MSNBC Breaking: Supreme Court overturns Enron-related conviction of Arthur

[sabra]

top of the page, no detail yet...

<<SNIP>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com /

Supreme Court overturns Enron-related conviction of Arthur Andersen accounting firm

<</SNIP>>

[Ilsa]

1. Here's a comment:

In an unanimous opinion, justices said the former Big Five accounting firm’s June 2002 conviction was improper. It said the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

“The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

[lebkuchen]

5. Arthur Anderson, the employee of the company they were supposed to police

When caught fixing the numbers, started shredding damning documents, Oliver North-style. "Democracy" in America.

Glad I'm no longer invested, thanks to the writing on the wall after that fiasco. Better to take a loss now than lose everything later.

Arthur Anderson is toast in Australia, btw, because the Anderson name is MUD.

[Zerex71]

41. Must be nice to have friends in high places.

[XNGH]

58. Surprise surprise surprise

I'm totally surprised ... NOT

[Catma]

2. is this a case

of judicial activism or is that only when they don't like the ruling?

[meegbear]

10. Only when repugs don't like the ruling ...

and ...

WELCOME ABOARD!!

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

11. haha!

welcome to DU too!

[annabanana]

3. link here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046535/

[bpilgrim]

SURPRISE, SURPRISE

not

peace

[JHB]

4. More info

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046535 /

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant’s collapse.

In an unanimous opinion, justices said the former Big Five accounting firm’s June 2002 conviction was improper. It said the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

“The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

[gratuitous]

13. Curious

A couple of "Justices" on the Supreme Court are on record as saying that actual innocence is no bar to carrying out the death penalty on a human defendant otherwise properly convicted. That is, it doesn't matter if the wrong man is being executed for a crime, as long as court procedure was followed, he gets snuffed.

Now they're all worried about "flawed" jury instructions? Oh wait; we're not talking about some innocent man here -- this is a large corporation with the potential to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions! How silly of me to believe that there was some single standard of justice to be applied equally to all defendants before the bar.

[Igel]

33. It's consistent. They're concerned about process.

It also means that again Andersen is innocent until proven guilty.

[brainshrub]

63. Do you know what case that states what you just said?

I'm Googleing" "Supreme Court are on record as saying that actual innocence is no bar to carrying out the death penalty"

I can't find anything.

[msanthrope]

6. This is not good news for Bush's public opinion numbers.......

and perhaps can be spun as to why the judicial filibuster is so important. The next Supreme Court justice cannot take orders from the administration, and let Bush's friends off.

Judicial activism!!!!!

[Kolesar]

7. Yes. That was my first thought

Further: Bush would have us turn over our Social Security assets to men the likes of Arthur Anderson's management.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Unanimous Opinion

Without knowing the details, my guess is that yes, there were probably major problems with the case.

DTH

[anotherdrew]

23. so who intentionally blew it then?

who wrote those 'flawed' instructions?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. Overzealous Prosecutors, Probably

It's a pretty common trait among them, especially when breaking new legal ground. I suspect no conspiracies are needed to explain this.

DTH

[napi21]

9. Here's some details.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant’s collapse.

advertisement

In a unanimous opinion, justices said the former Big Five accounting firm’s June 2002 conviction was improper. It said the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

“The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron’s 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046535 /

[aquart]

20. "Setback?" Are they being funny?

[daleo]

29. We need a new term - a set-forward.

"The ruling was a set-forward for the Bush administration"

[SlavesandBulldozers]

55. high priority.

"the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority. . . . "

HArdee Fucking Har. Good Christ what is wrong with the people of this country to buy such uncut horseshit. that statement is absolutely correct if by high-priority they mean low-priority.
oh wait I forgot they snagged Martha Stewart nevermind, I forgot about that - nevermind Ashcroft was like the corporate Elliot Ness.
MSNBC shouldn't even be considered a source.

[htuttle]

12. They're Made Men. You can't touch them without a sit-down first

[napi21]

14. I wnet through a similar instance a long time ago.

The Co. I worked for was a major retailer with almost 1,000 stores. We stored all the records at the home office. We were involved in a big law suit for bait and switch tactics, and under court order not to destroy ANY documents. We even had to keep phone messages.

The case was going into it's 4th year, and we were running out of room for storeage, and our CFO OK'd throwing out the old cash register tapes. There was absolutely no information on them that could be of any help in that case, but the judge fined us a pretty hefty fine for throwing them away. He said we weren't to destroy ANYTHING.

This case against Andersen sounds like the same thing.

Although I want to see anyone involved in illegal accounting punished severly, I agree with the SCOTUS on this one.

[high density]

15. There goes that "way liberal" Supreme Court again!

Surprise.

[elemnopee]

16. "The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration,

which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron's 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first."

from cnn.com

gosh darn librul media

[underpants]

19. They will surely blame Clinton for this

again

[Julius Civitatus]

17. How much did Arthur Andersen donate to the GOP?

Just wondering.

