Daily Archives: January 4, 2006

First things first for Clarett

Posted on by
1

Clarett.jpgYou may have heard that former star Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett was wanted by Ohio police earlier this week for his alleged participation in a robbery.
Well, according to this NY Times article, Clarett had a particularly compelling reason to delay turning himself in to police for a couple of days:

Clarett declined to answer most questions from reporters, but he did reveal that he watched Ohio State beat Notre Dame on Monday night before turning himself in to the police. Clarett, who had been wanted for almost two days, apparently wanted to see his former teammates play in the Fiesta Bowl, the same game in which he achieved stardom and helped capture the 2002 national championship for the Buckeyes. Asked about Ohio State’s 34-20 victory over the Irish, Clarett cracked a half-smile and said:

“Glad we won.”

Remember that follow up question

Posted on by
Reply

witness chair.jpgThis San Diego Union-Tribune story reminded me that, in asking questions about the credentials of an expert witness, it’s usually a good idea to ask a few follow-up questions before moving on to other areas:

The Medical Board of California is investigating whether a surgeon it used as an expert witness lied about his qualifications when testifying against other doctors in disciplinary hearings.
According to a transcript of the hearing, [Dr. Don J.] Schiller implied he currently was certified by the American Board of Surgery when questioned by Deputy Attorney General Mary Agnes Matyszewski. But Schiller . . . has not been a board certified surgeon for 18 years, though his resume indicates he is certified and he has sworn under oath to being certified.
In an interview, Schiller said that when he testifies as an expert witness, he says he was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1977. But he doesn’t volunteer that he has not renewed the certification.

“If I am ever asked if I was re-certified I say ‘no,'” Schiller said.

And that’s how he testified Sept. 23 in the San Diego case:

“Are you board certified, sir?” deputy attorney general Matyszewski asked, according to a transcript of the hearing.
“I was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1977,” Schiller responded before Matyszewski moved on to other questions about his professional background.

Is the Task Force gripping in preparation for the Lay-Skilling trial?

Posted on by
Reply

skilling and lay4.jpgAn unusually high number of the prospective jury pool for the upcoming trial of former key Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling already have concluded that the two men are guilty of various business crimes merely because of their connection with the social pariah, Enron. Although such widespread bias against the two defendants would seem to be great source of comfort for Enron Task Force prosecutors, there are increasing signs that the Task Force is not sanguine about its case against Messrs. Lay and Skilling. As Larry Ribstein points out, that’s part of the conunbrum of the lottery-style system of criminalizing agency costs in the first place.
The Wall Street Journal’s John Emshwiller, who has as good an information pipeline into the Task Force as any reporter covering the Enron case, has a couple of W$J articles today (here and here) in which he reports that the Task Force — less than a month before trial — has made a new allegation of wrongdoing against Skilling relating to the former Enron CEO’s December 6, 2001 SEC deposition testimony. The gist of the new allegations are that the Task Force contends that Skilling lied when he testified that he sold over $15 million of Enron stock on September 17, 2001 because of concerns over the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the stock market (Skilling resigned from Enron in August, 2001). The Task Force contends that Skilling lied about the reason for that September 17 stock sale and that evidence of the lie is that he failed to inform the SEC during the deposition that he had inquired with a broker on September 6th about selling less than half as much Enron stock as he sold on September 17th.
H’mm, cranking up a new allegation of wrongdoing less than a month before trial based on those dubious facts? Sure looks like a bunny trail to me.
Meanwhile, as I speculated in this earlier post, this Emshwiller article confirms that, even though Richard Causey’s plea bargain last week simplifies the Task Force’s case against Lay and Skilling, the Task Force’s post-plea bargain debriefing of Causey has apparently left prosecutors undecided on whether even to use the former Enron chief accountant as a witness against Lay and Skilling.
Last minute preparations for a big trial are usually somewhat chaotic and often involve minor alterations in strategy. However, adding new allegations of misconduct and wondering whether even to use a key witness involved in the allegations are not the type of strategy decisions that one normally wants to be making less than a month before trial. As with the Task Force’s schizophrenic approach to Arthur Andersen, the latest revelations about the Task Force’s preparations for the Lay-Skilling trial do not reflect that the Task Force is particularly confident about its case. Although the Task Force has already won the public relations battle regarding the Enron scandal, winning its legacy case in the courtroom may prove to be far more difficult.

Good karma for the Rose Bowl

Posted on by
1

darrell Royal_200_20.jpgAs Texans prepare for the long-awaited Rose Bowl matchup tonight between the Texas Longhorns and the USC Trojans, this Ray Buck/Ft. Worth Star Telegram article does a good job of telling how Longhorn coach Mack Brown’s relationship with legendary former Texas coach Darrell Royal has been an important part of Brown’s success in bringing UT back to the top tier of major college football.
As noted in this earlier post, Texas won two undisputed national championships under Coach Royal, one in 1963 and the other in 1969. But after Royal retired in 1975, the Longhorns got close in 1977 and 1983 and then gradually faded from the top tier of big-time college football. By the time Brown was hired seven seasons ago, the Horns were not even a national championship contender. The article contains a number of interesting observations from Coach Royal, not the least of which is the following:

When asked if his presence might be a source of motivation for the Longhorns, Royal had one more answer for everyone:

“If they need any kind of motivation,” Royal said, “they’re in the wrong game.”

Meanwhile, this interesting Alex Barra/W$J article on the development of big-time college football players over the past 20 years includes the following observation from Clear Thinkers favorites, Dan Jenkins:

“Comparing the best college teams of the past five or so years to legendary champions of the past is like comparing supersonic jet fighters to propeller-driven World War II planes. The game has really changed that quickly. Most of the players I see on top teams today look like they were manufactured in laboratories.”

By the way, the best line that I’ve heard in the run-up to the Rose Bowl was the following:

When [former USC wide receiver] Mike Williams lost his court challenge to the NFL underclassman rule and was not allowed to return to college football, did he still count against USC’s salary cap?