home

5th Cir. to Hear Skilling's Enron Appeal

Bump and Update: White Collar Crime Blog is following the developments. The issues to be argued are these.

Update: Here' s a preliminary news report on the hearing.

***

Original Post

Former Enron CFO Jeff Skilling, serving a 24 year sentence in federal prison, has his day in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

By all accounts, he has a very good chance of getting a reversal on most of the counts he was convicted on. [More...]

Skilling could be freed from prison pending a new trial, or be relieved of criminal convictions altogether. And the government, which hasn't fared well in most other Enron appeals, could lose its biggest prize in the Enron scandal.

Thanks to an appeals ruling in a separate Enron case, issued less than two months after Skilling was convicted in 2006, legal experts say Skilling has a strong chance to get most — and perhaps all — of his 19 convictions overturned.

What was the error?

That error, as cited in Skilling's appeal, was prosecutors' contention that his behavior robbed Enron of his "honest services." The government used that argument in obtaining a conspiracy conviction that was linked to most of Skilling's 18 other convictions.

Soon after Skilling's trial, an appeals panel rejected the "honest services" theory prosecutors used in gaining convictions against participants in Enron's sale of three barge-mounted power plants — which the government alleged was a disguised loan.

The 2-1 ruling said that the "honest services" issue didn't apply because the defendants didn't steal, embezzle or otherwise take money or property, and their actions were aligned with corporate goals.

The judges hearing the appeal will be 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, 5th Circuit Judge Edward Prado and U.S. District Judge Alia Ludlum of Del Rio. Smith was one of the judges on the panel that overturned the convictions of Kevin Howard, the former finance chief for Enron's broadband division. I'm a big fan of Judge Prado (he was an early vocal opponent of mandatory minimum sentences.)

As for Skilling, I think 24 years is way too harsh a sentence for any non-violent criminal. Especially when other culpable defendants get 6 years because they cooperated and told the Government's truth. I hope he wins his appeal.

< Poll: Hillary Outperforms Obama Against McCain in OH, FL, PA | Dean: FL Delegates Will Be Seated >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think 24 years is too harsh also. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:18:25 PM EST
    But as a layman,i'm curious. How is it argued that "their actions were aligned with corporate goals" when their actions led to the company's bankruptcy? It seems that their actions specifically put the company at undue risk.

    I am not current on the Skilling case (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    but wasn't there securities fraud involved? I mean did not Enron executives hide accounts off-shore and  provide misleading information to Wall Street analysts and to their auditors in order to manipulate the stock price and hence their own net worth?

    While I agree that a 24-year sentence is too harsh certainly 10 year sentence, a life-time ban from a financial role in a publicly traded firm and a stiff fine seem in order. People lost their life savings and Enron's manipulation of the energy markets had an effect on California's political landscape.

    Why is 24 years too harsh (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:28:17 PM EST
    for somebody who ruined so many innocent people's lives?  I think it's the other way around, the 6 years the others got is wayyy too lenient.

    If it were up to me, I'd sentence "white collar" criminals who destroy other people's financial security just as harshly as criminals who destroy other people's lives through physical violence.  I honestly don't see the difference.

    This is one class of criminal where I think punishment really does serve as a deterrent to egregiously bad behavior.

    I'm only sorry Kenny Boy didn't get to spend 10 or 20 years in prison.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#22)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    This is a criminal defense oriented blog (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:06:35 AM EST
    I shake my head in disbelief that so many commenters here are as conservative as Repbulicans when it comes to crime and punishment. You are the ones who should not be called progressives.

    If you asked 25,000 criminal defense lawyers whether 24 years was too stiff a sentence, I'd bet 24,000 would say yes. The remaining 1,000 would be ex-prosecutors that recently changed sides and haven't changed their mindset yet.

    This is not a blog that supports victims' rights, it's a blog that supports the rights of people accused of crime.

    If that makes you uncomfortable, please visit a blog more to your way of thinking. But don't mock  our positions. It's you that is the ill-fitting piece, not us.

    I support the rights of the accused (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST
    I believe in a fair trial, and recognize that accused criminals often face poor odds in terms of getting a fair deal from the courts. That said, I still think that the punishment has to fit the crime, and the people involved in this crime have a lot to answer for. They defrauded thousands of people, causing untold pain and suffering. This wasn't a case of some innocent bookkeeping errors, or even one of people simply getting in over their heads and lying to cover up the problem. These men set out to game the financial system and profit themselves, taking money out of the pockets of hard-working people in the process. They were nothing more than high level con men taking advantage of investor's and employees who thought that they could win against a rigged system. I can't say that 24 years is appropriate, but I'm very glad that there are stiff sentences being handed down. It's not right that some people steal a few thousand dollars and get years in prison, while people who steal millions get a slap on the hand.

