U.S. District Judge Sim Lake is widely-considered to be one of the best jurists in Houston, and his no-nonsense handling so far of the criminal trial of former Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling reflects why he is so well-thought of in local bar circles.
Time limitations have prevented me from sitting in on the Lay-Skilling trial as much as I would have liked to date, but I have access to the transcripts from the trial, so I’m able to keep up with what goes on in court each day. From reading the transcripts, I have found that Judge Lake’s most interesting and witty observations often occur before and after the jury is in the courtroom, such as the following exchange that occurred yesterday afternoon after testimony had concluded for the day and the jurors had been excused:

COURT: Be seated, please. (To Bruce Collins, one of Lay’s attorneys) How much more do you have left in your cross-examination?
MR. COLLINS: It’s hard to estimate. I think I’ll be done by lunch tomorrow.
THE COURT (to Skilling lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli): How much do you have, Mr. Petrocelli?
MR. PETROCELLI: I have less than a day.
THE COURT: So it’s doubtful that we will finish (on Thursday)?
MR. PETROCELLI: I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else we need to go into this afternoon?
MR. (Prosecutor John) HUESTON: Your Honor, I’d like to suggest something, and just maybe hear that. I worked hard to keep my direct to less than a day. And I’d like to introduce the thought of some rule of reasonableness when we work to get directs confined and moving quickly, and cross just goes on for days. I think two times the amount, over two times the amount of the direct time for cross, should have been more than sufficient, and I was hoping we would be done with all of this by tomorrow.
THE COURT: Well, probably you’re not the only one who hoped that, but the government covered a lot of discrete information in a very general way that opens the — creates the need by defendants to explore in greater detail. And if you think cross-examination is beyond the scope or it’s not relevant, you can make an objection and I’ll sustain it. But it’s not appropriate, I don’t believe, to impose a timing order in a criminal case where there are liberty issues at stake and there’s a Sixth Amendment right. I will say, in response to a lot of your objections today that I overruled, that cross-examination entitles the questioner to some leeway and to ask leading questions. So fewer objections by you might move things along a little bit.
MR. HUESTON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you need to respond?
MR. PETROCELLI and MR. COLLINS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Anything else we need to take up?
MR. PETROCELLI: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT (to Mr. Hueston): And I’m perfectly willing to cut off unreasonable and irrelevant questioning, but there hasn’t been much today.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT (to Mr. Petrocelli, I’m sure with a wry grin): But don’t take that as an encouragement. We’ll see you-all tomorrow morning.