Court TV Host: Martha Stewart was indicted Wednesday on securities fraud and obstruction of justice charges that could result in a prison term. The indictment also charged Stewart with conspiracy and making false statements and her stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic, with perjury and obstruction of justice. We're going to talk about the case with Gerald Lefcourt, a past President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a founder of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Court TV Host: Welcome, Gerald Lefcourt. Anything you'd like to say you didn't get a chance to on air?

Gerald Lefcourt: The thing that really didn't ring true about the whole Martha Stewart situation was when the US attorney said that the charges had nothing to do with who Martha Stewart is. To me, if it wasn't Martha Stewart, a famous person, she never would have been indicted.

Question from MarthaRocks: What proof do they have that Martha is guilty?

Gerald Lefcourt: Well, they only charged her with lying. They didn't charge her with insider trading, which is what the whole investigation was about. And the lying was not under oath.

Question from EugeV: What was the arrest procedure for Ms. Stewart? Was she fingerprinted, handcuffed?

Gerald Lefcourt: She was told to appear and, once there, she was taken into custody and interviewed as to her pedigree, where she lives, where she works, that sort of thing and then she was brought before a judge to plead guilty or not guilty and then released on bail.

Question from IWANTMERLOT: Do you think that the SEC is using Martha as example rather than pursuing Enron?

Gerald Lefcourt: I think that pursuing Martha Stewart they get a lot of publicity, and by doing that they don't have to work very hard going through all the records to get an Enron or Worldcom executive.

Question from mj: How many men have NOT gone to Jail for doing far worse?

Gerald Lefcourt: Just in the recent investigations of large businesses of Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, and Global Crossing, people have lost trillions of dollars. And in Martha Stewart's case, it involves $45,000 of profit and she was not charged with obtaining it through insider trading.

Question from pacific: What is Martha Stewart's financial worth? Do you know?

Gerald Lefcourt: I don't know, but it's certainly more than $100 million.

Question from RoadDogKing: She obstructed justice; you don't have to be under oath if you lie with the specific intent of misleading the police. She committed a crime, and the law should apply to everyone, don't you agree? Who did she think she was, President Clinton?

Gerald Lefcourt: Yes, I agree in theory, but these statements were on a telephone, and not even transcribed so it will be a contest as to whether the notes were accurate, made by somebody on the other end of the phone. It is highly unusual to have a case like that.

Question from JudgeGuilty: Supposedly she misled her investors...right?

Gerald Lefcourt: Well, the government theory is that by saying she's not guilty, she misled investors, and therefore committed securities fraud. This is a theory that has never been used in a criminal case before. They are in effect saying that she denied insider trading so that the price of her stock would not go down. But they did not charge her with insider trading. Doesn't that seem silly?

Question from EugeV: What do you think is the most serious charge and how hard will it be to prove?

Gerald Lefcourt: The most serious charge is the securities fraud charge, because if she is found guilty she will be responsible under the sentencing guidelines for the amount of money the investors lost because of her saying she's not guilty.

Question from RoadDogKing: FOLLOW-UP!!... She is being prosecuted for lying during the investigation and attempting to change e-mails, correct?

Gerald Lefcourt: The indictment says that she went into the computer at her company to change a message that she received, but then didn't change it. And it is in the indictment to try to give the flavor that she was intending to obstruct justice.

Question from MarthaRocks: Will Martha be able to get a fair trial?

Gerald Lefcourt: That's a very difficult question, because I think she's the most famous person ever to be indicted in this country, because Clinton was impeached, not indicted. The only person who came close in fame was OJ Simpson, and he wasn't nearly as famous at the time he was first indicted.

Question from EugeV: How seriously will this arrest affect her public company?

Gerald Lefcourt: Well, the stock went up today, but I think it will many months before her trial and her company is bound to take a pounding because it will be months before she comes to trial and the uncertainty will cause investors to shy away.

Question from JudgeGuilty: Who's her attorney?

Gerald Lefcourt: A very experienced white collar criminal defense attorney names Robert Morvillo. He was a former federal prosecutor in the office that indicted her and is very well known in securities cases.

Question from MarthaRocks: Don't you think she will fight & win? After all, she has fought her entire life.

Gerald Lefcourt: I think she will fight, and she has a very good chance of winning. I think that jurors are not going to be selected who, like the public, despise rich and famous people.

Question from sec: Gerald...in the 'worst case' scenario what could Martha face as sentencing?

Gerald Lefcourt: If she is convicted of the securities fraud charge, and they prove millions of losses, she could spend years in jail, in the range of three to five years, and restitution of millions. If she's convicted of the securities fraud charge.

Question from massviewer: What is the difference between 'making false statements' (Martha's charge) and perjury (her co-defendant's)?

Gerald Lefcourt: Perjury is taking an oath to tell the truth and then intentionally lying. Making false statements as charged here is not under oath.

Question from MarthaRocks: Settle out of court?

Court TV Host: Do you think the feds want or expect her to plea?

Gerald Lefcourt: Yes, they do want her to plea, but she's already rejected that, and is likely to go to trial.

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts?

Gerald Lefcourt: I think we're in for an extremely high profile trial and unfortunately, federal courts do not allow cameras, otherwise it would be of world-wide interest.

Court TV Host: Thank you very much for being our guest today.

Gerald Lefcourt: Thank you.