"If each of us believes that one Andersen agent acted knowingly and with a corrupt intent, is it for all of us to believe it was the same agent? Can one believe it was Agent A, another believe it was Agent B, and another believe it Agent C?"On the eighth day of deliberations in the criminal case against Arthur Andersen, for obstruction of justice in the destruction of documents relating to Enron, the jury came back with the above note to the Judge. That's a great question, and it says some very positive things about the level of discourse that's going on in the jury room. The judge's response came today, telling them that they "do not have to agree on who committed the crime as long as each of them believes somebody did." While the prosecution agrees with this result, the defense argues that based upon the nature of the charge, the jury would have to be able to agree upon the identity of a specific wrongdoer.
Saturday, June 15, 2002
jurors' note in the arthur andersen case
Posted by William Slawski at 1:11 AM