Jeff Skilling, the former CEO of Enron now serving jail time after being convicted on multiple charges stemming from that debacle, gets his day in the Supreme Court.
Skilling now asks the court to grapple with two issues about the four-month trial. One is whether Houston was the right place for it. Skilling argues that prejudicial pretrial publicity and the effect of Enron’s collapse on the Houston community combined to create a tainted jury pool the government could not prove was acceptable.
Second, Skilling argues the prosecutors used an unconstitutionally vague law to convict him. He was accused in some of the charges of failing to provide Enron his “honest services.” Skilling argues he was working for the benefit of his employer and that the flawed theory taints all 19 of his convictions.
[…]
Ellen Podgor, a white-collar crime expert and law professor at Stetson University College of Law, said many expect the high court to rewrite or jettison the honest services law. Two other honest services cases before the high court this term involve Conrad Black, a media mogul accused of defrauding his company, and Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska legislator accused of improperly soliciting work from a business that had a matter before the lawmakers.
She said in those cases the justices pelted the government with questions about the possible vagueness of the honest services statute, and the Skilling case brings questions of its constitutionality even more squarely into focus. “One can anticipate some amount of toughness on the government on this issue,” Podgor said.
Here’s coverage of the arguments the attorneys made before the Court. I think we have a pretty good idea at this point about what kind of issues this Supreme Court really cares about. I won’t be surprised if Skilling gets at least a partial victory. Hair Balls and Tom Kirkendall have more.