8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
1/66
06-20885
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY K. SKILLING,Defendant-Appellant.
JEFFREY K. SKILLINGS OPENING BRIEF ON REMAND
FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
On Appeal From The United States District Court
For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division
Crim. No. H-04-25 (Lake, J.)
OMELVENY & MYERS LLPWALTERDELLINGERJONATHAN D. HACKERSRI SRINIVASAN1625 Eye Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006
RONALD G. WOODS5300 Memorial, Suite 1000Houston, Texas 77007
OMELVENY & MYERS LLPDANIEL M. PETROCELLIM. RANDALL OPPENHEIMERMATTHEW T. KLINEDAVID J. MARROSO1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th FloorLos Angeles, California 90067Telephone: (310) 553-6700Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JEFFREY K. SKILLING
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
2/66
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-i-
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 10
FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................................... 11
ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 12
I. THE HONEST-SERVICES FRAUD ERROR REQUIRESREVERSAL OF SKILLINGS CONSPIRACY CONVICTION..... 12
A. The Conspiracy Conviction Can Stand Only If TheGovernment Can Prove That Its Honest-Services Fraud
Theory Was Identical To Its Securities-Fraud Theory ........... 13B. The Government Cannot Establish That Its Honest-
Services Fraud Theory Was Identical To Securities Fraud .... 17
II. THE ERRONEOUS HONEST-SERVICES THEORYINFECTED EVERY OTHER COUNT OF CONVICTION............ 39
A. Securities Fraud (Counts 2, 14, 16-20, 22-26)........................ 40
B. Insider Trading (Count 51) ..................................................... 51
C. False Statements to Auditors (Counts 31, 32, and 34-36) ...... 54
CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 58
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
3/66
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
-ii-
CASES
Al Qaadir v. Gallegos,1995 WL 330628 (9th Cir. June 2, 1995) ................................................. 11
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) .......................................................................... 4, 12
Feela v. Israel,727 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1984)..................................................................... 57
Kennedy v. So. Cal. Edison Co.,268 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2001)..................................................................... 11
Kotteakos v. U.S.,328 U.S. 750 (1946) .............................................................................. 9, 47
McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987) .................................................................................. 13
Neder v. U.S.,527 U.S. 1 (1999) ........................................................................................ 2
Sullivan v. Louisiana,508 U.S. 275 (1993) .............................................................................. 9, 47
U.S. v. Acker,52 F.3d 509 (4th Cir. 1995)....................................................................... 53
U.S. v. Alexius,76 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 1996)....................................................................... 56
U.S. v. Barona,56 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)............................................................... 56, 57
U.S. v. Brown,459 F.3d 509 (5th Cir. 2006)................................................................. 3, 15
U.S. v. Edwards,303 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2002)..................................................................... 14
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
4/66
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Pages
-iii-
U.S. v. Goodner Bros. Aircraft, Inc.,
966 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1992)............................................................... 54, 57
U.S. v. Hands,184 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)................................................................. 11
U.S. v. Holley,23 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 1994)........................................................... 13, 14, 24
U.S. v. Howard,517 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 2008).............................................................. passim
U.S. v. Johnson,44 F. Appx 752 (9th Cir. 2002)................................................................ 42
U.S. v. Kaiser,660 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1981)..................................................................... 42
U.S. v. Pettigrew,77 F.3d 1500 (5th Cir. 1996)..................................................................... 19
U.S. v. Saks,
964 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir. 1992)............................................................. 13, 14
U.S. v. Santos,201 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2000)..................................................................... 53
U.S. v. Sardesai,125 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1997)..................................................................... 42
U.S. v. Skilling,554 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2009)........................................................... 1, 10, 39
U.S. v. Slade,627 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .................................................................. 53
U.S. v. Smithers,27 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1994)....................................................................... 14
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
5/66
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Pages
-iv-
U.S. v. Urcioli,
513 F.3d 290 (1st Cir. 2007) ..................................................................... 38
U.S. v. Washington,106 F.3d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .................................................................. 42
Yates v. U.S.,354 U.S. 298 (1957) ........................................................................... passim
Zant v. Stephens,462 U.S. 862 (1983) .................................................................................. 12
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. 78m............................................................................................ 10
15 U.S.C. 78ff............................................................................................ 10
15 U.S.C. 78j.............................................................................................. 10
18 U.S.C. 1346............................................................................................. 1
18 U.S.C. 371............................................................................................. 10
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
6/66
INTRODUCTION
Jeffrey Skilling was convicted in May 2006 for fraud-related offenses
arising out of the sudden collapse of Enron Corp. in late 2001. He has been
incarcerated in federal prison since December 13, 2006more than three-
and-a-half yearswith almost 20 years remaining on the 24-year sentence
imposed initially by the district court.1
On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court invalidated one of the two
theories of fraud the government asserted against Skillingi.e., that he
conspired to deprive Enron of its right to honest services under 18 U.S.C.
1346 by taking actions he knew were not in the best interests of Enron
and its shareholders. R:36424.2 The Supreme Court unanimously held the
honest-services statute does not permit the government to try such open-
ended theories of wrongdoing, but instead covers only bribery and kickback
1 This Court vacated the sentence in its 2009 decision, holding that thedistrict court erred in applying a financial institution enhancement. U.S. v.Skilling, 554 F.3d 529, 595 (5th Cir. 2009). A resentencing has yet to occur.
2 Citations are made as follows: R:123 refers to the Record on Appeal,page 123; SR1:123 refers to Supplemental Record #1; SR2:123 refers toSupplemental Record #2; GX100:123 refers to Government Trial Exhibit
100, page 123; DX100:123 refers to Defense Trial Exhibit 100, page 123.Sealed documents are cited by date and title, and identified as sealed.JKS-1:123 refers to materials cited in Skillings Motion to Supplement theRecord on Appeal, Tab 1, page 123. Skilling Br. refers to Skillingsopening brief on his original appeal (Sept. 7, 2007), and Skilling Replyrefers to his reply brief in support of the same (Dec. 21, 2007). U.S. Br.refers to the governments original brief in opposition (Nov. 13, 2007).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
7/66
2
schemes. Skilling v. U.S., 08-1394, Slip Op. at 2. And [b]ecause
Skillings alleged misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback, it does not fall
within 1346s proscription. Id. at 2;see id. at 50 (It is clear that, as
we read 1346, Skilling did not commit honest-services fraud.).
The Supreme Court did not, however, reverse Skillings convictions.
Instead, it remanded the case for this Court to determine whether the district
courts constitutional error in allowing the government to submit its
legally flawed honest-services theory to the jury was harmless as to any of
Skillings 19 convictions. Id. at 50.
As the case returns to this Court, Skillings convictions are
presumptively invalid, given the conceded error in trying him on a non-
existent theory of criminal liability. The question now is whether the
government can overcome that presumption by proving, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that the erroneous submission of the honest-services
theory to the jury did notaffect Skillings convictions. See Neder v. U.S.,
527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999) (instructional error on elements of crime not harmless
unless it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have
found the defendant guilty absent the error); Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298,
312 (1957) (reversal required where it is unclear whether the convictions
rested on legally valid or invalid bases). Unless the government carries that
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
8/66
3
burden through a fact-intensive analysis of each count, the convictions
cannot stand, and Skilling must be retried before a jury not exposed to, and
not invited to convict on, an invalid fraud theory.
The government cannot carry its burden. The district court, in ruling
on bail at sentencing, recognized that the submission of an invalid honest-
services theory to the jury likely required reversal of Skillings conviction
for conspiracyCount 1 of the governments case. R:41895-98;see also
U.S. v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 523 (5th Cir. 2006) (finding error in submitting
honest-services theory to jury in parallel Enron case not harmless as to
conspiracy count). The government did not dispute that conclusion then, nor
did it do so when Skilling appealed the bail ruling to this Court. See U.S.
