Skilling v. United States

Background

Jeffrey Skilling, a longtime Enron executive and former CEO, was indicted after Enron’s 2001 collapse on many counts including securities fraud and a conspiracy charge alleging deprivation of the company’s “honest services.” Skilling asked to move the trial out of Houston, pointing to intense local anger and massive media coverage. The district court used a 77‑question written questionnaire and individual bench questioning (voir dire) to screen jurors. After a four‑month trial, the jury convicted Skilling on multiple counts and acquitted him on nine insider‑trading counts.

Reasoning

The Court considered two main questions: whether community hostility or publicity denied Skilling a fair trial, and what conduct the honest‑services statute actually covers. The majority concluded that Houston’s large, diverse jury pool, the lack of a single explosive media “smoking gun,” the elapsed time since Enron’s collapse, the detailed questionnaires and individual voir dire, and mixed verdicts did not support a presumption of prejudice. On the honest‑services charge, the Court limited the statute to bribery and kickback schemes to avoid vagueness problems. Because Skilling’s indictment did not allege bribes or kickbacks, that part of his conviction could not stand.

Real world impact

The ruling narrows federal honest‑services prosecutions to bribes and kickbacks, reducing exposure for corporate actors whose conduct involved nondisclosure or self‑dealing but no side payments. It affirms that high publicity alone does not automatically void a local trial, while underscoring the importance of thorough questionnaires and careful voir dire.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor would have granted relief on the fair‑trial claim, faulting voir dire as insufficient given pervasive local hostility. Justice Scalia would have held §1346 unconstitutionally vague.