NEW YORK — Martha Stewart will have to wait to find out whether any of the charges against her will be thrown out, after a judge reserved decision until testimony is finished.

Judge Miriam Cedarbaum said she would rule whether to toss a securities fraud count, which carries a 10-year term, after both sides rest. The prosecution finished presenting its case Friday, and the defense continues to call witnesses this week.
 
The ruling could affect whether Stewart takes the stand in her own defense.

Stewart, 62, is on trial in Manhattan federal court on five counts stemming from a Dec. 27, 2001, trade of biotech firm ImClone stock. Though not charged with insider trading, she stands accused of conspiring with her former stock broker, Peter Bacanovic, to cover up the alleged reason for the sale. Prosecutors say Stewart only sold after learning that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal was selling his $7.5 million of stock in the company.

Stewart and Bacanovic, who was also Waksal's broker, maintain she only sold her shares that day because of a pre-existing agreement they made to dump the stock when it dipped to $60 a share.

Meanwhile, while Stewart's assistant and best friend dealt blows to her case as state witnesses, her financial manager came through for the home maven by corroborating the $60 agreement.

Up to six weeks before Stewart's sale of ImClone, testified Heidi DeLuca, Bacanovic wanted to safeguard the stock — which she said he described as a "dog" — by setting a sale price of $60 or $61.

Bill Cosby made an appearance at the proceedings Monday to show support for Stewart. The comedian, and Jell-0 spokesman, even brought boxes of the quick-mix dessert for defense lawyers.

Bacanovic's lawyer, Robert Strassberg, called to the stand the former lawyer for star government witness Douglas Faneuil, but his testimony did little to undermine Faneuil's four days on the stand. 

Jeremiah Gutman, a Manhattan civil rights lawyer who initially represented Faneuil, Bacanovic's assistant at Merrill Lynch, said the 28-year-old was afraid of executives at the brokerage powerhouse.

"He told me these were merciless and immoral people. He started to cry," Gutman testified. Faneuil originally denied that Stewart had been informed about the Waksal shares. He had testified his former lawyer had told him to be truthful but to "stick to his story" but that it was "impossible to do both."

According to Gutman, early discussions with Merrill Lynch attorneys indicated they were working out a deal with the government to quash the investigation into the firm's employees in exchange for cooperation the criminal investigation into Waksal.

Faneuil eventually changed his story and told investigators that he himself, acting on Bacanovic's orders, passed Stewart the tip over the phone.

But on the stand Monday, the 80-year-old Gutman said he had instructed Faneuil to retain independent counsel instead of Merrill Lynch lawyers in case he had to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination.

Gutman figured prominently in the trial weeks before taking the stand Monday, since a transcript turned over late to the defense had him telling investigators that either Bacanovic or Waksal had instructed Faneuil to tip off Stewart.

But, surprisingly, the furor that raged early in the trial over that issue resulted in no questions from defense lawyers about the confusion.

Gutman, however, repeatedly referred to Merrill Lynch lawyer David Marcus as "Adler," only to request a correction of the court record before he stepped down from the witness stand.

"I'm terrible at names," he said.

Robert Morvillo, Stewart's defense attorney, also argued to dismiss the conspiracy charge, blasting prosecutors' theory that both defendants cited the pre-existing agreement not because of a cover-up, but because it was true.

"The mere fact she says the same thing Mr. Bacanovic says at a different time is not sufficient evidence of a conspiracy,"  Morvillo said.

Cedarbaum ruled the defense cannot call expert witnesses to refute insider trading references contained in the indictment, since the charging document is not considered evidence and the jury does not have to consider motive in reaching a verdict. Introducing such testimony would "totally mislead and confuse the jury," Cedarbaum said.

But the decision did not sit well with Morvillo, who seemed to hint at the basis for a possible appeal.

"I wish your honor told us that in October," Morvillo told Cedarbaum. "You altered our ability to adequately defend this case."