    Parent
    After re-reading the comment I was replying to (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:07:37 AM EST
    it was so filled with insults that I deleted it.

    Parent
    I consider myself (none / 0) (#25)
    by eric on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    criminal defense friendly and agree that 24 years is probably a bit too harsh, but I would say that he should get at least half of that.  You note that 24 is too much for a non-violent criminal.  However, this guy is, in my view, at least as evil as a violent offender.  Actually, he is worse because many violent offenders do not do what he did - commit his crime with the benefit of cool deliberation.  He is a monster for what he did to this company, the shareholders, the employees, the state of California, and this country in general.

    A harsh penalty in Mr. Skilling's case also does something that a harsh penalty for a violent offender does not - it actually has a good chance of deterring others of doing something like this.

    Ordinarily, I find myself disagreeing with the length of criminal sentences.  They are far too harsh.  I think that most liberals do.  But I do think that in a case like this, some liberals and progressives might not be as forgiving.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    I shake my head in disbelief that so many commenters here are as conservative as Repbulicans when it comes to crime and punishment.

    Being a Clinton supporter does not necessarily translate into being a progressive. Many are Independents, Conservatives and Republicans.

    Parent

    I think you mean Democrats (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    not just Hilary supporters. Many of the above comments come from Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:14 PM EST
    And good to know. I was starting to think that Obama supporters were more progressive than Clinton supporters based on comments here, but that is skewed because it is 20 to 1 or something like that, so not a reliable pool.

    Parent
    Not wishing to argue with your point of view... (none / 0) (#1)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    but there is a complete disconnect in this country because corporations like Enron, WorldCom, etc. go bust, honest people's savings are wiped out and there is never recourse because the courts protect the investment houses that pitched these corporations until the end, in concert with people like Skilling who knew what was going on.

    So it becomes a case where you get the best justice money can buy and people's savings are still wiped out.

    Excuse me if I don't have any enthusiasm for the prospects of Skilling's getting the verdict overturned.

    I think the issue of plea bargains and mandatory sentencing guidelines might be more eagerly visited when the subject is less contemptible.

    I still want the notes from the Cheney energy (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    meeting....We could offer to trade that for clemancy.... lol.....

    A good thing . . . NOT. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    I bet Martha Stewart is just stewing.

    24 years.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    ...may be too harsh, but would ten or fifteen years be too harsh?  I have no doubt there are victims of economic crimes that must shoulder their burdens for just as long.

     It is one thing to distinguish between violent and non-violent crimes, but some non-violent crimes lead to human tragedy, like Enron.  The drug market, take it or leave it, is consensual.  Their manipulations were not.

    should mr. skilling's appeal be (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:56 PM EST
    successful, he'd do well to keep a wary eye over his shoulder, for the rest of his natural life. many of the people, who's life savings he greatly contributed to wiping out, are not at all happy with him.

    granted, 24 years may be excessive, but he would at least be guaranteed a roof over his head, clothing, three meals daily and free medical/dental care.

    i wonder how many of his "non-violent" victims will have that same luxury?

    Yes. Many people whose savings (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    were lost are dismissed because it was only money.  But for many a very human tragedy took place putting many people into deep depression and often serious physical jeopardy.

    Parent
    A decade or two of life in poverty (none / 0) (#10)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:20 PM EST
    would be most appropriate. That's what thousands of hard-working employees ended up with for their retirement, thanks to Mr. Skillings' "non-violent" crimes.

    Is this an April Fool's joke? (none / 0) (#11)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    If it is, it's not funny. If it isn't, then it's still not funny. This guy caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. The fact that he did it non-violently is a mitigating factor, but does not excuse his behavior. People who con senior citizens out of their life's savings don't use violence, either, but that is no reason to let them get away with it.

    sister of ye (none / 0) (#13)
    by sister of ye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM EST
    Perhaps we need a new understanding of violent crime. Perhaps the standard should be life-endangering. If you wipe out people's livelihoods and/or life savings, you have impacted their abilities to provide food, shelter, medical care and other life-sustaining needs. Think of the poor 11-year-old who died for lack of an $80 tooth extraction, or retired or unemployed people forced to choose between food an