Resp. to Skillings Mot. for Bail Pending Appeal at 2, 12, 15 (Oct. 18, 2006)
(sealed); U.S. Resp. to Appellants Mot. for Bail Pending Appeal at 2, 15, 18
(5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2006). In reviewing Skillings bail application in late
2006, Judge Higginbotham went further still, noting that error in the honest-
services fraud theory created serious frailties in 14 of the 19 counts of
conviction, Order, U.S. v. Skilling(5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2006)the one
conspiracy count, the 12 securities-fraud counts, and the one insider-trading
count on which Skilling was convicted, leaving only five counts for alleged
false statements to Enrons auditor, Arthur Andersen (FSA counts),see id.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
9/66
4
Judge Higginbotham was correct as to the 14 counts, but wrong as to
the remaining five. As the district court recognized, reversal of the
conspiracy conviction is required because the government charged Skilling
with multiple objects of the conspiracyincluding securities fraud and
honest-services wire fraudand successfully urged a general verdict form,
ensuring that it would be impossible to know, in view of the general verdict
returned whether the jury imposed liability on a permissible or an
impermissible ground. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605,
2615 n.3 (2008);see Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 129 S. Ct. 530, 530 (2008) (a
conviction based on a general verdict is subject to challenge if the jury was
instructed on alternative theories of guilt and may have relied on an invalid
one). Given the record evidence, argument, and open-ended honest-
services jury instruction the government fought so hard to obtain, reasonable
jurors easily could have found Skilling guilty on the broad, legally wrong
honest-services wire fraud object without finding him guilty on the more
demanding securities-fraud object.
Reversal on the remaining counts is likewise required, for the same
reason: for every count, the jury was allowed and even encouraged to rely
on the legally incorrect honest-services fraud theory in deciding whether to
convict. On the 12 securities-fraud counts, the government obtained a
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
10/66
5
Pinkerton vicarious liability instruction, which allowed jurors to rely on
the conspiracy conviction to convict Skilling for any charged act of
securities fraud committed by any other co-conspirator, even if Skilling
himself did not commit the act. Given the governments heavy reliance on
the acts of alleged co-conspirators, it is very possible the jurors did exactly
that. For every securities-fraud count, one or more of Skillings alleged co-
conspirators testified that they themselves had committed the acts of
securities fraud at issue (and in many cases formally pled guilty to them),
while Skilling himself often had little involvement in the statement (or
underlying conduct affecting the statement), and had substantial defenses to
direct liability for the charge. Accordingly, it is likelyif not virtually
certainthat the jurors relied heavily on thePinkerton vicarious liability
instruction in convicting Skilling for the admittedacts of securities fraud by
others. In U.S. v. Howard, 517 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. 2008), this Court reversed
a conviction tainted by aPinkerton instruction in a parallel Enron
prosecution involving one part of thesame alleged overarching conspiracy.
The same result as inHowardmust obtain here.
Count 51the insider-trading countalso must fall with the
conspiracy count. The government explicitly urged the jury to convict
Skilling for insider trading on the theory that he sold Enron shares when he
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
11/66
6
became aware that his alleged conspiracy to commit fraud was about to be
exposed. Because the jury could have found that the conspiracy was one to
commit honest-services fraud, then the supposed inside information on
which Skilling tradedthe conspiracywas legally nonexistent. The
insider-trading conviction is thus tainted and cannot stand.
The five FSA counts, finally, are also rendered infirm by the
erroneous honest-services theory. For each of these counts, the government
alleged that management representation letters sent by Enron to Arthur
Andersen falsely stated that there was no material fraud at Enron. The
government also challenged other statements in the letters as false, but
Skilling had substantial defenses to these statements, including scienter and
reliance, and the government spent only minutes on these charges in the
course of the five-month trial. See Skilling Br. at 56-57; Skilling Reply at
45-46. The jurors easily could have credited Skillings defenses, while still
convicting him on the legally impermissible ground that the no material
fraud statement was false in light of the honest-services fraud conspiracy.
In short, having elected to press the honest-services fraud theory
throughout trial and to fight vigorously for an instruction permitting jurors to
rely on it, the government cannot now exclude the possibility that the jurors
applied the erroneous honest-services fraud theory to convict Skilling for
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
12/66
7
conspiring to commit an act of fraud that does not legally exist, and then
applied that finding to convict Skilling on every other count. After all, the
whole point of the honest-services fraud theory was to secure a path to
conviction less demanding than full-blown securities fraud.
And make no mistake about it: the government did nothave a clear-
cut case of securities fraud against Skilling.3 Far from it. The governments
lead prosecutors conceded before and after trial that the case against Skilling
was plagued by fundamental weaknesses, Skilling took steps seemingly
inconsistent with alleged criminal intent, there were no smoking gun
documents, government witnesses had been subjected to vicious
impeachment, and, given the scores of lawyers and accountants who
reviewed and approved the disputed conduct, there were serious advice of
counsel issues. Skilling Br. at 19-20. Skilling also presented compelling
evidence that each of the disputed transactions and alleged misstatements
was fully disclosed and known to the public; that Enrons accounting, even
if aggressive, was correct; and that the alleged misstatements made were
true, or at worst immaterial. See Skilling Br. at 24-55; Skilling Reply at 2-
3 A thorough recitation of the evidentiary failures and weaknesses in thegovernments securities-fraud case is set forth in Skillings appellate briefs.
E.g., Skilling Br. at 24-55; Skilling Reply at 2-13. The Court, in thisprocedural settingwhere error has now been establisheddoes notreviewthe trial record in the light most favorable to the government. Infra at 11.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
13/66
8
13. These facts were established not only by defense witnesses, but also by
admission after admission from the governments own witnesses on every
key point in the case,see id., and even by the prosecutors themselves, who
admitted, for example, that they had less than compelling evidence that
Skillings statements materially misled investors, because stock analysts had
not been misled by Enrons filings,see Skilling Br. at 100-01 n.34.
The honest-services theory gave the governmentand the jurya
path to avoid the vulnerabilities of the governments securities-fraud case. It
permitted the jury to convict Skilling, in the governments words, for not
doing his job appropriately, for taking reckless risks, and for creating an
objectionable culture at Enronone that tolerated conflicts of interest,
encouraged aggressive accounting, and promoted taking on increased
risk to hit short-term earnings targets at the expense of long-term business
fundamentals. R:37066, 22848, 36467, 29822-23, 36446, 36455-56.
Although such acts would not necessarily constitute securities fraud,
Skillings jurors were urged to treat them as criminal, on the theory that they
violated fiduciary duties Skilling owed to his employer. That theory of the
honest services crime, the Supreme Court has now held, does not exist.
The government cannot now seriously deny the possibility that the
jurors applied the law just as the government urged them to apply it. In the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
14/66
9
prior appeal, the governments position was, in essence, that any honest-
services error was harmless because, absent the error, there was sufficient
evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Skilling committed actual
securities fraud and the other crimes charged. But it has long been settled
that the government cannot establish harmlessness merely by showing that
there was sufficient evidence to convict before a jury unexposed to the
erroneous legal theory. See Kotteakos v. U.S., 328 U.S. 750, 767 (1946)
(rejecting argument that error is harmless if the evidence offered
specifically and properly to convict [the] defendant would be sufficient to
sustain his conviction absent the error). Rather than marshalling sufficient
evidence on its valid theory of prosecution, the governments burden now is
to exclude the possibility that a reasonable jury could have relied on the
invalid theory for any count of conviction. The harmless-error question,
thus, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty
verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict
actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 (1993). Because it is impossible to
know whether the jury convicted Skilling on any of the 19 counts without
relying on the honest-services theory, all 19 counts must be reversed, and
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
15/66
10
Skilling must be retried before a jury that is not permitted to rest any count
of conviction on a legally invalid fraud theory.
STATEMENT
Skilling was convicted on May 25, 2006, on 19 counts: one count of
conspiracy to commit securities or wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 371); 12 counts
of securities fraud (15 U.S.C. 78j, 78ff); five counts of false statements to
auditors (15 U.S.C. 78m, 78ff); and one count of insider trading (15
U.S.C. 78j, 78ff). The jury acquitted Skilling on nine counts of insider
trading. Skilling was sentenced to 292 months and ordered to pay some $40
million in restitution. R:41917-24. Skilling has been incarcerated since
December 2006first in FCI Waseca, and now in FCI Englewood.