[cybildisobedience]

18. said it before, will say it again:

Dec. 12, 2000, was the darkest day for democracy in the history of our country. That day, the Supreme Court installed George Bush in the White House, and basically signaled that we no longer have any expectation of fairness, justice and equality (or sanity) in this country.
We'll see these decisions - the ones that benefit a handful of the greediest, sleaziest and meanest at the expense of the many -- over and over again.
Our democracy has been destroyed.

[AuntiBush]

57. Dark Day is right! "Here Lies Democracy - D. 12.12.2000"

[KoKo]

21. Would this not now open the door for all the Corporations "Cooking Books"

and involved in other nefarious dealings to back up the Shredder to the door and begin the process of destroying all future evidence?

Given that Wall St. is seeing almost a scandal a day, this would seem to be welcomed by cheering crowds of crooks as a signal that they will never be prosecuted if the evidence is long gone.

[0007]

22. I bet BIG Corporations are licking their chops over this decision

and praising the Harvard bought brains.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Damn librul courts!! Letting criminals off on technicalities!!

[Clovis Sangrail]

25. Court Overturns Andersen Conviction

WASHINGTON May 31, 2005 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant's collapse.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=806045

[warrens]

26. Andersen was punished for the misbehavior of one office

The people responsible should have been tried separately; putting a huge international firm on trial for the actions of its Houston office was grossly unfair, IMO.

Overturning the conviction doesn't solve anything, of course, because there is no more AA in the U.S. Thousands of people lost their jobs here in Chicago, and they had nothing to do with Enron or Houston.

[Straight Shooter]

28. I agree with your opinion.

In addition, I am disgusted with the prosecutors for crafting poorly-worded instructions. It was imperative that they cross all their t's and dot all their i's. Clearly, in retrospect, they didn't.

Shame.

[daleo]

31. Don't judges give instructions to the jury?

That is what I always thought, so how can the prosecutors be at fault?

[Straight Shooter]

56. Prosecutors write the instructions; judges read them to the jury.

We could be picking nits here, because one way or the other, that's the instructions the jury got. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

Somebody dropped the ball.

[Gyre]

62. The Instructions are written by a panel of judges

The Judge rules on admissibility of evidence being proferred by both sides and makes sure there isn't an Appellate issue (grounds for appeal) built into the trial. The prosecutor presents all the facts that support a conviction based on the instructions he's stuck with.

Gyre

[Bake]

64. Wrong, on several points

1. Not a panel of judges. At trial, there's only one judge.

2. Jury instructions are submitted by both sides, the prosecution and the defense, and they argue to the court which set ought to be presented to the jury. The trial judge rules on which set of instructions to present to the jury, and can tweak the instructions if he/she doesn't like either side's offering.

Some judges don't give it that much thought.

My guess is the prosecution probably overreached with its instructions, and the judge, who had already decided on the result he/she wanted, went along with the prosecution.

And yes, the Supreme Court is ALL about process -- "due process" to be exact. More so than actual guilt or innocence. The Supes rarely get involved in the FACTS of the case; they weren't there to hear the evidence (unless the result is so blatantly contrary to the evidence presented at trial). What they typically review is the LAW and the PROCESS; that's what they're supposed to do.

Bake, Esq.

[Jacobin]

30. Arthur Anderson was already on probation for other

godawful 'audits' helping corporate whores skim millions from investors by cooking the books.

They shouldn't be just out of business.

They should all be in jail.

They were the absolute worst of the worst, also helping Halliburton to do fraudulent accounting while Cheney was in charge to justify his stock options.

[K-W]

59. So corporations arent responsible for thier actions? How nice for them.

I guess you think only the soldiers directly involved should be held accountable for torture as well?

God forbid we hold the powerful leaders accountable for the actions of thier organizations. Also, the idea that we shouldnt seek justice because hurting corporations costs us jobs is in essence arguing that corporations are above the law, a view widely held by corporate republicans, but not many others.

[Zodiak]

32. I wonder

Does anyone here think that perhaps Ashcroft's Justice Department screwed this up on purpose for overturning later? Wouldn't be the first trojan horse used in a high-profile case.

[Igel]

34. I'm fairly certain that Ashcroft didn't issue the jury instructions.

The prosecutors may have suggested language, but couldn't very well impose it.

Sort of like lobbyists drafting legislation: they don't introduce the bills or enact them. The judge goofed.

Why, and how, are the questions.

[Zodiak]

53. My bad

Ah....so it is the judge who made the mistake (sorry, someone earlier had said it was the team of prosecutors...I took that at face value).

Still....I no longer believe that honest mistakes are honest unless I know more about the players. It seems everywhere in our government the neocons and fascists lurk in order to "tweak" situations at precisely the right moment.

Call me paranoid.

[Bake]

65. See above: both sides submit proposed jury instructions

Each one submits instructions that tend to favor their side. The judge is supposed to "split the baby" and determine what instructions are proper and in accord with the law. Both the prosecution and defense will inevitably push the envelope to favor its respective side of the case. The judge often knows what result he/she wants to see and can shape the instructions accordingly; here, apparently, the judge went a little too far.

