THEYEARIN BEAUTY.

Holding the Bag

Attorneys have long known that a defendant's appearance can have a powerful effect on a jury. "I used to tell my clients to show up for court dressed as if they were going to church," Court TV's Catherine Crier told the New York Post. Still, there was no reason or legal precedent for the media attack over Martha Stewart's daily trial attire. Pundits gleefully imbued the smallest details with great gobs of hidden meaning. That $6,600 Hermes Birkin bag? Hubris, avarice, defiance. The double strand of pearls? Piety, pride, defiance. The black pantsuit? False contrition, anger, defiance. "She's also guilty of donning an ostentatious mink scarf," screeched the Boston Herald, "a statement that says, 'I'm rich, I'm warm, and I'll never see a day of jail time.'" That's one talkative scarf. Stewart didn't help matters much when she rather implausibly told Barbara Walters that the Birkin was 12 to 15 years old and was the only handbag she owned. (She also said, more plausibly, that the scarf was faux fur.) For all her media savvy, Stewart could do very little to control the frenzy. There was simply too much blood in the water.

Sweet Smell of Success

...