NYT: Big Test Looms for Prosecutors at Enron Trial

[lanlady]

In the court of public opinion, they were convicted long ago. But as Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling, the onetime leaders of Enron, step into a court of law next week, the outcome of their fraud trial is far from certain, creating one of the most closely watched and hotly contested white-collar criminal cases ever.

On one side of the Houston federal courtroom starting Monday will be two top-flight teams of defense lawyers, who will be taking the risky approach of proclaiming many of the controversial actions of Enron and some much-criticized statements of their clients to be legal and truthful.

On the other, the prosecutors for the Justice Department's Enron Task Force, who have racked up an impressive array of guilty pleas in the case, but whose performance at trial has been decidedly less dazzling....

http://tinyurl.com/anmhj

[chascaz]

1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

Neither is just plain ignorance.

Peace - :)

[chat_noir]

2. "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" DVD released last week

"Powerful on many levels at once, Enron couldn’t be more necessary as we wade into the muck of a second Bush term." - Peter Hanson, FILM THREAT

"The movie helps the average American understand the nature of the shell games perpetuated by Enron and how 'synergistic corruptions' can corrupt absolutely." - Marjorie Baumgarten, AUSTIN CHRONICLE


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/enron_the_smartest_guys_in_the_room/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/externalreviews

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/miscsites

[Lasher]

3. Who says you can't buy justice?

Mr. Skilling alone has some two dozen people, half of them lawyers, working full time at a makeshift office near the courthouse. Several more are employed as trial consultants helping with jury selection, which begins Monday.

This is just wrong. Rich people get to buy themselves a much better chance of a favorable verdict. If I were tried for a crime, Mr. Skilling's advantages and mine shouold be exactly the same. As it is, they certainly are not. Justice is not blind.

On edit: typo

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. Also where is the money for his legal team coming from?

Are those he bilked millions from, paying for his defense? Talk about adding insult to injury!

[Jose Diablo]

5. Isn't Owens on the Federal Appellate Court in Texas?

Will it even matter if Skilling and Lay are convicted in the lower level court?

[Igel]

6. It'll be interesting to follow the trial, and the appeals.

Andersen was found not guilty, ultimately, but paid the price anyway.

The paragraph I found most interesting:

"There is also one final challenge, which experts refer to as the Simon problem. In a decision from the early 1970's in United States v. Simon, a federal court held that compliance with accounting rules is not, in itself, enough to disprove an accusation of fraud. In that case, the court held that there was also a positive duty for full and fair disclosure under the securities laws, which might not be met simply by following generally accepted accounting principles."

So just following GAAP isn't enough, apparently. I wonder how the US v Simon wound up defining 'fair'.

And it's always worth, for accuracy's sake, to note that there's a difference between when the scandal broke, and when the violations are alleged to have occurred.

[Mithras61]

7. Why do I get the feeling...

that the NYT & prosecutors agree that members of the jury pool are too stupid to understand the case? Maybe it's this statement...

...the government is expected to keep this trial as simple as possible to avoid confusing and boring the jury.