Martha Stewart conviction upheld

As detailed in a bunch of news stories linked here at How Appealing, the Second Circuit today affirmed Martha Stewart's and her co-defendant's convictions.  You can access the opinion here, and find an extended summary and commentary here from the White Collar Crime Prof Blog.   I suspect that many may react to this news by wondering, "But wait, didn't she already serve her sentence?"  Of course, Martha did already serve five months behind bars and another five under home confinement, though I think she is still finishing up her two-year period of supervised release.

Beyond that technically, I think the Martha news should prompt some reflection on an important distinction between capital and non-capital cases concerning the pace of appellate review.  Many seek habeas and other reforms to quicken the pace of the review  of capital sentences because defendants are avoiding the application of their sentence during appellate review.  But, for many non-capital defendants, the slow pace of appellate review can sometimes undermine the efficacy of even appealing. As in Martha's case, often a defendant may complete much of their sentence even before an initial appeal gets decided.  (Or, recall the Arthur Andersen convictions overturned by the Supreme Court last year: prevailing on appeal provided little solace to a company that was functionally killed by the initial convictions.)