Lay's Conviction Vacated

Gib · 10-18-2006, 01:26 AM

As expected, Kenneth Lay's conviction was overturned because he croaked before his appeal. This means that at least for now, his family gets to keep his ill gotten gains from Enron. Victims can still persue civil claims, but it looks like the only people that are going to be satisfied in all this are the attorneys.

VexatiousLitigant · 10-18-2006, 09:24 AM

So you just need to appeal and kill yourself? Nice.

FixinThings · 10-18-2006, 10:12 AM

Tough to kill yourself and then appeal!

hannah · 10-18-2006, 11:23 AM

Wherever he is (and I wouldn't presume to know) I will bet he is appealing to whoever is in power there...

centex · 10-18-2006, 01:02 PM

This isn't something that was done simply because it was a request for Ken Lay. And the reason that it was set aside is that sentencing had not occurred- and without a sentence, you have no judgment to officially enter into the record. Absent a judgment, you have no final conviction.

I have not, admittedly, looked into the underlying logic on why the Indictment gets quashed as well, although it may be something along the lines of "if there is no conviction, and the reason is death of the defendant, then clearly there can be no timely prosecution of the case for which said indictment issued." If that is the case, then the quashing of the Indictment saves the process of docketing the motion whenever the SOL for prosecution runs out.

Gib · 10-18-2006, 06:57 PM

The reason it was set aside is because there is precedent that if the defendant dies before their appeal, they cannot participate in their own defense.

No conviction, no restitution. People that were screwed out of their life savings are sh*t outta luck. They can still proceed in civil court, but the only ones going to see any of that cash that way are the lawyers.

centex · 10-18-2006, 07:02 PM

The conviction was set aside because there is no final judgment...a jury verdict is not a final judgment. That is where the precedent comes in. This has nothing to do with the appeal of the case. The same thing would have occurred had he entered a plea and been awaiting sentencing at the time of his death...

Gib · 10-18-2006, 08:43 PM

From one of the news stories:

Quote:

In his 13-page decision, Judge Lake cited established case law that required revocation of convictions if defendants die without opportunity to appeal. The Justice Department had asked the judge to delay ruling until Congress had time to pass legislation that would have retroactively allowed Mr. Lay’s conviction to stand. But lawmakers recessed before considering the matter.

And another:

Quote:

They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant’s death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn’t had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn’t be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.