Bake, Esq.

[Megahurtz]

35. "Setback"??? Ha!

[dejaboutique]

36. enron still

enron still? didn't this happen like 4 years ago. Why are these people still being tried? I thought Arthur A. was already brought up on charges a long time ago? where is ken ley? A normal citizen commiting any of these crimes would have already been tried, convicted, and had at least 3 years of their sentence served. whatever

[Zynx]

37. Will people please stop freaking out? This isn't a conspiracy

The jury instructions were inappropriate. This is pretty much a procedural ruling.

[JRob]

40. whatever... a lot of expensive lawyers exploiting rules to...

to protect a lot of expensive "suits" delaying and confusing justice and the public. Not to mention the cost to the public.

[JRob]

38. ...is anyone really surprised?

unite against corp domination or we loose.

[Old Vet]

39. Set-Back No-

This was a victory for bush and his friends, Anderson was a big supporter of bush$$$$$

[Chicago Democrat]

42. IMPEACH OUR A-MORAL, PUPPET SUPREME COURT TODAY!!

Who's with me?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. Four Justices Are Solid

And two more aren't terrible. If it was unanimous, I trust there were good reasons behind the decision.

All this hyperbole is ridiculous.

DTH

[OKthatsIT]

44. MSNBC...you're full of BS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046535 /

"The ruling is a setback for the Bush administration, which made prosecution of white-collar criminals a high priority following accounting scandals at major corporations. After Enron’s 2001 collapse, the Justice Department went after Andersen first."

YARITE.

[SusanF_CA]

45. Enron auditor's verdict reversed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046535 /

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for destroying Enron Corp.-related documents before the energy giant’s collapse.

In a unanimous opinion, justices said the former Big Five accounting firm’s June 2002 conviction was improper. It said the jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

“The jury instructions here were flawed in important respects,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

>>more at the link<<

This is beyond scary! The wheels have been set in motion. lay and skilling will probably be acquitted...

[redacted]

46. If this was unanimous, there must have been good legal reasons.

However, it is very disappointing.

AAnderson is scum.

[Yellow_Dog]

47. I bet dumbya

had an orgasm when he heard that his good buddy, and cronie Lay may get a pass on this.

What a frigging crock of really foul smelling crap

Keep in mind the the majority of the court was appointed by bush I and Reagen

[Dover]

48. So is that a mistrial.....a do-over? Or is it simply tossed out?

Seems to me that if the jury received the wrong instructions, then they should do the trial over......not toss out the case entirely!

[Gothmog]

49. Anderson is dead

My wife was in the tax department at AA for two years and I have worked with Andersen on a number of deals. AA used to be the gold standard for accounting firms. I am glad that the conviction was overturned but sad that AA is no longer around.

[silverlib]

50. IMO - Enron tried to make AA the scapegoat

and for a while, there was a smoke screen. I hope this decision was made in the light that AA is not a scapegoat. They are defunct, punishment enough if they destroyed any documents.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Did prosecutors deliberatley give bad instructions so it would be overturn

ed on appeal? Is this what they are going to do with Lay and Skilling?

[atre]

52. Actually, the instructions don't look bad at all

Why would you need to do anything so slick when the Supreme Court is in your back pocket?

This result is contrary to my understanding of the rules of statutory construction as they apply to criminal statutes. The instructions expressly mentioned "intent," which is widely recognized to equal either "knowledge" (or in adverbial form "knowingly") OR purpose ("purposefully). However, this opinion says that the statute's use of the term "knowingly" also impliedly required "dishonesty." Additionally, the court ruled the instructions invalid because they didn't think that "intent" equated to "knowledge," which it most certainly does... Very perplexing.

Upon further reflection, I think the reporter must be mistaken about this point; there's no way the court could reach such an absurd conclusion. They probably ruled that this was a specific intent crime, and therefore certain other defenses inhered, and the wording confused the reporter.

[WeRQ4U]

54. I doubt there is much conspiracy here...

Until we can read the Decision on Lexis/Nexis, I wouldn't rush to create conspiracy theories. Remember, there are some Liberal judges still on the Court. The fact that the decision was unanimous speaks volumes. There was, most likely, a glaring discrepancy.

The Court, believe it or not, makes decisions based upon the law sometimes. It's not always hotbed political bullshit. If there were due process concerns, I would HOPE that they would address them. If I were accussed of doing something, I would hope that the jury instructions they use in my trial aren't skewed one way or the other.

I agree with the other poster who opined that it was most likely "overzealous prosecutors." Happens more often than one would like. EVen with cases that seem to be slam dunks.

[sakabatou]

60. Why don't we just say fraud is not a crime?

Then it'd make people a lot happier!

[agincourt]

61. Only true,

if dealing with big GOP donors. Nice to know the Supreme Court still works for them, I was worrying, because they hadn't done anything nice for a while. Yippee! White collar crime is no big thing, unless you donate to Hillary.