Even though most of the action is in the courtroom during the ongoing trial of former key Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, a few interesting tidbits still arise from time to time on the docket of the case.
You may recall this post from awhile back that focused on this rather odd Enron Task Force motion requesting that U.S. District Judge Sim Lake not allow the Lay-Skilling defense to use the Task Force’s own indictment during cross-examination of the Task Force’s witnesses in the trial because, among other things, to do so would risk “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues [and] misleading the jury. . . ”
Well, as you might expect, the Lay-Skilling is having a little fun with the Task Force’s unusual request. In this opposition, the Lay-Skilling team notes that the Task Force’s motion stands due process of law on its head:

Due process considerations may keep the indictment from going to the jury where publishing it would cause defendant prejudice. . . . Invoking defendants‘ right to keep the indictment from the jury where it contains “inflammatory or pejorative language,” . . . and arguing that asking questions about the indictment may cause prejudice and confusion, the Task Force seeks to prevent defendants from showing the indictment to witnesses and questioning them about its allegations. . . The most efficient and effective means of cross-examining witnesses on certain topics includes asking them if specified allegations in the indictment are, in fact, true. To impose a blanket prohibition on such questions would interfere with defendants’ constitutional rights to present a defense and fully and effectively cross-examine their accusers.

Then, for good measure, the Lay-Skilling team tweaks the Task Force about its sudden change of opinion regarding the quality of the prose in the indictment:

The Task Force argues defendants might cross-examine witnesses about portions of the indictment that are surplusage, thereby confusing the jury. . . [However, the Task Force] previously, and successfully, argued exactly the opposite — that the indictment contained no surplusage — in opposing defendants’ motion to strike [portions of the indictment].

Meanwhile, down the hall from the relative levity of such motion sparring, the defense finished cross-examination of Mark Koenig (who may have unwittingly helped the defense) and the prosecution finished its re-direct on Monday afternoon. Judge Lake is going to allow a limited amount of re-cross of Koenig on Tuesday morning, then it’s time for the next prosecution witness — former Enron Broadband co-CEO, Ken Rice. Direct examination of Rice is expected to last at least the remainder of Tuesday, which means that cross-examination will likely take up the remainder of the week.