There's going to have to be a retrial. This was clearly at some level important testimony. The safest thing to do would be to grant a retrial.

The government is either going to consent to a retrial because the jury verdict was tainted by potentially perjured testimony or the government is going to have to explain to the court why the prejudiced testimony was harmless -- in other words, that the testimony did not influence the jury's verdict.

Where is Martha Stewart going to go?

There's going to have to be a retrial.