Because I like to be kicked in the gut after being beaten to the ground, I had to read this story on MSNBC today. Apparently, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments Monday to overturn Jeff Skilling's conviction. I'm boiling mad.
At the heart of the challenge is the idea of "Honest Services," a prosecutory approach that allows for convictions of corporate fraudsters that did not literally take money out the door in canvas bags marked with dollar signs. This theory is apparently going the way of the dodo, though:
The high court last December heard arguments involving honest services fraud in two other appeals, those of former Hollinger International CEO Conrad Black and former Alaska state legislator Bruce Weyhrauch.
"Honest services is on its last legs," said Brian Wice, a Houston appellate lawyer. "It is circling the drain as a theory of prosecution until they manage to remedy the multiple defects they find with it."
I would say that no one would have the stones to set Skilling free in this political environment, but given the recent Citizens United decision, nothing would surprise me coming from the SCOTUS.
So yeah, I'm reading a crystal ball when I say that this guy is going to be set free. But I can't imagine why the Supreme Court would agree to hear arguments in this case if they weren't planning on overturning it.
If there are any legal minds out there that can help me understand this insanity, I would appreciate your input. Because right now, I'm so mad I can't even drink my coffee.
UPDATE: It turns out that there are some legitimate constitutional issues with this very vague Honest Services law. burrow owl gives a fabulous link in the comments to a White Collar Crime Prof Blog write-up on the issue. After reading this, I would say that I agree the Honest Services law is very vague and vulnerable to abuse. It would be nice if we could define the law more narrowly (such as by requiring proof of financial damage, maybe even in a large amount) rather than throwing it out. If this was the only way we could convict people like Skilling in the first place, than I think this is a law we need to keep. But it surely needs some work to make it applicable only in those cases where it was designed to be used.