Term: 2009
Docket: 08-1394
Jeffrey K. Skilling v. United States
- Pro
08-1394 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 554 F.3d 529 CERT. GRANTED 10/13/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the federal "honest services" fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, requires the government to prove that the defendant's conduct was intended to achieve "private gain" rather than to advance the employer's interests, and, if not, whether § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague. 2. When a presumption of jury prejudice arises because of the widespread community impact of the defendant's alleged conduct and massive, inflammatory pretrial publicity, whether the government may rebut the presumption of prejudice, and, if so, whether the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-20885
The U.S. Supreme Court case Jeffrey K. Skilling v. United States in 2009 revolved around the former Enron CEO's conviction for conspiracy, securities fraud, and insider trading following the company's financial collapse in 2001. The primary issue was whether pretrial publicity and community prejudice prevented Skilling from receiving a fair trial in Houston, where Enron was headquartered. Additionally, it questioned if "honest services" fraud statute (18 U.S.C §1346) - under which Skilling was convicted - was unconstitutionally vague. In its ruling, the court held that while there had been extensive negative press coverage about Enron’s downfall before his trial began; this did not presume jury bias or prevent him from obtaining a fair trial as per Sixth Amendment rights because of careful jury selection process by lower courts. However, on honest-services fraud charge against Skilling – which makes it illegal to deprive another of “the intangible right of honest services” – the court ruled that law only covers bribery and kickback schemes; thus narrowing its scope significantly than what government argued i.e., covering undisclosed self-dealing by public officials or private employees due to conflict of interest. This meant part of Skillings’ conviction didn’t fit within these parameters hence vacating Fifth Circuit’s decision on this count but affirmed rest convictions leaving final sentencing discretion with lower courts.
In the dissenting opinion for Jeffrey K. Skilling v. United States, Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Kennedy, argued that the honest-services fraud statute was unconstitutionally vague. The majority had attempted to save the statute by interpreting it narrowly to cover only bribery and kickback schemes; however, according to Scalia's dissenting view, this interpretation went beyond what Congress intended when it enacted the law. He contended that courts should not rewrite a law in order to make it constitutional but instead should strike down laws that are too vague as violating due process rights of defendants who cannot reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited under such laws.
