July 13, 2005
Who's zooming who?

Enron prosecutors tells the jury they saw what the defendants were really doing behind the scenes.


Final arguments began Tuesday in the Enron Broadband Services trial, with the prosecution telling jurors they got to see behind the scenes and under the rocks at Enron a view carefully hidden from investors.

"You learned the inside story never matched up to the outside story," prosecutor Ben Campbell told the jury in U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore's court.

On trial for the past 13 weeks are five former Enron Broadband Services executives accused of conspiracy and fraud in two schemes to fool investors and Wall Street about Enron's earning and technological capabilities. All five defendants testified that they did nothing wrong.

"We all know that money can corrupt people," Campbell said. "These five men lied for personal profit and professional advancement."

He said the simple motive was greed.


The defense attorneys tell the jury not to take the prosecutors' word for events.

Tony Canales, lawyer for Scott Yeager, said the prosecution has presented witness testimony from cooperators and witnesses with immunity who've tailored their message to what the government wanted to hear rather than to the truth.

Lawyers for Kevin Howard said that the key witness against him probably bent her testimony to please the government for fear she would be charged or deported.

And Barry Pollack, attorney for Michael Krautz, said the power of suggestion obviously altered the memory of government witnesses such as ex-Enron Broadband Services CEO Ken Rice, who recalled his reaction at a 2000 conference to seeing a video that wasn't actually shown there.


Over to you, jurors. Tom has his usual nice summary of it all. Any guesses as to how long they take before there's a verdict?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 13, 2005 to Enronarama | TrackBack
Comments

Canales, lawyer for Scott Yeager, said the prosecution has presented witness testimony from cooperators and witnesses with immunity who've tailored their message to what the government wanted to hear rather than to the truth.

Lawyers for Kevin Howard said that the key witness against him probably bent her testimony to please the government for fear she would be charged or deported.

I'm not saying the defendants aren't guilty, but the defense's concern here is legitimate. Given the government's ability to put just about anyone through legal hell, and the fact that witnesses regularly cut deals to cooperate in exchange for less of the aforementioned legal hell, can you really trust them?

There was actually a court finding a few years ago that these sorts of deals ran afoul of the Federal bribery statute, but they were naturally overturned on appeal. Upholding that one would've upset too many applecarts.

Posted by: Mathwiz on July 16, 2005 5:32 PM