Supreme Court Spares Former Enron Exec

6-3 Ruling Makes It Unlikely F. Scott Yeager Will Receive Retrial On Wire Fraud

(AP)  The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a former Enron Corp. executive in a ruling that makes it unlikely he can be tried a second time on charges related to financial fraud at the one-time energy giant.

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:

The Court said that convicts have no constitutional right to test DNA evidence in hopes of proving their innocence long after they were found guilty of a crime. The decision may have limited impact because the federal government and 47 states already have laws that allow convicts some access to genetic evidence. Testing has led to the exoneration of at least 232 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes.

The Court agreed to let an insurance company settle some asbestos lawsuits in exchange for blocking any future litigation resulting from its long relationship with Johns Manville Corp., once the world's largest producer of asbestos. Travelers Companies Inc. had been named in lawsuits alleging that it tried to hide dangerous health effects of asbestos. The company argued that asbestos claims must be paid out of a trust created by Johns Manville in the 1980s and approved by a federal bankruptcy judge.

© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

More From Supreme Court

• High Court: 1964 KKK Slay Case Can Stand
• Court Rejects Parents Suing Hamas Backer
• High Court to Hear Plea From Gitmo Uighurs
• Ginsburg Has Health Scare on Airplane
• Supreme Court to Hear Local Gun Laws Suit
• Conn. Land Vacant 4 Years after Seizure
• Justice Ginsburg Released From Hospital

• 

  VideoAlito Discusses Abortion

• 

  VideoQuestioning Of Alito Begins

Add a Comment

by robertsgt40 June 19, 2009 11:02 AM EDT

"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

by leogorky June 19, 2009 9:23 AM EDT

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

by whitemale08 June 18, 2009 2:41 PM EDT

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

by TheMasses0003 June 18, 2009 1:34 PM EDT

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

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[robertsgt40]

"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.

[leogorky]

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.

[whitemale08]

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.

[TheMasses0003]

Due to the nature and gravity of this issue; I think double jeapardy is justified.
And then a little waterboarding too.