One could argue the whole GRC movement began with Sarbanes-Oxley. And if there's one guy who symbolizes all that the still-controversial 2002 law represents, it's Jeff Skilling. The CEO of Enron languishes in jail, but the Supreme Court is taking another look at his conviction. 

To the chagrin of many, there would appear to be a decent chance his conviction will be overturned. 

Such a decision wouldn't amount to vindication of all he did while at Enron. While Skilling has long maintained his innocence, and might use a favorable ruling to buttress that view, the arguments now are not really about his conduct. They're about legal issues--jury selection and the Honest Services law that was used to put him in jail. 

Several justices seemed sympathetic to the view that the jury selection was unfair, an issue that has come back to bite the prosecution. In hindsight, you do have to wonder why the judge allowed a trial to go forward in Houston, where passions about Enron were really whipped up. One of the potential jurors that the presiding judge did not strike was actually a victim of the fraud, losing up to $60,000. That forced the defense to use one of their challenges to get her out of the pool. Not all justices were skeptical sounding. One suggested the judge did the right thing by leading the jury questioning himself. Another seemed wary of the high court getting into running trials. 

It must be said that tough questioning doesn't mean the justice will vote to overturn the conviction. 

The other issue, far reaching in its import, revolves around the law used to get Skilling, the one that makes it a crime "to deprive" people of the "intangible right of honest services." This law has long been controversial. A reversal might be momentous constitutionally, as the law is widely used in corruption cases. On this point, several justices seemed to have issues with the law. 

If the justices side with Skilling's team on the honest services issue, it would overturn at least one of the convictions and potentially reduce his 24-year sentence. Beyond that, the two sides disagree. Regarding the jury pool issue, if the court agrees jury selection was improper, it might toss the whole trial. At that point, the government will have to make a really tough decision about whether it wants to go forward with a new trial under new circumstances. That will take guts. Prosecutors will have no chance if they allow themselves to be shamed into it. They've got to attack it. I'm not sure the will is there anymore. But we'll see. 

We won't know until June, when a decision is released. 

This has made for incredible theater--a statement that will soon be true literally. Are you ready for Enron, the Broadway musical? - Jim