Skilling v. United States

561 U.S. 40 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Skilling (D) was Enron’s chief executive officer from February until August 2001, when he resigned. Less than four months later, Enron crashed into bankruptcy, and its stock plummeted in value. The Government prosecuted dozens of Enron employees who participated in a scheme to prop up Enron's stock price. D was charged for a scheme to deceive investors about Enron’s true financial performance by manipulating its publicly reported financial results and making false and misleading statements. D was also charged with over 25 substantive counts of securities fraud, wire fraud, making false representations to Enron’s auditors, and insider trading. D moved for a change of venue, contending that hostility toward him in Houston, coupled with extensive pretrial publicity, had poisoned potential jurors. There were hundreds of news reports detailing Enron’s downfall, as well as affidavits from experts he engaged portraying community attitudes in Houston in comparison to other potential venues. The Court denied the motion, concluding that pretrial publicity did not warrant a presumption that D would be unable to obtain a fair trial in Houston. The court observed, media coverage, on the whole, had been objective and unemotional, and the facts of the case were neither heinous nor sensational. Moreover, the court asserted, effective voir dire would detect juror bias. The trial used D's probing and specific 77-question, 14-page document on voir dire. The questionnaire asked prospective jurors about their sources of news and exposure to Enron-related publicity, beliefs concerning Enron and what caused its collapse, opinions regarding the defendants and their possible guilt or innocence, and relationships to the company and anyone affected by its demise. One of D's co-defendants, Richard Causey, pleaded guilty. D renewed his change-of-venue motion, arguing that Causey’s guilty plea further tainted the jury pool. The court declined ruling that the questionnaires and voir dire provided safeguards adequate to ensure an impartial jury. The court also denied D’s request for attorney-led voir dire on the ground that potential jurors were more forthcoming with judges than with lawyers. But the court promised to give counsel an opportunity to ask follow-up questions, agreed that venire members should be examined individually about pretrial publicity, and allotted Ds jointly two extra peremptory challenges. The court examined prospective jurors individually, asking each about her exposure to Enron-related news, the content of any stories that stood out in her mind, and any questionnaire answers that raised a red flag signaling possible bias. The court then permitted each side to pose follow-up questions and ruled on the parties’ challenges for cause. D was convicted on some of the charges and appealed. The Fifth Circuit initially determined that the volume and negative tone of media coverage generated by Enron’s collapse created a presumption of juror prejudice, but that presumption was rebuttable. Stating, however, that the presumption is rebuttable, the court examined the voir dire, found it “proper and thorough,” and held that the District Court had empaneled an impartial jury. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.