On January 6, 2009, this Court affirmed Skillings convictions but
vacated the sentence, holding that the district court erred in applying a
financial institutions enhancement. Skilling, 554 F.3d at 595. The Court
remanded the case for resentencing, but before further proceedings were
held, the Supreme Court on October 13, 2009, granted certiorari to review
two questions presented by Skilling in a challenge to his convictions.
On June 24, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision. By a 6-3
vote, the Court rejected Skillings challenge to the impartiality of the jury.
See Slip Op. at 34. The Court unanimously agreed with Skilling, however,
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
16/66
11
that the exceedingly broad theory of honest-services fraud asserted by the
government at trial could not legally be applied to Skilling. See id. at 50.
The Court remanded the case for this Court to determine whether the
government can establish that the error in submitting its honest-services
theory to the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 50-51.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The factual background of the case is set forth in Skillings prior
briefing. Specific facts relevant to the harmless-error question are detailed
as appropriate in the Argument section below. To be clear, however:
because this is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the Court does
notreview the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. In
harmless error review, unlike sufficiency of the evidence review, the
prevailing party is notentitled to have disputed factual issues resolved in his
favor because the jurys verdict may have resulted from a misapprehension
of law rather than from factual determinations in favor of the prevailing
party. Kennedy v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 268 F.3d 763, 770 (9th Cir. 2001).4
4
Accord U.S. v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322, 1330 n.23 (11th Cir. 1999)(Harmless error review, unlike a determination of the sufficiency of theevidence, does not require us to view witnesses credibility in the light mostfavorable to the government.);Al Qaadir v. Gallegos, 1995 WL 330628, at*3 n.5 (9th Cir. June 2, 1995) (It is impossible to determine whether anerror was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by construing evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution.).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
17/66
12
ARGUMENT
Submitting a legally erroneous theory of liability to a jury is a
constitutional error requiring reversal unless the government can prove that
the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The government cannot
make that showing here on any of the 19 counts of conviction.
I. THE HONEST-SERVICES FRAUD ERROR REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF SKILLINGS CONSPIRACY CONVICTION
Skillings indictment for conspiracy alleged three possible objects:
honest-services wire fraud, money-or-property wire fraud, and securities
fraud. R:152-59. Skilling requested a special verdict form requiring the jury
to identify the object that was the basis for any conviction, but the
government objected and the district court declined to give one. R:35899,
36020-21. The government thus expressly invited the error it must now
overcome: because of the general verdict on conspiracy, it is impossible to
know whether the jury imposed liability on a permissible or an
impermissible ground,Exxon Shipping, 128 S. Ct. at 2615 n.3, and under
Yates, 354 U.S. at 312, reversal is required where it is unclear whether the
convictions rested on legally valid or invalid bases,Howard, 517 F.3d at
736;see Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 881 (1983) (reversal required where
uncertain as to the actual ground on which the jurys decision rested).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
18/66
13
A. The Conspiracy Conviction Can Stand Only If The
Government Can Prove That Its Honest-Services Fraud
Theory Was Identical To Its Securities-Fraud Theory
This Court has long held that a Yates-type error can be proved
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, ifas relevant herethe government
can prove that the invalid theory it employed at trial was factually identical
to a legally valid theory on which the jury could have relied. See, e.g., U.S.
v. Holley, 23 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Saks, 964 F.2d 1514 (5th Cir.
1992). InHolley and Saks, for example, the defendants were convicted of
fraud pursuant to instructions that permitted jurors to find them guilty of
either honest-services fraud or substantive bank or money fraud. But the
Supreme Court decided in McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350 (1987), that to
prove mail or wire fraud, the government had to show that the defendant had
stolen (or conspired to steal) money or tangible property. Depriving a
victim of ones honest services was not enough, and therefore the jury
instructions in Saks andHolley were invalid.
After a careful examination of the trial record in both cases, this Court
held the errors to be harmless, however, because the only honest-services
fraud asserted in either case was a scheme to steal money from the banks at
issue. See Holley, 23 F.3d at 910; Saks, 964 F.2d at 1521-22. In other
words, the government was able to meet its heavy burden of proving
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
19/66
14
harmless error because there was a perfect overlap between its honest-
services and money/property theories of the case. See Saks, 954 F.2d at
1521 (the bottom line of the scheme or artifice had the inevitable result of
effecting monetary or property losses);Holley, 23 F.3d at 910 (This
scheme [to obtain fraudulent bank loans] had the inevitable, inescapable,
and unavoidable result of exposing Peoples [Bank] to at least a risk of
loss.) (emphasis added).
In the situation reflected in these cases, the error in submitting an
invalid theory to the jury is harmless because the jury that convicted on that
theory also necessarily convicted on the valid theory, eliminating all
uncertainty as to the ground for conviction. See U.S. Br. at 92. But of
course that harmlessness principle does not apply, by its own terms, where
the record and instructions permit the jury to choose between a valid trial
theory and afactually differentlegally invalid theory, because in that
circumstance it is necessarily impossible to tell which ground the jury
selected. U.S. v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 641 (5th Cir. 2002);see U.S. v.
Smithers, 27 F.3d 142, 146 (5th Cir. 1994) (rejecting government argument
that jury could not have found the defendant guilty without making the
proper factual finding because we cannot tell from the jurys answers [to
verdict form] how it evaluated the evidence).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
20/66
15
The Court applied a corollary of this rule to reverse the convictions in
Howardanother Enron-related case tainted by an invalid honest services
conspiracy charge. InHoward, the CFO of Enrons Broadband division was
charged with conspiracy to commit money-and-property wire fraud and/or
honest-services wire fraud, and with falsifying Enrons books and records.
517 F.3d at 732-33. The government asserted that Howards work on the
disputed Braveheart transactionalso at issue in Skillings caseallowed
Enron falsely to report earnings. It contended that by working on this
fraudulent transaction Howard deprived Enron of his honest services. See
id. When this Court rejected the governments expansive reading of honest-
services liability in yet another Enron case involving the Nigerian Barges
transaction also at issue in SkillingsU.S. v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509 (5th Cir.
2006)the government conceded that Howards conspiracy conviction, like
Browns, had to be reversed, because the conspiracy count the government
pursued (in all three cases) included both legally valid and legally invalid
objects, and the jury had returned (in all three cases) a general verdict on that
count. See Howard, 517 F.3d at 735.
The government disputed, however, whether Howards substantive
books and records fraud conviction had to be reversed. As in Skillings
case, even though Howards books-and-records conviction was tied directly
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
21/66
16
to the tainted conspiracy conviction by aPinkerton instruction, the
government argued the jury surely found that Howard himselfand not one
of his conspiratorswas responsible for falsifying Enrons books. See id.
This Court squarely rejected that kind of speculative approach to
determining the basis for the jurys verdict. The jury may have found
Howard guilty under Count 5 for his own acts or acts caused or directed by
him, the Court acknowledged, but it also may have concluded that
although Howard was not guilty of personally making or causing to be made
the false entries charged in Count 5, he was culpable because the false
entries were made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy
charged in Count 1. Id. at 736 (emphasis added). A careful review of the
record established that there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury
could have relied on the invalid honest-services conspiracy. Id. at 736-37
(a reasonable jury could have found that [other alleged co-conspirators]
were responsible for making the false entries). Because it was impossible
to determine whether the jury convicted Howard on Count 5 based on his
guilt on the conspiracy count plus acts by [his alleged co-conspirators], the
Court was required to reverse Howards conviction. Id. at 737.
As these cases establish, the government cannot prove a Yates-type
error harmless merely by speculating about what jurors might have found
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
22/66
17
based on a hotly contested record. As noted above,supra at 2, 4, 9, 13-16, it
has long been settled that the Government must do more than prove that a
reasonable jury couldhave found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt on the legally invalid theory. The Government instead must exclude
the possibility that the jurors relied on the invalid theory, either by showing
that there was insufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to have relied upon
it, or by showing that there was actually only one theory asserted, such that
the jurors necessarily relied on the valid theory in returning a conviction.
