A victory for Andersen?
By common agreement among those contacted after listening to Wednesday’s oral argument in Arthur Andersen LLP v. U.S. (03-368), the now nearly defunct accounting firm is likely to emerge with a sweeping victory in the challenge to its “witness-tampering” conviction. The firm was convicted of illegal tampering with a witness by “corrruptly persuading” corporate staff to destroy internal documents about the Enron scandal, to thwart a not-yet-started federal investigation. (The issues at stake in the case are discussed in posts linked below.)
The government sent to the Court its best advocate on criminal law issues, Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, but the conclusion that most observers drew was that he had no real case to make in the face of a withering barrage of questions from the bench. Andersen’s counsel, Maureen E. Mahoney, by contrast, was widely viewed as having had on her side most — perhaps all — of the Justices who spoke up.
(Disclosure: the author of this post did not attend the argument, being preoccupied with new decision announcements. The post is based on extensive contact with persons who did attend — press and others.)
Further news on this oral argument:
Pete Yost of the AP in New York Newsday;
Charles Lane of The Washington Post; and
Michael Kirkland of UPI in The Washington Times.
The Governmment apparently argued that the Andersen shredding was no different from a thief wiping clean his fingerprints from the scene of the crime.
I never knew that the act of “fingerprint wiping” is a crime.
Has anyone ever been convicted for wiping fingerprints?
Comment by WWREN — April 27, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
Is Anderson a winner?
Although such matters are notoriously unpredictable, the SCOTUS blog — the premier U.S. Supreme Court blog — reports that observors of the oral argument earlier today on Arthur Anderson’s appeal to the Supreme Court of its witness tampering convictio…
Comment by Houston's Clear Thinkers — April 27, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
In a manner of speaking, yes. People have been convicted of filing off the serial numbers (VINs) off of cars in order to escape detection. It’s known as “vehicle identification number (VIN) obliteration” according to the DOJ. Now, a VIN is a car’s equivalent of a fingerprint.
The difficulty with normal fingerprint wiping is proving that it actually happened. Not easy, nor does it tend to be a major concern of police, I would think. In the Andersen case, there is plenty of evidence that, de minimis, the company was engaging in the moral equivalent of VIN or fingerprint wiping. Was that illegal at that time? I guess the SC will answer that question soon.
Comment by Daniel Thomas — April 27, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
The Last Day of Arthur Andersen
You probably didn’t realize that Arthur Andersen LLP still exists. It’s a withered existence: a couple of hundred employees, one location, a small revenue stream from educational seminars, and a not-yet-finished trail of litigation. Today the most …
Comment by Stromata Blog — April 28, 2005 @ 12:27 am