Tom Kirkendall has a fantastic summary here. I started reading the opinion, until I saw that the Fifth Circuit ignored the blatant prosecutorial misconduct.
Here is what the media did not report: A lot of people within Enron did not believe that Skilling actually committed many of the crimes he was charged with. There were witnesses willing to come forward with evidence that he could have shown a jury. So why didn't these witnesses come foward?
The prosecutor, in the indictment against Skilling, also listed over 100 unindicted co-conspirators. Everyone who had favorable evidence to offer were afraid that they were one of those 100. So they kept their mouths shut. Who can blame them?
Of course, after the Skilling and Ken Lay convictions, the prosecution did not indict anyone else. Thus, reasonable people can infer only one thing: The prosecution had no intention of indicting anyone other than Skilling and Lay. The prosecution's sole goal was to prevent people from coming forward with exculpatory evidence.
The Fifth Circuit was not at all concerned about blatant prosecutorial misconduct.
Comments