A victory for Andersen?
on Apr 27, 2005 at 3:19 pm
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.