See id.; infra at 38, 41-42, 56-57. When the legally invalid theory is distinct
and factually supportable on its own terms, then it is impossible to know on
which theory the jury relied, and the convictions must be reversed. See id.
B. The Government Cannot Establish That Its Honest-Services
Fraud Theory Was Identical To Securities Fraud
The government cannot fairly deny that it asserted a theory of honest-
services fraud against Skilling at trial that was factually distinct from
securities fraud.5 In fact, on direct appeal before this Court, the government
5 The government all but formally abandoned the money-or-property wire
fraud theory, conceding in closing that this was not a case about greed.R:37065. The government and its witnesses also admitted Skilling neverstole any money from Enron; just the opposite, when it was good for thecompany, hegave backto it money to which he had contractually beenentitled. See R:21622-27, 21685, 21690, 21720-25, 21771 (Fastow admittedhe concealed his thefts from Skilling); R:15954, 18024-25, 22986, 24548-49(government witnesses testified that Skilling loved the company and was
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
23/66
18
did not even attemptto establish a complete identity between the honest-
services and securities-fraud theories. Rather, it argued only that the honest-
services fraud acts alleged were primarily methods of committing securities
fraud. U.S. Br. at 88 (emphasis added). As shown above, however, it is
not enough to show that the valid theory was the primary basis for liability
asserted. The government must show that the valid theory was the only
factually supportable basis on which the jury could have convicted. The
government cannot possibly carry that burden here.6
The government recently made the same argument unsuccessfully in
U.S. v. Black, No. 07-4080 (7th Cir. 2010)a case that became a companion
to Skillings in the Supreme Court. In opposing Blacks application for bail
on remand, the government argued that the honest-services fraud theory in
very committed and dedicated to it); R:28481-86 (Skilling declined $50million in compensation in order to set an example for management).
6 At oral argument before this Court, the government changed itsdescription of its trial presentation from one in which it said it pursuedprimarily a securities-fraud case, to the more aggressive claim thatvirtually every aspect of its case was aimed at prosecuting classicsecurities fraud. Indeed, the government argued the jury must have foundthat securities fraud was the object of the conspiracy. Ex. E at 41:4-5 (oral
argument transcript). As Judge Prado rightly pointed, howeverand as isfatal to the governments speculation about what the jury mightor musthave decidedIt would have been helpful to have the kind of specialcharges breakdown, then wed know for sure. Id. at 41:7-9. But, ofcourse, Skillings requests for a special verdict form were refused, and
because it is impossible to know on which ground the jury relied, Skillingsconvictions must be reversed. See Yates, 354 U.S. at 312.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
24/66
19
Blacks case was based on the same fraudulent conduct that supported the
[valid] money-fraud theory and, thus, the honest-service liability was
coextensive with the money-fraud liability. Ex. B at 2-3. The government
cited page after page of the trial record where it referred to the two theories
in similar terms. See id. at 3-15. But as Black pointed out in reply, that was
not always the case, the jury instructions expressly treated the two theories
differently, and the record showed there was not complete factual identity
between the two theories of liability. See Ex. C at 3-7 (Black reply); Ex. A
at 6-11 (Black motion). The Seventh Circuit ordered Black released from
federal prison on bail pending further remand proceedings. See Ex. D.
The governments coextensive theories argument is even more
starkly wrong here. Indeed, it is sheer nonsense to suggest that the extensive
trial record on honest-services fraud was limited to, and thus by definition
coextensive with, the record on securities fraud. As shown below,
prosecutors clearly and repeatedly invited the jury to convict on an honest-
services fraud theory precisely because it was distinct fromand easier to
prove thansecurities fraud. Consequently, it is impossible to determine,
on any fair review of the record and given the verdict form the government
demanded, which object offense the jury selected. See U.S. v. Pettigrew, 77
F.3d 1500, 1511-12 (5th Cir. 1996) (Because we are unable to determine on
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
25/66
20
review which object offense the jury selected, we reverse.); infra at 38, 42,
56-57 (collecting cases).
1. To start, the jury instructions expressly advised the jury that the
government was asserting two different theories of fraud, and that jurors
were free to convict on eithertheory. R:36412-14. The instruction
emphasized that [t]he Government does not have to prove both of these for
you to return a guilty verdict on Count 1, and the prosecutors exploited this
repeatedly in closing, arguing there were two separate and distinct paths to
conviction of both defendants, or either defendant, on Count 1,see R:37065-
66, 37042, 37047, 37013-14.
The instructions also defined the securities fraud and honest-services
fraud very differently. The securities-fraud instruction included a lengthy
recitation of the various specific and demanding elements, elaborating each
separately. R:36416-23. The honest-services fraud instruction, by contrast,
broadly defined Skillings honest services duty as his fiduciary duty to
Enron and its shareholders, R:36424, and invited jurors to convict him for
breaching that duty if they found that he did not act as a totally faithful
employee and took actions not in the best interests of Enron. Id.
2. Consistent with this wide-ranging instruction, the government
repeatedly elicited testimony from witnesses that Skilling and his alleged
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
26/66
21
conspirators breached their fiduciary responsibility, R:21224-25, and their
duties of loyalty, honesty, and honest services, R:37013-14; R:15864-
67 (breached Enron Code of Ethics, which required honesty, candor,
fairness); R:22769-70 (expectation of honesty and candor); R:32262-64
(duty of honesty, candor, fairness); R:36568 (duty of honest services);
R:37043 (duty of honest services). Indeed, in successfully arguing for a
capacious honest-services instruction, the government equated honest-
services with a mere breach of any fiduciary dutynot the limited
securities-fraud theory it now posits: [T]he governments evidence shows
that defendants committed (or conspired to commit) honest-services fraud by
breaching their fiduciary duties to Enron and its shareholders. R:41328.
3. In fact, nowhere in that submission on jury-instruction issuesnor
at any other point during trialdid the government contend that the honest-
services theory it fought so vigorously to present to the jury was actually just
redundant of its securities-fraud case. The government cannot credibly
contend now that it wasted the trial courts time and resources wrestling over
legal theories and instructions that were unnecessary and meaningless. Nor
did the government (or district court) ever advise jurors that they should
only apply the broad honest-services instruction to conduct that already
qualified as securities fraud, or that the only fiduciary breaches the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 26 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
27/66
22
government wanted to criminalize were those already criminalized as
securities fraud. To the contrary, as noted above, the jurors instructions
expressly advised them that the government was asserting two different
theories. R:36412-13. And the government wound up its rebuttal closing
argumentsome of the last minutes of a five-month trialby specifically
calling out the honest services theory and emphasizing to jurors that they
could rely on that theory alone to convict Skilling for conspiracy:
[M]ake no mistake, they got wealthy. And in exchange forthat money, they owed their employees a duty, a duty of good
faith and honest services, a duty to be truthful, and a duty to dotheir job, ladies and gentlemen, to do their job and to do itappropriately. The indictment in this case -- please read theinstructions. Please look at the indictment. You do not have to-- we do not have to prove every count in the conspiracy. We
just need to prove that there was an agreement to dosomethingillegal.
R:37065-66 (emphasis added). The something illegal the jury was invited
to find expressly included Skillings failure to provide his honest services,
or his mere alleged failure to do his job appropriatelyan encapsulation
of the ill-defined overbroad honest-services theory the Supreme Court has
now denounced.
These arguments and the Count 1 jury instruction they specifically
invoke require the reversal of Count 1. Indeed, in ruling on Skillings bail
motion, and in finding that Count 1 conviction likely had to be reversed, the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 27 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
28/66
23
district courtwhich sat through the trial, and heard the governments
caseconcluded that the jury instructions compelled this result:
[T]he court instructed the jury in this case that it could convictSkilling of conspiracy by finding that he conspired, inter alia, todeprive Enron of its intangible right to honest services. [T]he
jury returned only a general verdict making it impossible to tellon which of the various objects of the conspiracy the jury basedSkillings conviction.
R:41897. The government notably did notcontest that judgment when
Skilling appealed the bail-pending-appeal issue. See supra at 3.
