posted
Reuters. Don't take it from them, though -- Google News has almost 2,000 links on this story.
quote:Lay, 64, was convicted of six counts of conspiracy and fraud and faces up to 45 years in prison.
Skilling was found guilty of 19 counts of conspiracy, fraud, insider trading and making false statements which, combined, carry a maximum sentence of 185 years. He was not convicted on nine criminal counts.
In a separate trial, U.S. District Judge Sim Lake found Lay guilty of all four bank fraud charges for illegally using money from $75 million in personal loans to buy stock.
...
The convictions of Lay and Skilling bring to 19 the number of Enron executives who pleaded guilty or have been found guilty of crimes for their part in the company's demise.
I'm reminded of this thread. Still around, Silkie? Do you still predict a Presidential pardon for Lay in 2007 or 2008? It seems to me that so far, at least, Dagonee's been shown to be right.
I'm glad to see that this trial wasn't rushed and proceeded largely unmolested by the sort of media circus that surrounds trials like those of O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson. I'm not sure about the possibility of an appeal (likely? Certain?), but I wouldn't expect any appeal effort to overturn all of these convictions. Not that I have anything firm to base that on, of course.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be very surprised if either gets a pardon. If their appeals raise cert-worthy issues, then it might not even be final when Bush leaves office.
Barring the release of dramatic new evidence of a frameup, I would be utterly disgusted if either got pardoned.
I thought Skilling was done after his testimony. Lay was seriously hampered by his regular attorney (the one who knew how to make him look human) being ill. His testimony did nothing to make the jury disbelieve the government's central contention.
I think the thing that hurt Lay was his sale of stock. His reasons for selling the stock aren't actually completely ridiculous - they were his most liquid asset and he needed cash - but it prima facie looks bad to the jury to sell stock while praising it publicly.
With his original counsel, he might have been able to convince the jury on the liquidity issue, and then I think the government case would have been much harder to carry. But I think there was a clear point soon after Skilling left, if not before, when he must have known he was crossing the line from optimism to fraud.
(He didn't attempt to get a break in the trial when his lawyer got ill, so there's no deprivation of rights here. It's a tactical discussion.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very interested to see what sentences these two get, and I hope the appeals process doesn't take a long time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It will,simply based on the size of the legal team and the number of evidentiary decisions the judge had to make. The decision not to sever the trials is also appealable. The "knowledge and deliberate indifference" instruction might be a sleeper, with recent trends on the Supreme Court to boost the jury right.
Lots of potential stuff here, lots of highly paid lawyers, 16 weeks of transcripts with hundreds of preserved objections.
I'd love to see someone run the guidelines and see what the heartland sentence is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for Skilling, who spent days explaining the tedious financial inner workings of the once high-flying energy company, the jurors couldn't understand how he could know so much about that and not be aware of illegal business maneuvering, whether or not he was responsible for it personally.
"Skilling was supposed to be a hands-on individual," said Freddy Delgado, an elementary school principal. "It's hard to believe a hands-on individual wouldn't know what was going on."
"When he got on the stand and knew what a [technically complicated] chart was and how it worked, we knew he was involved," Delgado said.
Lay:
quote:Jurors, who appeared from the start of the trial to form a close and cohesive unit, collectively hissed when one brought up Lay's testimony about how he felt his employees' pain, given his repeated multimillion-dollar stock sales in the weeks leading up to Enron's bankruptcy. During that time, Enron's human resources department was switching to a new savings program and employees couldn't sell their stock, which for many was their life savings.
Lay's stock sales "meant a lot," said legal department manager Doug Baggett. "It defined the word 'intent.' " "It went very much to the character of the person he was -- cashing out at the expense of employees," Delgado said.
On Fastow's credibility and why they believed a man who got the deal of a lifetime (he was eligible for far more time than either Lay or Skilling and only got 10 years):
quote:"Fastow was . . . Fastow," Martin continued, referring to former Enron finance chief Andrew S. Fastow, who faces 10 years in prison for stealing millions from the company. "We knew where he was coming from, and we kind of discounted some of what he said, but we weighed all the stuff the government witnesses said, and their answers all came to the same conclusion."
Whenever there was doubt about credibility, jurors dug through the 10 crate-size boxes to find evidence to support or discredit the testimony.
On Skilling's not guilty verdicts:
quote:Baggett said the government didn't provide enough evidence for insider trading.
The whole article is worth reading. I'm not sure if Lay's stock sales got in during the prosecution's case. If not, then it was a STUPID decision to put him on the stand. If so, he had to testify to attempt to explain it.
Tactically, it's interesting.
Legally, I think they both were flat out guilty.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On what grounds would anyone even think these guys would get a pardon? Just general cynicism?
I guess everyone's free to believe what they want to believe.
Not "general" cynicism, specific cynicism. Lay is a close friend of both Bush and Cheney, and was a major contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns. Lay provided ENRON jets to fly Bush around for various campaign tours.
Of course he's going to be pardoned.
But watch the Repubs not notice it. They tore Clinton a new one for his political/economic pardons (can't remember the name), but I will bet that this one will, somehow, be OK.
posted
I disagree. I think that even if Bush and/or Cheny wanted to pardon Lay, the political fallout would be very damaging to both him and the Republican Party. I don't think they'll do it even if they want to.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Boothby, want to make a bet? I'd wager high 3 figures that Bush doesn't pardon Lay.
quote:But watch the Repubs not notice it. They tore Clinton a new one for his political/economic pardons (can't remember the name), but I will bet that this one will, somehow, be OK.
I would condemn him roundly.
BTW, you don't think Clinton was right to do that, do you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
