The blog has previously mentioned Enron chief Jeffrey K. Skilling’s appeal to the Supreme Court about the vagueness of the “honest services” law he was convicted under. As it turns out, the court seems inclined to agree with Mr. Skilling and his Houston criminal lawyer.
The law in question was enabled as a federal statute in 1988 and it criminalizes the act of “depriving another of the intangible right of honest services.” The 28 word-long law has the justices scratching their heads as it could technically be used against any worker who has committed mild transgressions such as calling in sick in order to have a day off. Justice Stephen Breyer (pictured at right) has said “Perhaps there are 150 million workers in the United States, I think possibly 140 million of them would flunk” a vague honest services test. Justice Scalia called the statute a “mush of language.”
The deputy solicitor general representing the government in the case, Michael Dreeben, argued that the crime is only created for cases where the defendant had an “intent to defraud” their employer or the public and where the breach of conduct was significant.
Skilling’s appointment with the high court is still waiting to be heard, but his arguments are expected to center around the concept of private gain. He does not believe the honest service law should apply to someone who was not working to their own personal ends.
Decisions for all three cases related to the law will likely be issued in June.
To read more about the hearings, see the article in the Houston Chronicle.
Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron is appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he had not received a fair trial and the law he was sentenced under was too vague. He believes his trial was impartial because it took place in Houston, the city where Enron was located, and, as such, the city that played home to the majority of the victim’s of the company’s demise.
A convicted rapist from Harris County will be given a new trial for his crimes based on the destruction of DNA evidence by the Houston police crime lab. Lawrence J. Napper was arrested for the raping a six year old boy in 2001 after already having three rape convictions on his record. When the child was asked to identify Napper in a line up, he was able to, but when he was asked to do so in the courtroom, he was unable to identify the suspect.