Enron Case Goes to Jury This Week Closing arguments have begun in the criminal trial of former Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Both men face multiple charges of fraud and conspiracy and face the possibility of spending the next twenty years in prison. Both men also deny doing anything wrong. The case is expected to go to the jury on Wednesday.
NPR logo

Enron Case Goes to Jury This Week

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/5406171/5406172" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
Enron Case Goes to Jury This Week

Enron Case Goes to Jury This Week

Enron Case Goes to Jury This Week

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/5406171/5406172" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

Closing arguments have begun in the criminal trial of former Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Both men face multiple charges of fraud and conspiracy and face the possibility of spending the next twenty years in prison. Both men also deny doing anything wrong. The case is expected to go to the jury on Wednesday.


From NPR News, it's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block.


And I'm Michele Norris.

In Houston, federal prosecutors have presented their closing argument in the trial of former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Both men face decades in prison if convicted on charges of conspiracy and fraud. Prosecutors started off this morning by accusing the defendants of lying over and over and over again to investors and employees.

NPR's Wade Goodwin is at the federal courthouse in Houston. He joins us now. Wade, after more than three months, this trial is drawing to a close. What's it like there today?

WADE GOODWIN reporting:

Well, the courthouse was packed with people today. Journalists are here from around the world and there are more former Enron employees and regular Houston citizens than I've seen during the entire trial.

A Dutch reporter came up to me during the lunch break and he was a little put out that nobody seemed to be able to accurately tell him how many years in prison Lay and Skilling were going to get if they were found guilty. If you want to see a comedy act, you should have seen me trying to explain the federal sentencing guidelines to a Dutch newspaper reporter.

But you can see just how intense the interest is by the fact that you couldn't find a seat in the main courtroom or the auxiliary courtroom where reporters and spectators watch on closed circuit TV. And if you eavesdropped on the spectators, you realized pretty quickly that Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay do not have a lot of well-wishers dropping by. Four and a half years later, there's an edge of bitterness that hasn't diminished.

NORRIS: And the prosecution went first with its closing arguments. Who made the case for the government?

GOODWYN: Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Ruemmler. It's been interesting to see how the Enron taskforce has divided up this prosecution. After watching Assistant U.S. Attorney Shawn Berkowitz conduct what I thought was an extremely accomplished cross-examination of Jeff Skilling, I thought the government was making a big mistake by not having Berkowitz also cross examine Ken Lay.

But then Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hueston proved himself every bit as capable as Berkowitz when it was Hueston's turn to question Lay. And today neither Berkowitz nor Hueston were center stage, but Katherine Ruemmler. I was a little surprised until the Houston Chronicle reporter reminded me that there are eight women on the jury and I suspect this is a fact that did not escape the attention of the prosecutors.

This is a group of 40-something federal prosecutors who have a lot of confidence in themselves, individually and as a team, and I think the strategy communicates to the jury a subliminal message about the government's case that the quality of their evidence is so strong that their case isn't dependent on the performance of one or two star prosecutors.

NORRIS: And you note performance. There's often a bit of theatrics in those closing arguments. What has the government been focusing on exactly during their argument today?

GOODWYN: Ruemmler focused on the testimony of the government's witnesses, not surprisingly, because they are the heart of its case. You know in a three-month trial, the impact of the testimony of somebody like Ben Glisan, for example. He's the former Enron treasurer. He gave what was potentially very damaging testimony against Lay and Skilling.

The impact can get lost simply because there's been so much testimony subsequent. So Ruemmler's been taking the jury through the high points of their witnesses' testimony and then pointing out to the jury the other testimony and evidence that corroborate that testimony. Connecting the dots. Bolstering the government's witness's credibility while attacking Lay and Skilling as bald face liars. And Ruemmler's theme was that Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling misled their investors, they misled their employees and they misled their board of directors.

NORRIS: Lay and Skilling's names have been connected by an ampersand throughout the proceedings, but the prosecution, it seems, here at the end is focusing a little bit more on Ken Lay than Jeff Skilling. Is that true, Wade?

GOODWYN: Yeah, I agree. I suspect that it's an indication that the prosecution feels more confident in their case against Skilling than they do about their case against Lay. Ruemmler started with Skilling, but I estimate that fully two-thirds of the government's closing arguments so far has been given over to review of their case against Lay.

Contrasting the optimistic statements that Lay made to employees and investors about Enron's bright future to the reality of what he had been told by his own executives about the company's increasing dire condition. And Ruemmler punctuates her points by slamming her hand on the lector and saying, that was a lie. That's fraud, ladies and gentlemen.

NORRIS: Just quickly, Wade, when does the defense get their turn?

GOODWYN: Tomorrow morning. The prosecutors wrapped up the first part of their closing arguments this afternoon. The defense begins tomorrow morning. They've got six hours to divide between Skilling and Lay and then we'll have, I think, a prosecution on Wednesday morning.

NORRIS: Thank you, Wade.

GOODWYN: Thank you.

