The Supreme Court’s decision to consider the appeal of Jeffrey Skilling is giving the former chief executive of Enron a glimmer of hope that his 24-year prison term arising from the collapse of the energy company could be overturned. In 2006, Mr Skilling was convicted of orchestrating the fraud and conspiracy that destroyed the giant energy trader and forced tighter regulatory scrutiny across corporate America.
Mr Skilling’s lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, has been arguing since then that his client was denied a fair trial because the proceedings were held in Houston, where there was a huge community bias against him. Indeed, it would have been hard to find a jury in this city who was untouched in some way by Enron. A total of 6,000 Enron employees lost jobs in the city, and many more lost money they had invested in the company. Beyond that, everyone seemed to know someone hurt in the downfall.
So Mr Petrocelli has a good point. The problem is that the case was so widely reported, and there were people across the country and in the wider world who also had ties to Enron. The company had 30,000 global employees. All of them eventually lost their jobs. Stories of those left without health insurance, who lost their entire retirement savings, who could not find work, were reported across the nation. And in the years since then, Enron has become a symbol across the world for corporate greed.
Carl Tobias, professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, says the Supreme Court could possibly decide that a new trial should be held or a reduced sentence is in order. A new trial so many years later would certainly be less emotional, despite Enron’s reputation, especially if it were held outside Houston. And it has been proven time and time again that Americans have short memories. Many in Houston have moved on and left the city.
Nonetheless, the appeals court, while it ruled the trial court was mistaken in not recognizing Mr Skilling was entitled to a trial elsewhere given the bias of the community, did not order a new trial because the judge had told jurors not to believe what they had heard from the media and not to seek vengenance.
That was certainly short-sighted, because being told not to believe the media, neighbors, friends and so on, is not easy advice to follow. It is very hard to not bring what one has heard into judgement. But that really is beside the point.
With Andrew Fastow, Enron’s chief financial officer, testifying against Mr Skilling, it was hard not to believe the whole company had been built on fraud and deception. And he would likely testify again at any further trial.
