Skilling bruised but still standing
HOUSTON — Former Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling may be standing after his verbal boxing match with a federal prosecutor, but he took some sucker punches that could figure heavily into whether jurors in his fraud and conspiracy trial believe his claims of innocence.
But if even one juror believes him, he won the match, experts said.
“That one vote for acquittal prevents him from being convicted,” said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor. “The government only wins if it convicts him with votes of 12 jurors. All Skilling needed to do was put enough doubt in the mind of one juror to create reasonable doubt and prevent his conviction.”
As the 52-year-old former leader of the disgraced energy company said after ending almost eight days of grueling testimony in his own defense, it’s in the jury’s hands.
Soon, the same will be true for his co-defendant, Enron founder Kenneth Lay, whose own testimony is scheduled to begin Monday.
Both men are accused of repeatedly lying to investors and employees about Enron’s financial health, saying the company was strong when they allegedly knew accounting tricks hid weaknesses.
Lay and Skilling say no fraud occurred at the company other than that committed by a few executives who skimmed millions from secret side deals. They attribute Enron’s December 2001 descent into bankruptcy proceedings to bad publicity and lost market confidence.
Skilling faces 28 counts of fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors that stretches from 1999 through his abrupt resignation in mid-August 2001. The six fraud and conspiracy charges against Lay pertain to the period between Skilling’s departure and Enron’s flameout.
In the first four days of Skilling’s testimony, defense lawyer Daniel Petrocelli led the ex-CEO through each criminal count against him. Skilling had answers for each. Sometimes it was simply that the allegation wasn’t true. Sometimes he relied on complicated details to show the allegations couldn’t be true because issues weren’t as simple as prosecutors portrayed them.
Like the prosecution witnesses before him, Skilling lacked physical evidence to back up his claims. One was that his accusers either lied about incriminating conversations and meetings, or misunderstood them.
Petrocelli also laid the groundwork for a contentious cross-examination, allowing his client to say he was angry at the government for targeting an innocent man. Skilling had occasional flare-ups with Sean Berkowitz, a Chicago federal prosecutor who joined the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force in February 2004.
Under Petrocelli’s questioning, Skilling freely explained Enron’s complex businesses, appearing animated as he relived the halcyon days of the company he credited himself with building. In contrast, Berkowitz subsequently shot down his efforts to give detailed, complicated answers by demanding a simple yes or no. Sometimes Skilling complied, though he would indicate to jurors that there was more to tell.
“I think Berkowitz did an excellent job of keeping control of a very difficult defendant to cross-examine,” said Michael Wynne, a former federal prosecutor in Houston who watched much of Skilling’s testimony.