WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009
Supreme Court Spares Former Enron Exec
6-3 Ruling Makes It Unlikely F. Scott Yeager Will Receive Retrial On Wire Fraud
-
(AP)
-
Blog Court Watch CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
The court, in a 6-3 vote, threw out an appeals court ruling that would have allowed a retrial of F. Scott Yeager, a former executive at Enron's failed broadband venture, on charges for which a jury could not reach a verdict at his first trial.
But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, did not completely shut the door to another trial.
Yeager sold Enron stock for more than $54 million before the company began a downward spiral that ended in bankruptcy in 2001.
In his first trial in 2005, Yeager faced 125 counts and was acquitted of five, including four counts of wire fraud and one of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud. The jury couldn't reach a verdict on the remaining counts, which alleged insider trading and money laundering.
Yeager was later reindicted on 13 counts of insider trading and money laundering.
The issue for the court is whether a variation on the Constitution's guarantee against double jeopardy applies in this situation: The jury votes not guilty on some charges, but fails to reach a verdict on others that are based upon the same essential facts as the charges that resulted in acquittal.
Prosecutors frequently retry defendants when juries can't reach a verdict. They cannot pursue a defendant when juries return not guilty verdicts. This case was about what happens when there is a combination of those elements.
The court said that if the charges all rely on the same basic facts, the defendant's acquittal on some charges "protects him from prosecution for any charge for which that is an essential element."
Thursday's decision reversed a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court said the jury "must have found when it acquitted Yeager that Yeager himself did not have any insider information."
But the government has argued that the jury did not necessarily decide that issue and Stevens said the appeals court could take another look at it, if it wishes. Such a reconsideration could allow Yeager to be tried again.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"There is no clear, unanimous jury finding here," Scalia said, referencing the many counts on which the jury hung.
The case is Yeager v. U.S., 08-67.
In other Supreme Court rulings:
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Supreme Court
Add a Comment
- "The issue for the court is whether a variation on the Constitution's guarantee against double jeopardy applies in this situation"---No, the issue here is whether justice is served or not. If he is relieved of every asset he has and is sentenced to 300 years is a good start. Then follow the food chain and prosecute those in the Bush administration (and their cronies)including Bush, Cheney, Arnie as well as their accounting firm. That would be a start.
- Reply to this comment
- Once again, the all-powerful Supreme Court who keep their jobs no matter what until the coffin lid is slammed makes another incomprehensible decision. Time to revamp this Court...they should be elected and have term limits just like everyone else.
- Reply to this comment
- You would think that these charges were part of the first trial.
Why even have a criminal court system?
It's just a way to keep the 'little guy' down and the financiers in un-checked power. - Reply to this comment
- Due to the nature and gravity of this issue; I think double jeapardy is justified.
And then a little waterboarding too. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
