80. After practicing civil trial law for a year, Chez decided that he wanted to practice criminal defense law, so he took a job in Vegas. He and I loaded everything he owned into and on top of his late model Fiat and we embarked on a legendary road trip down I-10 from Houston to Vegas. Chez quickly established himself in the Vegas criminal defense bar, and has risen to the top of his profession over the past 24 years.
Adding Chessie to your legal team is a good move, Martha.
And, as usual, Professor Ribstein puts Martha’s sentence and the sentence given in the sad case of Jamie Olis in proper perspective.

Mark Belnick, the former Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison partner who was Tyco’s general counsel during the Dennis Kozlowski scandals, was acquitted yesterday of corporate fraud charges that involved an allegedly unapproved $15 million bonus and $14 million in personal real estate loans.
The article on the acquittal provides the normal exaggerations regarding the impact of the acquittal on prosecutors and defense attorneys, suggesting that it will make the former more cautious in future white collar prosecutions and that it will make the latter bolder in defending hte cases. In reality, the acquittal has very little effect in that regard.
However, the article does provide the following important information about the trial:

Mr. Belnick relied on the advice of the chief financial officer, Mr. Swartz, on the propriety and the disclosure of the relocation loans, Mr. Weingarten [Belnick’s defense attorney] told the jury. “There was nothing unusual, extraordinary or improper about seeking advice from that source,” he said.
Over nearly a week of testimony, Mr. Belnick essentially stuck to that argument, saying that he had done nothing wrong, had not intended to do anything wrong and had relied on advice from people he had no reason to distrust.

So, Mr. Belnick did what neither Martha Stewart nor Jamie Olis elected to do — i.e., testified during his criminal trial.
Although the temptation is great not to have a white collar criminal defendant testify during a trial and the decision can always be defended on technical grounds, the bottom line is that jurors want to hear what the white collar defendant has to say regarding the criminal charges. The decision not to testify is not the only reason that Ms. Stewart and Mr. Olis were convicted, but my experience is that the risk of conviction in white collar criminal prosecutions increases substantially if the jurors do not hear directly from the defendant.