The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington (prior posts here) — which has called into question the Constitutionality of both state and federal sentencing guidelines — has prompted Enron Task Force prosecutors to re-indict defendants in the two Enron criminal cases that are scheduled for trial in the near future.
The Enron grand jury this week reindicted the six people accused in what is known as the “Nigerian barge case” scheduled for trial in August before U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein and the seven ex-Enron executives charged in the Internet broadband division case scheduled for trial in Houston federal court this October.
Included in both new indictments are allegations that each scheme caused the loss of more than $80 million, an allegation that can add years to a sentence under existing federal guidelines. The new indictments were spurred by the Blakely decision, which held that the state of Washington’s sentencing laws were unconstitutional because they only allowed judges, not juries, to consider factors that increased sentences. Some legal experts have speculated that the decision calls the Constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines into question for the same reason.
Not explained by the Task Force in the new indictment is how the Nigerian Barge deal — which was a relatively small transaction involving about $12 million in allegedly illegal profit for Merrill Lynch — could have caused $80 million in damages to Enron.