We also have doubts about what "message" this conviction really does send about lying. In hindsight we can now see that had Miss Stewart said absolutely nothing at all when investigators came calling, she would not be facing jail time today. Our guess is that the corporate defense lawyers are a more reliable guide about the message of this prosecution, and right now they're pretty much all agreed that the real lesson here is to zip up completely when the FBI starts calling. Hard to see how this is a big victory for transparency.

The Journal points out this wonderful quote from Justice Ginsberg in another case, U.S. v. Brogan, about 18 USC Section 1001, the false statement statute of which Martha was convicted:

The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator -- aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case -- will create a crime by surprising the subject, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial."

The real victims here, the Journal points out, are the shareholders of Martha's company--victims of Martha? No. They are victims of the prosecution.

...in a case ostensibly brought on behalf of sticking up for the forgotten "little guy," we'd like to think prosecutors might have weighed the price paid by the truly innocent here: all the Martha Stewart Living shareholders, employees, executives, and so forth whose livelihoods have suffered tremendously since this case first broke into the headlines and whose futures, like their company, are now in limbo. And it's not just Miss Stewart's company: Kmart, a big buyer of Martha's products, is going to take a hit too.

The Journal concludes:

In short, in the Schadenfreude afterglow of Martha Stewart's conviction we also see before us the innocent people who will pay the highest price for that prosecution, as well as a huge new incentive for CEOs to clam up next time the feds ask questions. If only the benefits to "the American public" cited by the U.S. Attorney were equally clear.