Supreme Court limits use of 'honest service' fraud law, sides with ex-Enron CEO Skilling

[babylonsister]

High court sides with ex-Enron CEO Skilling

Supreme Court limits use of 'honest service' fraud law, sides with ex-Enron CEO Skilling

MARK SHERMAN
AP News

Jun 24, 2010 11:02 EDT


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that prosecutors erred in using a certain federal fraud statute to convict former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, but left it to a lower appeals court to determine whether his conviction should be overturned.

The justices were unanimous in imposing limits on the use of the "honest services" fraud law that has been a favorite of white-collar crime prosecutors.

The law has been criticized as vague, subjecting people to prosecution for mistakes and minor transgressions in the business and political worlds. Skilling asked that it be struck down as unconstitutional.

But the justices, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said prosecutors may continue to seek honest services fraud convictions in cases where they put forward evidence that defendants accepted bribes or kickbacks.

"Because Skilling's misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback," Ginsburg said, "he did not conspire to commit honest-services fraud under our confined construction" of the law.

Thursday's decision does not necessarily mean that any of the 19 counts against Skilling will be thrown out, Ginsburg said. At the same time, by a 6-3 vote, the court rejected Skilling's claim that he did not get a fair trial in Houston because of the harsh publicity surrounding the case in Enron's hometown.

more...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/06/high_court_sides_with_ex-enron_ceo_skilling_1.php?ref=fpa

[defendandprotect]

1. Corporatism in place .... and it gave us W . . . and is further corrupting our elections!!

[sandnsea]

2. Well it's a unanimous decision

Doesn't anybody even care that there may be some point of law and justice that needs correcting? I don't want to be charged with a business crime if I didn't commit one.

[BzaDem]

3. It actually might not even affect Skilling that much.

It threw out one of the counts he was found guilty of, not all of them. The appeals court will determine whether that affects the rest of the trial or not.

[mod mom]

4. This is weird I used a NYT source for another thread & they since changed it:

original:

Justices Limit Use of ‘Honest Services’ Law Against Fraud
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 24, 2010

-snip starting w 4th paragraph:


The court, at the same time, rejected Mr. Skilling’s assertion that he did not get a fair trial in Houston because of harshly critical publicity surrounding the case in Enron’s hometown.

The court in this ruling also sided with the former newspaper magnate, Conrad Black, setting aside a federal appeals court decision that had upheld Mr. Black’s honest services fraud conviction. But as in Mr. Skilling’s case, the justices left the ultimate resolution of the case to the appeals court.

The justices also threw out an appeals court ruling against Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska legislator who is facing charges under the honest services law.

Thursday’s ruling could affect the continuing prosecution of Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois Governor, and the convictions of Don Siegelman, the former Alabama Governor, and Richard Scrushy, the former chief executive of HealthSouth.

The government argues that both Mr. Skilling’s and Mr. Black’s convictions should be sustained, even with the court’s ruling Thursday.

-snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/business/25bizcourt.html?dbk


Now when you click on the above link you find:

-snip starting at 4th paragraph:

The law has been the subject of frequent criticism in the lower courts for giving potential defendants too little guidance and prosecutors too much discretion.

“How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Judge Dennis Jacobs of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, asked in a 2003 dissent.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in writing the majority decision in both the Skilling and Black cases on Thursday, said the law must be limited to the core offenses of bribes and kickbacks. Mr. Skilling’s conduct, she said from the bench, “entailed no bribe or kickback.”

The court sent both cases back to the lower courts. Mr. Skilling’s lawyers have argued that a decision in his favor should void his entire conviction, which was based on several theories. That, Justice Ginsburg wrote, is “an open question.”

In Mr. Black’s case, the justices instructed the lower courts to reconsider his conviction in light of Thursday’s decision.