I just read — but have no way of linking to — an article by lawyer Alan Dershowitz over on the Wall Street Journal site, beyond the portals through which only subscribers may pass. Like most Dershowitz articles, the subtext is, "I would have done a better job for her than the yutz she had defending her," but he makes a pretty strong case that Martha Stewart should not have been convicted. I'm sorry this piece is not more widely available because you'd enjoy reading it, and I'd enjoy seeing others read and discuss it. That is to say, I'd like to read a good rebuttal to it. I tend to respect Professor Dershowitz when he's not defending O.J. or promoting himself, but I find it hard to believe that the evidence of an unfair prosecution is as strong as he makes it out to be in this piece. Let me know if you see a good response somewhere, or even a means of linking to the article itself.
Speaking of Martha Stewart, I recommend you spend the time (a bit under seven minutes) it'll take you to watch this report on the verdict from The Daily Show With Jon (no relation) Stewart, especially the second part which shows highlights of CNBC's confused coverage. The Comedy Central series features some of the cleverest comedy writing done today but sometimes even their crew can't top just showing actual news footage and cutting to Jon's horrified expressions.