< Baylor's cancer research and care initiative | Main | The logistics of blogging the Lay-Skilling trial >
January 31, 2006
Speaking of that key evidentiary issue . . .
Peter Lattman posts this interesting piece on the oral argument in the Bernie Ebbers appeal that could well impact the key evidentiary issue in the ongoing trial of former Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling.
In the Ebbers appeal, Ebbers counsel Reid Weingarten -- who is also counsel for former Enron chief accountant Richard Causey -- is arguing that the Ebbers prosecution team unfairly prevented the defense from calling key defense witnesses by fingering them as targets of the WorldCom criminal investigation. In so doing, Weingarten is arguing that the prosecution effectively prevented the defense from presenting exculpatory testimony to the jury because each of the targeted witnesses declined to testify on the basis of their privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Circuit panel appeared sympathetic to the argument during oral argument of the Ebbers appeal, which is potentially bad news for a prosecution team that has taken the tactic of chilling potential defense witnesses to an entirely new level in the Lay-Skilling case and other Enron-related prosecutions. Ellen Podgor comments here along the same lines.
Posted by Tom at January 31, 2006 08:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mtcgi.kir.com/mt-trackbk.cgi/2832
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)