The evidence as presented in her trial assisted the jurors in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty on four of the indictments against her. The jury could not agree that the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stewart and Bacanovic fabricated the $60 sale agreement and acquitted both parties on these counts. Stewart was not found guilty of the crime of insider trading when she sold her ImClone shares on December 27th 2001. She did however settle in 2006 on the case filed against her by the SEC. They had filed a civil case of insider trading against there in 2003 to which she did not admit or refute her guilt to the charge of insider trading, rather she settled.
In my opinion the U.S, Attorneys, and the Securities and Exchange Commission appeared to use sound and consistent judgment in indicting Martha Stewart. The indictments against Stewarts and Bacanovic did not happen until a year after the December 27th 2001 incident. The indictments came on June 4th 2003. This gap of time allowed enough time to investigate the situation at hand while gathering evidence from all involved parties. There is a law on the books against insider trading. The government entities are responsible for persecuting those that break the law. Martha Stewart was found guilty of breaking laws relating to the incident on December 27th, even if she could not be convicted of the crime of insider trading. Based on the information I read I have no reason to believe that prosecutors had additional motives for pursuing the case. When money is involved it is always a motivator, especially when dealing with a case of a crime against someone who is a millionaire. It would not surprise me if there was additional motivation; however the information on the case was very straightforward and businesslike. I did not get any indication that outlying motivation sparked the convictions.