'Deep-Seated Bias'? Imprisoned Ex-Enron CEO Argues for New Trial

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2010— -- A powerhouse team of lawyers for former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling filed into the Supreme Court this afternoon to argue that Skilling's 19 count conviction on fraud, conspiracy and insider trading was constitutionally flawed and subject to jury bias.

Skilling's lead lawyer, Sri Srinivasan of O'Melveny & Meyers, told the justices that the trial court judge had subjected Skilling to "deep-seated bias" in the community when he had refused Skilling's requests to have the trial moved from Houston.

Srinivasan also repeatedly criticized the judge's decision to limit the length of the procedure to choose jurors -- known as voir dire -- to five hours.

The justices struggled with the allegations of jury bias, and some seemed hesitant to second-guess a trial court judge who made his decisions based on interactions with prospective members of the jury.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he was worried the court was going to "get into the business of running the trial court's trials." But Breyer also read through some of the interviews with prospective jurors and said at one point, "I'm worried about a fair trial."

Srinivasan said the ordinary process of voir dire couldn't be trusted in such a high profile case, in which hundreds of Enron shareholders were financially devastated by the company's sudden collapse.

He compared the case to the Oklahoma bombing case, which, because of fears of pre-trial publicity, was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver.

A "wave of public passion" and "pervasive animus directed towards the defendant" had to be taken into consideration when deciding whether a trial should be moved, Srinivasan said.

But Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, arguing for the government, said the trial judge had "15 years of experience choosing a jury," and he ridiculed Skilling's contention that all of the 4.5 million people in the Houston area were infected by some sort of "pervasive prejudice."