4. Finally, for every transaction and business decision challenged by
the government at trial as securities fraud, Skilling presented forceful
defenses, as illustrated by Skillings acquittal on nine insider-trading
countsone-quarter of the governments case against him. As to the
remaining transactions, Skilling was able to rebut the governments
securities-fraud case at every turnoften from the mouths of the
governments own witnessesleaving no assurance whatsoever that the
jurors found Skilling guilty on the securities-fraud object of conspiracy. By
contrast, for each transaction, the government consistently articulated a fall-
back honest-services version of its case, which gave the jurors a basis for
finding Skillingseparately liable on that legally invalid theory. On the
record here, unlike in cases like Saks andHolley, one cannot plausibly even
suggestmuch less conclude beyond a reasonable doubtthat any juror
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 28 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
29/66
24
who convicted Skilling for conspiracy on an honest-services theory
inevitabl[y], inescapabl[y], and unavoidabl[y] also found him guilty
based on the securities-fraud object. Holley, 23 F.3d at 910.
a. EES. When the accounting resegmentation of a part of the EES
business unit was attacked as an effort to mislead investors, Skilling
established through each of the government witnesses, as well as his own,
that the accounting for this transaction was rock solid and complied with
the disclosure rules. Skilling Br. at 45-48; Skilling Reply at 2-4; R:19976-
78, 20277-79, 28996, 29009, 29323-29. And when the government asserted
that Enron had hidden losses in EES business, Skilling showed that these
losses had either not occurred, had not occurred in the way the governments
witnesses described, or were only speculative losses that had to be reserved
against, and that proper reserves had been taken on all accounts. Skilling Br.
at 48-49 (collecting evidence); Skilling Reply at 4 (same). With the
securities-fraud version of its EES case directly challenged, the government
fell back on the argument that Enrons actionslike the EES
resegmentationlacked a business purpose. U.S. Br. at 15. While this
charge is not necessarily a species of securities fraud (given the disclosures
that were made and the accounting rules with which Enron complied), it is
an open-ended honest-services fraud theory, which rests on the premise that
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 29 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
30/66
25
Skilling and others failed to do their jobs appropriately. Thus, while the jury
could have rejected the securities-fraud version of these allegations the
government presented, it had a second, invalid basis on which to convict.
b. LJM. LJM was a private-investment fund created by Andrew
Fastow that engaged in off-balance sheet and other transactions with Enron.
LJM was a major focus of the governments case at trial. In the securities-
fraud version of its LJM case, the government argued that Fastow entered
into secret, oral side-deals with Rick Causey, Skilling, or others on LJM-
Enron transactions that rendered the accounting and disclosure of those
transactions materially false. But the government also attacked the very
creation of LJM, claiming Skilling never should have approved its
formation. U.S. Br. at 39-42. Under this bad-business-judgment theory of
its casethe honest-services theorythe government contended that
Skilling acted recklessly in approving the structure for LJM, including
approving Fastows conflict of interest in running LJMFastow served as
general partner of LJM, worked as Enrons CFO, and negotiated with Enron
on LJMs behalf. Id. at 40-41.
The arrangement and Fastows conflict, however, were not
conceivably acts of securities fraud (and the government did not dispute
this), as both were fully vetted and approved by Enrons Board on the advice
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 30 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
31/66
26
of outside legal and accounting advisors, GX995:61; GX996:50-51;
GX1023:14-15; GX1024:16; GX1025:35; GX1026:101; GX1027:13;
GX1029:14-15; GX1031:27; GX1032:76-77; GX1033:12-13; GX1034:13;
JKS-1, and Fastows conflicting role in LJM and Enron had been fully
disclosed in Enrons SEC filings. For example, Enrons 2000 10-K
disclosed that, [i]n 2000 and 1999, Enron entered into transactions with
limited partnerships (the Related Party) whose general partners managing
member is a senior officer of Enron. GX1032:76-77. Enrons proxy
disclosed that Fastow was that senior officer, GX1025:34, and the
companys annual report disclosed the magnitude of LJMs transactions:
In 2000, Enron entered into derivative transactions with the Entities with a
combined notional amount of approximately $2.1 billion to hedge certain
merchant investments and other assets. GX1032:77.
Despite these disclosures, the government challenged LJMs creation
and Fastows role in it as part of its honest-services version of its case. It
argued that Skillings approval of LJM was itself a crime, given the risks
inherent in the Fastow conflict. U.S. Br. at 40. And it had its witnesses
testify that they and other Enron executives believed that the LJM
transactions were misguided and harmed Enron because of Fastows
conflictand that Skilling had been told of their views. R:17242-43,
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 31 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
32/66
27
29826-27. The government stressed that Skilling and the Enron Board had
been warned about the Wall Street Journal risk inherent in LJMnota
risk that the conflict would violate securities laws, but that the disclosure of
this conflictwhich all agreed occurredwould look terrible to Wall
Street and thereby reflect badly on Enron as a company. R:36529-30.
The government leaned heavily on this honest-services, breach-of-
fiduciary-duty theory in its closing argument:
Lets just talk a little bit about LJM. Youve heard a lot about itin this trial. First and foremost, extremely, extremely unusualto have a chief financial officer of a Fortunate 500 companycontrolling a private fund that was doing deals with Enron.Huge risks associated with it.
Biggest risk? Wall Street Journal risk. They talked about it.They discussed it among the board, among Mr. Lay andMr. Skilling. Mr. Fastow told you that if the Wall StreetJournal picked it up it would look terrible for Enron.
Why would you do this? Why would a company do this? The reasonwhy they did it is exactly the reason that Mr. Fastow told you, to maketheir numbers. So they had a tool, a device, a vehicle to make theirnumbers look the way they wanted them to look.
People at the company raised concerns to Mr. Skilling about LJM.You heard Mr. Rice. He called him up, and he said, I dontunderstand why were doing this. Mr. Rice told you that he had
talked to Mr. Baxter, another senior executive, who also raisedconcern about LJM. Mr. Kaminski raised vigorous concerns aboutthe conflict of interest. You heard Mr. Skilling acknowledge in histestimony that Mr. McMahon, the treasurer before Ben Glisan, alsoraised concerns about LJM.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 32 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
33/66
28
Mr. Skilling suggested it to you. So hes getting all thisinformation. People are saying, Why are we doing this? Thislooks bad. This is weird. Why do we have our CFOnegotiating against Enron people? That seems crazy.
R:21414-15 (emphasis added). And even on appeal before this Court
when the government did not anticipate the Supreme Courts invalidation of
its honest-services theorythe government cited as evidence of criminal
conduct the testimony of witnesses who claimed that thefully disclosedLJM
conflict reflected excessive and reckless risks. U.S. Br. at 41-42 (citing
R:22848);see also R:22843-44.
None of those concerns about unusual or crazy business decisions
and reckless but disclosed risks would necessarily establish that Skilling
conspired to commit securities fraud. But they all would suffice to establish
honest-services fraud under the governments broad and erroneous theory
that not doing ones job appropriately is a federal crime. R:37065-66.
Indeed, the government argued exactly this when opposing Skillings bail
motion before this Court in 2006. It contended that Skillings mere acts of
approving Fastows LJM conflict was a straightforward example of an act
of fraud coming to Skillings attention and of his wrongly countenancing
such acts. U.S. Resp. to Appellants Mot. for Bail Pending Appeal at 11 (5th
Cir. Nov. 27, 2006). Because Fastows conflict was disclosed to
shareholders, this could only be an honest-services theory of fraud. And
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 33 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
34/66
29
given the substantial flaws in its reliance on secret side deals to prove
securities fraud in connection with LJM,see Skilling Br. at 29-36; Skilling
Reply at 9-14, 74-78, the government cannot conceivably exclude the
possibility that the jury relied on the simpler, easier, and more direct honest-
services theory urged by the government to convict Skilling for conspiracy
to commit fraud in connection LJM.7
7 Two specific LJM transactions illustrate this basic point, but the
evidentiary gaps in the governments securities-fraud-based LJM case werelegion:
The governments appeal brief explicitly highlighted LJMs firstdeal with Enronthe so-called Rhythms transactionas an exampleof Skillings criminal conduct in taking excessive [and] reckless risks,R:22848, and gambling in [a] casino that is insolventi.e., anhonest-services-based allegation. R:22843;see U.S. Br. at 41-42. Yetthere was no conceivable securities-fraud version of this alleged crime toargue or pursue; the government never argued that there was a secret-side
deal underlying this transaction rendering its accounting false, andeveryone agreed that, though risky, the Rhythms hedged had worked.See R:28621-22, 24550-51, 23019-21.
