I always thought the domestic diva got the worst legal advice money could buy in this case. At least it was consistent: bad advice, right up to the verdict. I wonder if she is that type of intimidating “client” that you just can’t give any bad news to? I would have thought that these experienced lawyers would have told her “straight” from the outset: fess up – you made a terrible mistake (it would be difficult for her to say she didn’t know what her broker was telling her was “insider information” – for God’s sake she was a stockbroker herself at one time - but I suppose she could have tried something along that line) and take your lumps. If they didn’t tell her straight, they should be doing the time along with her. I wonder if they got “written instructions” from her with respect to the defence strategy (ie. Martha not taking the stand)? What’s the law on “ineffective representation”? Can she sue? It seems obvious that the jury believed that she thought she was “too good for them” to have to tell them her side of the story. Maybe she would have gone over like a lead balloon anyway, and may be the strategy now is to fire the legal team, hire new gunslingers for the appeal and blame the old team. I don’t see that she has much choice. Did you know that a plain grey prison blanket can be turned into an attractive “throw”?<p><i>Later</i>: Now I hear that one of the reasons she didn't "fess up" was that the Feds didn't care to "deal" and still wanted her to prosecute her, in order to, at the very least, embarrass her and to see her do "hard time". In that case, she would have had all the sympathy the media could muster esp. for such a paltry amount of "profit", as everyone makes mistakes, even Martha. She could have donated twice that amount to a local woman's shelter. She then would have made mince-meat out of these "mean spirited, out-for-blood" prosecutors. You know, "the killing the flea with the howitzer" thing. Too bad she didn't see it that way. She got terrible, terrible advice.