NewsMax Wires
Friday, Apr. 02, 2004

Attorneys for the homemaking authority argued in court papers Wednesday that she deserves a new trial because juror Chappell Hartridge failed to disclose a 1997 arrest on assault and charges he stole from a Little League organization.

Stewart attorney Robert 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.

Hartridge did not return a message left at a number listed in his name; an alternate number at his Bronx address was out of service.

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 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."

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

Stewart was convicted March 5 of obstructing justice and lying about her sale of a block of biotechnology 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 win "for the little guy." Stewart's attorneys said that showed his bias against Stewart.

Paul Summit, a former federal prosecutor in Boston, said that 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.

"There are not substantial grounds for appeal yet," he said.

© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Editor's note: