Stubbornly, Martha Stewart insisted upon her innocence. Her strategy of trying to trivialize the federal investigation into her stock sale had failed miserably. The trial was proof of that. But even though she was being prosecuted, she and her attorneys had the chance to mount a case on her behalf that would convince the jury of her innocence.
She refused to do that, and thus she made another huge mistake.
Why did she remain so passive during the trial? Why did she and her attorneys act as if they had no obligation to show proof of her innocence?
Both the media and the jury wanted to hear from her; they wanted her attorneys to present evidence that would exonerate her. Instead, an unsmiling, sullen Martha ...