the questionWhat did the Supreme Court decide, and what followed?
1The legal defect concerned what the jury had to find
analysisArthur Andersen’s obstruction prosecution arose from document destruction as Enron’s difficulties became public. On May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court held that the instructions had failed to convey the required consciousness of wrongdoing. They could permit conviction even if the defendant believed its conduct lawful. The Court also found that the instructions did not require the necessary connection between persuasion to destroy records and a particular contemplated official proceeding. 1
documentedOn 31 May 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Arthur Andersen’s obstruction-of-justice conviction and remanded the case. The jury instructions failed to require the necessary consciousness of wrongdoing and connection to an identifiable official proceeding. 1
- qualification
- The decision addresses the elements and instructions for this prosecution. It is not a general judicial endorsement of Enron’s accounting or every aspect of the audit.
analysisThe judgment was unanimously reversed and remanded. The ruling should neither disappear behind the earlier guilty verdict nor be enlarged into approval of Enron’s financial statements. It decided the legal requirements and defective instructions in this obstruction case, leaving separate questions about audit work and accounting outside that disposition. 1
2No retrial and a withdrawn individual plea
analysisThe retained chronology reports that prosecutors said in November 2005 that they would not retry Andersen. It records the court’s December 12 approval of audit partner David Duncan’s withdrawal of his guilty plea; a later retrospective confirms that withdrawal and a separate securities settlement. The firm’s reversed conviction and Duncan’s withdrawn plea therefore cannot be displayed as continuing criminal convictions. 2 3
attributedThe retained chronology reports that prosecutors announced in November 2005 that they would not retry Arthur Andersen. It also records approval of David Duncan’s withdrawal of his guilty plea on 12 December 2005; a later retrospective confirms the withdrawal and a separate SEC settlement. 2 3
- qualification
- Duncan’s withdrawn plea should not be presented as a subsisting criminal conviction. The separate securities settlement is a different proceeding.
Sources (3)
- Court record source · s-d127 identified by category only · Court record
- Media source · s-d100 identified by category only · Media
- Media source · s-d201 identified by category only · Media