I knew that couldn't be right.
After frittering away a considerable chunk of the taxpayer's change on its successful attempt to whittle the Big Five accounting firms down to four, the "Justice" Department today saw its obstruction of justice conviction against Arthur Andersen unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. You can read Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion here.
It appears that it's not enough to do something that the government doesn't like for an obstruction of justice conviction; you actually have to do something that's illegal. This fine legal distinction seems to have been lost on the prosecution, the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit. For some reason, this case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before the Government could bring itself to accept that you can't prove that someone "knowingly... corruptly persuaded" someone to do something without showing that he knew that the something he was persuading that someone to do was in some way corrupt.
No word yet on what the Government will be doing to make it up to the 28,000 people they put out of work with their unfounded prosecution. And remember, folks, this is the same administration that rants endlessly about plaintiffs' lawyers filing "frivolous" lawsuits.
It appears that it's not enough to do something that the government doesn't like for an obstruction of justice conviction; you actually have to do something that's illegal. This fine legal distinction seems to have been lost on the prosecution, the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit. For some reason, this case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before the Government could bring itself to accept that you can't prove that someone "knowingly... corruptly persuaded" someone to do something without showing that he knew that the something he was persuading that someone to do was in some way corrupt.
No word yet on what the Government will be doing to make it up to the 28,000 people they put out of work with their unfounded prosecution. And remember, folks, this is the same administration that rants endlessly about plaintiffs' lawyers filing "frivolous" lawsuits.
posted by Jack | 11:34 AM
5 Comments:
I've never been impressed with 5th Circuit opinions. This is an excellent example. It's obvious that the district court did not understand the law, e.g., Vanessa Gilmore perhaps, or was nudging the jury, or both.
In employment law, for example, the 5th is the least progressive and sympathetic in the nation. It holds that spitting in an employee's food after he files an EEOC claim is not retaliation. Germs in one's food can be more dangerous and disgusting than termination.
P.S. It is hard for me to feel sorry for Arthur Anderson. Its rubber stamping of Enron's books led to Enron's employees losing their retirements. It may not be guilty of OBJ, but it by no means has clean hands.
Too bad the Government ran Andersen into the ground. If it were still a going concern on it's pre-prosecution scale, it might be able to pay some damages to the people who suffered as a result of its (alleged) negligence.
And by the way, I believe the exceptional jurist who presided over the Arthur Andersen trial was the Honorable Melinda Harmon.
Vanessa Gilmore is presiding over the Enron Broadband trial. As far as I know, she hasn't yet done anythig worthy of mention here. Which is, of course, to her credit.
Gilmore has the reputation as being as thick as two planks. In IP cases, she will grant summary judgment when she doesn't understand the issues so the Federal Circuit can solve the problems. She's dim.
Post a Comment
<< Home