U.S. Supreme Court Over Turns Arthur Andersen Conviction

The US Supreme Court overturned the criminal conviction of Arthur Andersen, the onetime accounting giant effectively put out of business for its role in the Enron financial fraud.

In a unanimous opinion, the justices said the former Big Five accounting firm’s June 2002 obstruction of justice conviction, which virtually destroyed Andersen was improper. The decision said jury instructions at trial were too vague and broad for jurors to determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

The chief justice wrote that it was “not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy under ordinary circumstances.” Jurors were instructed to convict Andersen if the accounting firm had an “improper purpose,” such as an intent to impede or subvert fact-finding in an “official proceeding.” He noted jurors were instructed to convict, even if Andersen mistakenly thought it was acting legally.

At trial, Andersen argued that employees who shredded tons of documents followed the policy and there was no intent to thwart the SEC investigation.

A ruling against Andersen would have had onerous consequences for businesses, whose discarding of files is an everyday occurrence. Experts say companies would have to keep all files for fear that any disposal, however innocent, could subject them to potential prosecution.

The case is Andersen v. U.S., 04-368.

References:
AFP
AP
Find Law

Justice Kennedy Cites Foreign Law

Back in March The Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for juveniles. Justice Kennedy cited international and/or foreign law in his decision which started a tsunami of criticism.

From an article in the Washington Times:

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen G. Breyer clashed last week over the role of international law and foreign judges at a rare group discussion in Washington.

At the forum, broadcast on C-SPAN television last week, Justice Breyer appeared the most sympathetic to justices citing international law and foreign court decisions, saying the high court is faced with “more and more cases” in which the laws of other countries are relevant.

“It’s appropriate in some instances to look to how other courts might have decided similar issues,” although laws of other countries “do not bind us by any means.”

Justice Scalia disagrees:
Justice Scalia said “foreign law is totally irrelevant” on most issues, such as the original meaning of the Constitution or what Americans now see as fundamental rights.

“It doesn’t show what the Constitution originally meant, and it doesn’t show what is fundamentally important to Americans today,” he said. “It shows what’s fundamentally important to somebody else today.”

Justice OâââConner opines:

“There are areas where we look to foreign law to interpret treaties that other nations and we have joined,” she said. “Of course we look to foreign law.”

Although it may not help to consult foreign law in interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, she said, it does not hurt to be aware of what other countries have done when weighing such evolving concepts as “cruel and unusual punishmentââ?.

I personally donââât want my Supreme Court justices making decisions based on foreign or international law. They are to base their decision on the U.S. constitution and how it applies to the case. The only exception should be basing it on English Common Law which is what our legal system is supposed to be founded upon; according to the U.S. Constitution.

Title IX Expanded

WASHINGTON, March 29 – A sharply divided Supreme Court expanded the reach of the landmark Title IX anti-discrimination law today, ruling that it protects people from retaliation when they complain about sex bias against others.

“Reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for a 5-4 majority.

For those that do not remember what title 9 is, it makes equality of sports availability to women in schools excepting federal funds. This caused a host of male sports programs to be closed to provide vacancies for womenâââs sports. Regardless whether anyone was interested in watching or donating to the school for said sports. It is another example of quoata systems run amok. Due to this law numerous male students lost their sports scholarships to college.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Asserting that “retaliatory conduct is not discrimination on the basis of sex,” the dissenters said the majority was going against the court’s own precedents.

“We require Congress to speak unambiguously in imposing conditions on funding recipients through its spending power,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Ginsburg asked just how often the Office of Civil Rights had investigated complaints in Birmingham.

Twice in 20 years, a lawyer for the Birmingham school board replied.

“Two in 20 years?” Justice Ginsburg replied, perhaps tellingly.

Today’s ruling is not an automatic victory for Mr. Jackson. His suit is now remanded to the lower courts, where to prevail he will have to prove that the school board in fact did retaliate against him because he had complained of sex discrimination.