NORRIS: That's NPR's Wade Goodwyn at the Enron trial in Houston. You can read his profiles of Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and other players at our website, NPR.org.

Copyright © 2006 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

On the Stand, Enron's Lay and Skilling Reverse Type

Enron founder Kenneth Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling are closer to learning whether their futures lie in prison or liberty. Testimony ended early this week in Lay and Skilling's federal fraud and conspiracy trial, and the jury of eight women and four men return Monday to hear 12 hours of closing arguments.

The judge, prosecutors and lawyers for the defense all agree on one thing at this point: This jury is eager to begin deliberating. They've heard more than three months of evidence, and more importantly, they've now heard from the chairman and CEO.

The received wisdom among legal experts at the beginning of the Enron trial was that CEO Skilling might do himself serious damage on the stand, a consequence of his arrogance and his temper. Both were qualities for which he was famous at Enron. Chairman Lay on the other hand was perceived as an affable, glad-handing, grandfatherly type who just might save himself by winning over the jury.

Both men face the prospect of spending decades in prison if convicted of fraud and conspiracy.

But Skilling surprised the pundits by keeping his temper in check, allowing his attorney to guide him through his version of why Enron collapsed. The problem for Skilling wasn't his performance on cross-examination, either. It was what came before -- the parade of his former colleagues, all top executives at Enron, who pointed their fingers at him while admitting their own guilt. His lawyer was forced to argue that these executives were actually innocent, every one of them, and that the Justice Department had managed to intimidate them into pleading guilty.

But Lay was supposed to have an easier time of it. The crimes he is alleged to have committed all occurred during the last four months of the company's existence. He was looking toward retirement as chairman of Enron when Skilling announced in August 2001 that he was walking away from the CEO job. Lay was compelled to step back in immediately. It was a fateful decision that ended up putting Lay in the courtroom, next to Skilling.

Lay is accused of lying to his employees, investors and analysts about the true financial condition of Enron. Lay's defense is that he believed everything he said, that Enron was a strong company with a bright future.

But Enron did not have a bright future; it spiraled down the drain. Lay repeatedly argued that the prosecution's second-guessing of many of the decisions and statements he made during those last four months was a waste of time. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, Lay explained. But unlike prosecutors, he was making decisions in real time. And Lay made it clear that about the only thing he would have changed if he could do it over again was the hiring of Andy Fastow, Enron's crooked chief financial officer.

And therein may lie what now appears to be Lay's biggest problem. With every minute on the stand, Lay's sense of being wrongly accused grew. Unlike Skilling, Lay wore his status as defendant as a badge of honor and evidence of long-suffering. He was indignant and not afraid to show it. Several times Lay dressed down his own lawyer George Secrest in front of the court. "Where are you going with this Mr. Secrest?" he asked from the witness stand, as if he were the prosecuting attorney objecting to his own lawyer's line of questioning.

An editorial cartoon in the Houston Chronicle showed Lay on the witness stand, barking, "You're incompetent, you're misleading the jury and you're wasting time!" Judge Sim Lake is pictured leaning in to Lay to remind him, "That's your lawyer, Mr. Lay."

Why was Lay doing this, openly displaying his impatience with his own lawyer? No one in the courtroom could be sure.

Secrest did seem thrown a bit off stride. Lay's lead attorney, Mike Ramsey, had been sickened with serious cardiovascular illness in the middle of the trial and Secrest had to move from being a backup to the lead. Reporters began hearing rumors that Lay had taken control of his defense, couldn't be reined in, couldn't stop being Chairman.

Lay was caught by prosecutors trying to phone potential trial witnesses before and even during the trial. He didn't seem to care that he was upbraiding his own attorney. Lay was angry that he was up there, that prosecutors felt free to second-guess his every decision as chairman of Enron, and that, courtesy of the trial, the whole world got to rummage through his personal finances like an unwanted guest through his medicine cabinet.

The "grandfatherly" Lay was not available for questioning, to his own lawyer and certainly not to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hueston.

When Hueston began his cross-examination, the courtroom crackled with animosity. On direct, Lay had bemoaned his condition as a victim of character assassination. But Lay and Michael Ramsey had been vocal outside the courtroom, calling the prosecution's witnesses "trained monkeys" and "liars."

Presumably, the jury was not supposed to know that Lay and his lawyer said these things because they're not supposed to be watching TV or reading the newspapers or listening to radio coverage. So Hueston decided to clue them in, "Mr. Lay, have you engaged in any character assassination during this trial?"

"Do you include yourself on that list?" Lay fired back at Hueston, his hostility brimming over.

"Mr. Lay, I'm an assistant U.S. attorney and this is my job," Hueston said turning his back on Lay. "You can call me anything you want."

It went like that for three days, with Lay taking every opportunity to communicate his utter contempt for Hueston. The more it happened, the less it seemed a strategy and more an emotional release.

So this is the new perceived wisdom: Skilling surprisingly did better on the stand than Lay. But of course the problem with perceived wisdoms is that they are often wrong. The jury will let us know soon.