Similarly, Fastow and Causey negotiated an LJM-Enron hedge forthe privately held Avici stock that Enron owned. R:21414-15. Thegovernment complained it was weird and crazy for Fastow to benegotiating with Enron on the dealthe honest-services attack on theAvici transaction. R:36530. The separate securities-fraud attack ran intoa major problem. The government accused Fastow and Causey of
backdating the pricing terms on the hedge (rendering the accountingfalse), R:858, but Kevin Hannon, a government witness, conceded thehedge was notbackdated, despite Fastows claim to the contrary.Skilling Reply at 13-14.
In his appellate briefing, Skilling provided many other reasons why theGovernments securities fraud case with respect to LJM was weak andinfirm, see, e.g., id. at 9-14, and every one of those infirmities cements why
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 34 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
35/66
30
c. Enrons Wholesale Business. The government also asserted
distinct theories of fraud in connection with Enrons extremely successful
Wholesale energy business. In the honest-services version, the government
contended that it was wrong for Enron to focus on short-term earnings
targets, and that this focus led the Wholesale business to take on far too
much trading risk by steadily increasing the companys overall Value at
Risk (or VaR) exposure in its energy trading portfolios. R:19710-11,
19847, 22389, 36508-12. As the government argued in closing:
The wholesale business, as you heard, at this point in time hadbeen taking on increased risk. They were continuing to -- thetraders were continuing to make bigger and bigger bets to meettheir increased earnings targets.
R:36446.
The alternative, more demanding securities-fraud version of the
Wholesale trading allegations took a different tack and added several
difficult elements to the governments proof. The government could not
argue that Enron hid its overall or shifting risk profile from the investing
public, because Enron disclosed its VaR numbers every quarter in SEC
filings. Skilling Br. at 43. So the government claimed instead that Skilling
mischaracterized Enrons business model by calling it a logistics company
the government cannot meet its burden of proving harmless error as to theseparate honest-services theory it pursued.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 35 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
36/66
31
or a market intermedi[ary], when he should have called it a trading
business, akin to a Wall Street firm like Goldman Sachs. R:869, 10753. But
of course Enron, unlike Goldman Sachs energy traders, ownedone of the
largest pipeline and energy distribution systems in the world, and those
logistics and intermediary parts of Enrons business not only made it far
more than a pure trading company, but allowed Enron to meet supply and
demand and cover trading positions and made it perhaps the most
knowledgeable player in the energy business in the world. R:28866-916.
It was thus not only possible, but indeed likely, that if the jury found
that Skilling conspired to commit any fraud in connection with the
Wholesale business, it was honest-services fraud for taking on too much risk
(an appealing jury theory, given that Enron eventually went bankrupt), not
securities fraud for mislabeling the Wholesale business (a largely theoretical,
semantic debate about which Skilling showed opinions could differ).
d. EBS. The government also attacked the EBS business unit,
arguing both that Skilling and others lied about the health of the business
R:36494-508, and that Enron had made significant business misjudgments in
betting on the emergence of the broadband and technology markets,
R:29034-35, 29178-81, 28207-08, 29239-40, 29414. But as Skilling has
shown, the governments evidence that Skilling or others lied or misled
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 36 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
37/66
32
anyone about the health of the EBS business was based on selective editing
of the relevant statements at issue, which in full context were true and
clearly disclosed the market difficulties that the EBS business was facing
as amply reflected in stock analysts valuations of the business. See Skilling
Br. at 50-55; Skilling Reply at 4-6. Skilling likewise showed that EBSs
revenues were fully and accurately disclosed, so that investors knew exactly
how EBS was positioned, regardless of any cheerleading and puffery about
the business by Enron executives. The governments failure of proof on its
EBS case is hardly surprisingit outright lost a separate trial focused
specifically on EBS. U.S. v. Hirko, No. 03-93 (S.D. Tex. 2005). But for
present purposes, the point is not that there was insufficient evidence on
which to find Skilling guilty of the securities-fraud object for EBS-related
actionsit is that reasonable jurors could just as well have rejectedthe
governments EBS case, and found Skilling guilty of the honest-services
object for some other conduct, or even for EBS-related conduct on the
theory that Skilling made a bad business judgment investing so heavily in
the broadband business when the market was turning against it and the so-
called tech-stock bubble was bursting. R:14759-60, 36497-98.
e. Reserve Accounting. GAAP requires that each quarter companies
take reserves against certain contingent business risks. The government
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 37 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
38/66
33
asserted that Enrons use of reserves was fraudulent in two different ways.
The securities-fraud version was that Enron over- or under-reserved in
certain accounts and in certain quarters to meet Wall Street earnings targets,
resulting in inaccurate earnings. U.S. Br. at 33-39. But with respect to
every one of these quarters, there was extensivemost-often
uncontradictedevidence that the final reserve amounts were wholly
accurate, carefully reflected and predicted contingent litigation and market
risks, and that even if the reserves were marginally inaccurate, any deviation
was immaterial from an accounting perspective. Skilling Br. at 36-42;
Skilling Reply at 7-9. Again, the record establishing the sound business
reasons for the reserves, the accuracy of their amounts, the ways these
amounts had been tested at Enron and by Arthur Andersen, and the
immateriality of any deviations in the reserves came not only from Skilling
and an accounting expert, but from the governments own witnesses.
R:33927-30, 23555-56, 23559-60, 33920-23, 34029-31, 19599-60.8
8 Indeed, in one quarter (Q2 2000) in which the government alleged that
Enron set a litigation reserve number too low in order to show an extrapenny of earnings to Wall Street, its own witness who adjusted thelitigation reserve (Wes Colwell) admitted that the new litigation reservenumber accurately predicted the settlement value of the underlying litigationat issue, and that, if anything, Enrons reserves for that quarter, understatedthe companys earnings because credit reserves were more substantiallyover-reserved. See R:21742-45, 19594-98;see also R:23555-56, 23559-60,
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 38 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
39/66
34
Critically, however, the erroneous honest-services theory gave the
jurors an easy fall-back way to convict even if they found the final earnings
to be materially accurate. As the government and its witnesses argued, it
was simply inappropriate and wrong for a company to have earnings
expectations in mind when establishing reserve amounts, even ifthe final
reserve amounts were wholly accurate. E.g., R:36525 (The earnings are
what the earnings are. Its not supposed to be reverse engineered. Its not
supposed to be backwards like that.).
A dramatic example of this honest-services theory of reserves
manipulation concerned an alleged Fourth Quarter 1999 reserve
adjustment. Two investor-relations executives who had nothing to do with
setting reservesMark Koenig and Paul Riekertestified for the
government that Enrons final earnings for that quarter changed by a penny
the day before earnings numbers were released and the day afterWall
Streets earnings forecast changed. Without any knowledge about where
this extra penny came from, R:16119-22, 16130, 16140-41, 19177-80, both
argued that the mere fact this change had been made was wrong and
implicated Skilling in criminal activity, R:16140 (I thinkthats wrong);
18377 (I feltit was wrong). And, of course, while the undisputed
33920-23, 34029-31, 23577, 33923; SR3:4025; R:33923-24, 33926-27;R:19607-09; DX8548.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 39 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
40/66
35
evidence showed that a reserves adjustment had actually been made several
days earlier than Koenig and Rieker speculated and had been vetted by
Arthur Andersen, R:16123-24, 19179-80, 33919thereby eviscerating any
securities-fraud version of the 4Q 1999 reserves adjustmentthe
government nevertheless emphasized the issue in closing. R:36515-18.
