Did Enron exec get impartial jury?

Houston Chronicle:

U.S. Supreme Court justices Monday voiced deep concern about the way Enron executive Jeff Skilling's Houston jury was chosen and about a law used to convict him.

But at the same time, the jurists voiced reluctance to make sweeping changes.

Central to Skilling's appeal are arguments that he couldn't be guaranteed an impartial jury in Houston given community sentiment after the fall of Enron, and that several of his convictions were under a federal statute that makes it a crime to deprive a business or government of “honest services.” Skilling says that statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Skilling, who is in a suburban Denver prison, was found guilty by a Houston jury in 2006 of 19 counts of conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors in connection with the 2001 fall of Enron.

Because the court has heard two other cases this term on the honest services statute, legal experts expect the court will try to clear up its meaning and possibly give Skilling a new trial.

But experts expect the court will deal gingerly with the venue issue to avoid creating massive headaches for trial judges in major cases.

...

Justice Stephen Breyer said he is concerned about whether this was a fair trial and cited troubling sections from jury selection transcripts.

But Breyer and others noted they would be loath to take discretion away from a trial judge and, in Breyer's words, get “into the business of running the trial court.”

Sri Srinivasan, who argued for the imprisoned Skilling, likened the case to the Oklahoma City bombing trial that was moved to Denver. He noted jury selection in that case took more than 18 days.

Srinivasan said the bias was so pervasive in Houston after Enron's collapse that the judge should not have taken potential jurors' word that they could overcome bias and should have suspected those who claimed no bias.

...

I think that lawyers for KSM will be looking at this case when and if they get to select a jury for the 9-11 trials. When you consider the prejudicial statements made by the President and the Attorney General in that case, it would be hard to imagine they could get an impartial jury. That is why it makes so much more sense to try them before a military commission where there would likely be a guilty plea anyway.

In fact, Holder's turning down a guilty plea to have a trial that will cost hundreds of million dollars should be considered malpractice on its face.