Supreme Court Grants Appeal by Enron's Skilling

Supreme Court Grants Appeal by Enron's Skilling - 10-14-2009 , Class Action News, Class Action, Securities News, shareholder class action, claim, litigation, securities action, common stock'>

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright © 2001
Stanford Law School

2009 News and Press Releases

SEARCH

News	News 2009
HEADLINES \| SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS \| COURT FILINGS LINKS TO OTHER NEWS \| NEWS ARCHIVE	HEADLINES ARCHIVED SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS ARCHIVED

HEADLINE NEWS:

Supreme Court Grants Appeal by Enron's Skilling
Tony Mauro

The National Law Journal. October 14, 2009
_________________________________________________________________________

[…] The Court will hear arguments in December on what is needed to prove such a fraud in a case involving former media mogul Conrad Black (Black v. United States) and another where the defendant is a state official accused of mail fraud (Weyhrauch v. United States.) Skilling even filed an amicus brief in the Black case, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan urged the Court to hold Skilling's appeal pending the outcome of Black. Skilling's case addresses a slightly different aspect of the law, but Kagan said the outcome of the Black case could define the scope of the law in ways that would affect Skilling's appeal.One possible explanation is that Skilling raises another issue unrelated to the honest services law: whether the massive pretrial publicity and "community passion" in Houston surrounding Skilling's trial created a presumption of juror prejudice -- and whether that presumption requires that Skilling's conviction be reversed. The local passion aroused by the collapse of Enron "was as dramatic as any in U.S. criminal trial history," asserted Skilling's brief, authored by Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny & Myers in Los Angeles. Kagan's brief counters that the judge was able to find jurors who had either heard little about the case or said the publicity would not affect their judgment. The jury panel was not "fatally saturated with pretrial publicity," Kagan stated.

Back to News page | Back to Archived News 2009 page | Back to Top