Given the record showing accurate reserves, coupled with the
erroneous fiduciary breach honest-services theory the government
pursued, the jury easily could have determined that Enrons earnings reports
were accurate, but agreed with the governments alternative theory that
Skillings fiduciary duties of honesty and candor required him to avoid
theprocess Enron used to set reserves. R:29610, 37013-14.
f. Enrons Culture. The governments approach to reserves
reflected a more general theory of criminality advocated by the government.
Not willing to rely solely on its contentions that Skilling made affirmative,
material misrepresentations to shareholders about Enrons finances,
constituting securities fraud, R:36492; U.S. Br. at 24-33, the government
also relied on the distinct proposition that Skilling inappropriately directed
Enrons focus toward short-term earnings reports at the expense of the
companys long-term business fundamentals, an argument for the invalid
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 40 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
41/66
36
legal theory of honest services. U.S. Br. at 79 (Skilling completely
corrupted his position and subverted the entire corporate culture at Enron).
In keeping with the theme, the government insisted in closing
argument there was tremendous pressure at Enron to generate earnings and
hit earnings targets, R:36466, and the culture at Enron was to do
transactions that maximized financial reporting earnings as opposed to
maximizing the economic value of the transactions. R:36467;see also
R:36512 (Weve been talking about this culture at Enron. The witnesses
told you about this culture at Enron, have to hit the number, have to hit the
number.). In 2000 and 2001, the government asked jurors rhetorically,
[W]hat was the most important thing? The actual operations of the
company? No. Meeting the [Wall Street] consensus estimate. R:36513
(quoting Koenig). And as part of its attack on Enrons culture, the
government argued that Enron employees routinely engaged in aggressive
accounting to make the numbers look the way that they wanted them to
look. R:36455-56;see also R:36456 (You heard about a culture, ladies
and gentlemen, where somebody like Wanda Curry -- you remember her.
She was an earlier witness in the case. She worked at the company for 22
years. You heard about a culture where she was fired from her job because
she couldnt make aggressive accounting decisions.).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 41 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
42/66
37
These remaining arguments by the government perfectly illustrate the
alternative, legally erroneous view of honest-services fraud that so
pervasively distorted this case: on its view, a corporate executive commits a
criminal act by fostering a culture where employees engage in aggressive
accountingnot inaccurate accountingto meet short-term earnings
targets, rather than focusing on company operations and maximizing
economic value. These are arguments about sound management and how
to run a company. They are not arguments about the ultimate disclosures
Enron made to shareholderswhich the governments witnesses were
repeatedly forced to concede were accurate.
The Supreme Court has now made clear, however, that alleged bad
business management and risk taking that constitutes a breach of fiduciary
duties is notthe crime of mail or wire fraud. But, in Skillings case, the
prosecutors expressly urged the jury to convict him on exactly that invalid
basisand they did so because, from the outset, they knew their case was
plagued by fundamental weaknesses and their evidence of material
misstatements to investors was less impressive than hoped. Supra at 7-8.
* * *
As the foregoing discussion shows, for every transaction the
government attacked at trial, reasonable jurors easily could have rejected the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 42 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
43/66
38
governments factually and legally demanding theory that his conduct in
each instance satisfied all the elements of securities fraud, while finding
instead that Skilling committed honest-services fraudas the crime was
erroneously defined for themsimply by breaching his fiduciary duties.
And because every transaction involved multiple alleged co-conspirators,
jurors needed only to find that Skilling conspired to commit honest-services
fraud as to any one transaction (e.g., approving the Fastow-LJM conflict) to
convict him for conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud. In other
words, to return a verdict of guilty on conspiracy, jurors never needed even
to considerwhether Skilling himself conspired to commit any act of
securities fraud. For every transaction, there was substantial evidence that
he did not commit securities fraud, but what matters here is that because of
the distinct alternative honest-services fraud theory, the jury was never
required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Skilling conspired to
commit securities fraud. Because jurors could have relied instead on the
legally erroneous alternative, his conspiracy conviction must be reversed.
See, e.g., U.S. v. Urcioli, 513 F.3d 290, 297 (1st Cir. 2007) (reversing
conviction where prosecutors urged honest-services conviction on legally
valid and invalid factual predicatesreversing conviction even though an
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 43 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
44/66
39
argument could be made the convictions would arguably have occurred
without reliance on the invalid honest-services theory).9
II. THE ERRONEOUS HONEST-SERVICES THEORY
INFECTED EVERY OTHER COUNT OF CONVICTION
Judge Higginbotham correctly recognized that submission of a legally
erroneous honest-services theory to the jury casts substantial doubt on 14 of
the 19 counts of convictionthe 12 securities-fraud counts and the insider-
trading count, in addition to the conspiracy conviction. He incorrectly
9 In ruling on Skillings initial appeal, this Court notably observed that ifthe governments honest-services theory was erroneous, reversal ofSkillings Count 1 conspiracy conviction was required. See 554 F.3d at 543.In concluding that the governments honest-services theory was in error, andremanding to this Court the question of what the impact that error had onSkillings convictions was, the Supreme Court directed this Court to take afresh look at the harmless-error arguments. In the Courts view, this Court
appeared to prejudge the harmless-error issue by applying a rule ofautomatic reversal for this Yates error, rather than considering whether theerror may be harmless. Skilling, Slip Op. 50 n.47.
The Supreme Court may have misunderstood this Courts opinion, aswell at its jurisprudence. As this Courts opinions in cases like Saks,Holley,andHowardshow, this Court has always held that Yates errors are subject toharmless-error review. See supra at 13-16. Indeed, in arguing the originalappeal, Skilling and the government vigorously disputed whether theharmlessness standard was satisfied on the record of this caseand they
discussed cases like Saks andHolley at length. See, e.g., Skilling Reply at29-46. This Courts statement that reversal would be required if the honest-services theory was erroneous likely reflected the (quite accurate) judgmentthat such an errorcould not be proved harmless on the record of this case,which Skilling and the government had so thoroughly dissected. See id.Because of the Supreme Courts remand order, that prior ruling is not
binding, but it remains instructive.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 44 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
45/66
40
concluded that an honest-services error would not affect the five FSA
counts. In fact, the jury easily could have rested its convictions on those five
counts directly on the flawed honest-services fraud allegation: each FSA
alleged that Skilling was responsible for the statement that there was no
material fraud at Enrona statement that is necessarily false if one accepts
the legally erroneous theory that Skilling was participating in a broad
conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud. See infra at 54-58.
As shown below, allof the convictions were directly affected by the
erroneous submission of the honest-services fraud theory to the jury.
A. Securities Fraud (Counts 2, 14, 16-20, 22-26)
The substantive securities-fraud counts were explicitly tied to the
conspiracy count by a Pinkerton instructionagain urged by the
government, over Skillings objection, R:25880-82which permitted the
jurors to use the conspiracy conviction to hold Skilling vicariously liable for
any charged act of securities fraud so long as it was committed by a co-
conspirator, even if the jurors did not believe that he personally committed
the charged act of securities fraud:
A conspirator is responsible for offenses committed byother conspirators if the conspirator was a member of thatconspiracy when the offense was committed and if the offensewas committed in furtherance of, or as a foreseeableconsequence of, the conspiracy.
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 45 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
46/66
41
Therefore, if you have first found Jeffrey K. Skilling guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count 1 and if you find
beyond a reasonable doubt that during the time [Skilling] was amember of the conspiracy other conspirators committed theoffenses in Counts 2 and 14, 16 through 20, and 22 through 29in furtherance of or as a foreseeable consequence of thatconspiracy, then you may find [Skilling] guilty of Counts 2 and14, 16 through 20, and 22 through 29, even though [Skilling]may not have participated in any of the acts which constitutethe offenses described in those counts of the indictment.
R:36409-10. ThePinkerton instruction creates the same problem for each
securities-fraud count that is inherent within the conspiracy count itself: for
each count of conviction, it is impossible to tell whether the jurors relied on
the legally invalid theory (conspiracy) to convict Skilling vicariously for the
acts of others, or on the legally permissible theory (securities fraud) to
convict Skilling for his own acts.
