Ms. Stewart's trial-related website, MarthaTalks.com, includes a copy of the 87-page brief her lawyers filed on her behalf with the Second Circuit on October 20, 2004. The brief is very well-written and provides a clear explanation of Ms. Stewart's view of the world. For those without the time or energy to read the whole thing, the four-paragraph "Introduction" pasted below provides a nice summary of her arguments:

INTRODUCTION

Martha Stewart was never charged with insider trading. But a barrage of pretrial leaks and in-court accusations left the indelible impression that she was guilty of that offense. Tarring Stewart with an uncharged, highly inflammatory crime was fundamentally unfair; that unfairness was compounded by rulings that barred Stewart from responding to those charges and prevented the jury from understanding what was—and was not—properly before it. Governmental and juror misconduct further undermined the integrity of the proceedings.

At bottom, Stewart’s trial turned on one question: Why did she sell the last small remnant of her holdings in ImClone Systems, Inc. (“ImClone”) on December 27, 2001? Stewart’s answer: A preexisting agreement with her broker that he would contact her, and she would decide whether to sell, if the price fell to $60 per share or below. If fully accepted, that explanation—corroborated by testimony from a pivotal witness, as well as a critical document—would have negated the Government’s theory of the case and established a firm basis for concluding that, if Stewart made any factual misstatements or material omissions during two interviews with government investigators, she did so because of honest error, faulty memory, or misunderstanding of the specific questions asked.

Two separate constitutional violations, however, seriously undermined the cornerstone of Stewart’s defense. First, in contravention of the Confrontation Clause, the Government used out-of-court testimonial statements by Stewart’s codefendant that were never subject to cross-examination to undermine the one witness who provided independent corroboration of the $60 agreement. Second,
the Government’s efforts to discredit the one corroborating document were led by a high-ranking Secret Service official who even the prosecutors now admit lied on the stand.

In the end, the jury found Stewart guilty of two instances of saying that she did “not recall” having discussed certain matters months previously, and for material false statements or material omissions in response to unrecorded and ambiguous questions about a minor transaction that has not itself been the basis of criminal charges. The process leading to conviction was tainted by: repeated allegations of an uncharged crime that were never rebutted or explained to the jury; the introduction of damaging testimony that was never subject to crossexamination; the use of false testimony condoned by senior Government officials; and, finally, the presence of an outspoken juror who apparently lied to be seated on the panel that judged Stewart a liar. Alone, each of these errors would warrant reversal. Together, they make an overwhelming case for setting aside this verdict.