Tung Yin caught a disturbing wrinkle in the Martha Stewart case:
One of the jurors in the Martha Stewart trial told reporters that the panel felt Stewart's background as a stockbroker played a part in the verdict and decided early on the second day of deliberations that she was guilty. "She should have known her moves were illegal," he said.
This comment seems to support Prof. Bainbridge's view that Stewart should have been allowed to tell the jury that she was not being prosecuted for insider trading. I suppose it's possible that the juror was referring to something else when he said "she should have known her moves were illegal," but it's hard to connect that to anything other than the stock sale when you tie it into her background as a stockbroker. After all, what Stewart should have known was illegal was lying to the government, which has nothing to do with being a stockbroker.He then speculates on whether the juror's statement gives grounds for appeal as "extraneous prejudicial information."