InHoward, 517 F.3d at 737-38, this Court held that the use of an
erroneous honest-services theory in a conspiracy charge required reversal
not only of the conspiracy conviction, but also of a separate books-and-
records count linked to the conspiracy charge by aPinkerton instruction.
The record included evidence that Howards co-conspirators committed
books-and-records crimes themselves, and because the jury couldhave
convicted the defendant not for his own acts but for the acts of co-
conspirators, the error in the conspiracy charge was not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt as to the collateral books-and-records charge. See id. at
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 46 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
47/66
42
738. Other courts have consistently reached the same conclusion under
similar circumstances, i.e., where aPinkerton instruction ties a legally
erroneous conspiracy conviction to other substantive counts.10
The same result must obtain here. The government cannot come close
to showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the jurors did notrely on the
legally invalid conspiracy conviction to find Skilling vicariously liable for
each count of securities fraud. In closing, the government quoted the
Pinkerton instruction as providing a sufficient basis for convicting Skilling
for each count of securities fraud based on the acts of his alleged
conspirators. See R:37018 ([Y]ou may find the Defendant guilty even
though he may not have participated in any of the acts which constitute the
offenses described. If it was reasonably foreseeable to him that this was
going to happen, ladies and gentlemen, hes responsible.). Lest there be
10See U.S. v. Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (for
firearms charge, jury could have returned guilty verdict predicated onimpermissible conspiracy, requiring reversal of the firearms conviction);U.S. v. Kaiser, 660 F.2d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 1981) (reversal of conspiracyconviction precludes vicarious liability for acts of co-conspirators; reversalof other counts required when impossible to tell whether jury relied onvicarious liability theory); U.S. v. Johnson, 44 F. Appx 752, 755 (9th Cir.
2002) (reversing charges linked to flawed conspiracy conviction with aPinkerton instruction where it was not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt,that the jury would have found Defendants guilty without thePinkertoninstruction); U.S. v. Sardesai, 125 F.3d 850 (tbl.) (4th Cir. 1997) (reversalof collateral charges required where a Pinkerton charge spread[] the taintfrom the error in the false statement charges to the other substantivecharges of the indictment).
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 47 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
48/66
43
any doubt who those alleged co-conspirators were, the government
emphasized their names, testimony, and confessions to fraud:
Witness after witness after witness came into this courtroom,ladies and gentlemen, and they said, I lied. We lied. I stole.We stole. I committed fraud. We committed fraud. These
people, Ben Glisan, Dave Delainey, Wes Colwell, Ken Rice,Kevin Hannon, Mark Koenig, Paula Rieker, some of the mostsenior executives at Enron, came in and told you that. I lied.We lied. I stole. We stole.
R:36452;see R:36993-94 (Investor relations, finance, wholesale, EBS, and
EES, the upper echelon, ladies and gentlemen. Theyve all admitted lying to
investors. They got up and said I committed crimes. We committed
crimes. We lied.); U.S. Br. at 98 (other conspirators made false
statements during some of the calls and at the conference). The
government even displayed for the jury demonstrative exhibits during
closing argument that tied each and every securities fraud count directly to
the conspiracy count. JKS-7:12-13, 15, 21; JKS-4:6, 24, 25.
The governments heavy reliance on the so-called Global Galactic
document exemplified this approach. In closing argument, the government
called the document three pages of lies and said it makes LJM and its
transactions with Enron a complete sham. R:35637, 36541. Every Enron
financial statement from late 1999 through 2001the bases for the
securities fraud counts against Skillingwas false, the government told the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 48 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
49/66
44
jury, because the supposed secret side deals listed on the Global Galactic
document negated proper accounting treatment. But, as the government
conceded, [t]he document is signed at the bottom by Mr. Causey and
Mr. Fastownot by Skilling. R:35637. Thus, the jury could have
convicted Skilling of all the securities fraud counts based on his participation
in an honest-services conspiracy combined with the acts of alleged co-
conspirators Fastow and Causey for their alleged role in Global Galactic.
The problem extends beyond Global Galactic. As shown in the
individual-count analysis that follows, for every charged act of securities
fraud, the government always presented another Enron employee (and
sometimes many Enron employees) who admitted to the acts of securities
fraud in question. Accordingly, for every specific securities-fraud count, the
jurors easily could have accepted the governments invitation to convict
Skilling vicariously for others acts, while rejecting the governments
alternative theory that Skillings own conduct satisfied all the elements of
securities fraud. Indeed, it is not only possible, but likely, that the jurors
relied on the invalid conspiracy charge to convict Skilling for the securities
fraud to which others openly admitted. As shown below, Skilling was never
accused of acting alone, and most often he was far less involved than other
Enron executives in the charged acts and statements. Moreover, unlike
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 49 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
50/66
45
many of his accused co-conspirators, he did not concede guilt. He pressed
substantial defensesincluding especially scienter and truthto each and
every charge that he personally committed securities fraud.
1. Count 2 (Raptors)
The Raptors transactions challenged in Count 2 were designed,
implemented, and discussed by alleged co-conspirators Causey, Fastow, and
Glisanamong many others. At trial, the government emphasized that
Glisan, Fastow, and Causey in particular were responsible for Raptors, and
the jury heard Fastow and Glisan each testify that they had pleaded guilty to
securities fraud committed in connection with Raptors. See GX3216;
R:21327-28, 21653-57; GX10000; R:24294-96, 24495-504.
Skilling was indisputably much less involved, and in fact denied any
knowledge at all of any Raptors side-deals or of any improprieties with the
structures. R:28826, 28833-36. Glisan, who was the architect of Raptors,
provided extensive testimony that he knew of no side deals and that LJM
was truly at risk in the deal. See R:24591-95, 24660-61, 25008-09. Glisan
said he met twice with Skilling and conceded he never told Skilling there
was anything fraudulent or improper with the Raptors. R:24571-72, 24579.
Based on Glisans testimonyand there was much more supporting
Skillings defenses on the Raptors, Skilling Br. at 29-32; Skilling Reply at 9-
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 50 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
51/66
46
14the jury easily could have credited Skillings position that he himself
had engaged in no wrongdoing with respect to the Raptors, but still
convicted him vicariously for the alleged criminal acts of Fastow, Causey,
Glisan, or others. R:24248, 36532. Indeed, the government in closing urged
the jury to rely on the conspiracy charge, the vicarious liability instruction,
and the acts of others to convict on Count 2. See JKS-7:25; R:37018.
2. Counts 14, 16-20 (Forms 10-Q and 10-K)
Skillings alleged co-conspirators prepared and made the SEC filings
at issue in these counts. R:21822-23, 36537; GX1026-29, 1032-34. And the
alleged fraud in each of them involved negotiations between Fastow and
Causey in which Skilling was not directly involved (Raptors, Cuiaba, and
Nigerian Barges), or conduct by others (Colwells alleged reserve
manipulation) in which Skilling was concededly not directly involved:
Count 14: Causey, Lay, Fastow, and others signed the 1999 10-K,which was allegedly rendered false by a purported promise made byFastow to Merrill Lynch regarding the Nigerian Barges deal.GX1026; U.S. Br. at 57-58, 46-47; JKS-7:13, 15; JKS-4:6.
Count 16: Causey signed the Q2 2000 10-Q, which was allegedlyrendered false by reserve adjustments made by Wes Colwella
reserve adjustment he conceded he made on his own and neverdiscussed with Skilling. GX1028; Skilling Br. at 38-40; JKS-7:13,15; JKS-4:6.
Count 17: Causey signed the Q3 2000 10-Q, which was allegedlyrendered false by Causey and Fastows agreement concerning the
Case: 06-20885 Document: 00511188326 Page: 51 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
8/9/2019 Jeff Skilling Opening Merits Brief on Remand
52/66
47
Avici-Raptors hedge. GX1029; U.S. Br. at 58-59, 55-56; SkillingReply 13-14;see also R:36496-97.
Count 18: Causey, Lay, Fastow, and others signed the 2000 10-K,which was allegedly rendered false by Colwells later reservemanipulation to decrease stated earnings and the Raptors structurecreated by Fastow, Glisan, and Causey. GX1032;
Top Related