Enronapalooza

It's been an Enron-fest in the blogosphere since the guilty verdicts against Skilling and Lay were announced around noon yesterday. Here is legal commentator Andrew Cohen's simple and straightforward take for those wanting a short and sweet explanation. For links to lots of articles from lots of places discussing the verdicts, head over to How Appealing. Lots-o-stuff also on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and, of course, at the website of The Houston Chronicle.

After reading a good bit of this, especially the various articles quoting the jurors, I kept thinking two thoughts:

1) There's a good reason why defense lawyers rarely want their clients to testify. Sometimes, defendants believe they have no choice or, as may have been the case here (especially with Skilling), they believe that they can convince jurors simply by the force of their personality and arguments. But it very rarely works, and in all those cases when it doesn't work, the results are devastating.

2) The decision Richard Causey, Enron's former Chief Accounting Officer who was scheduled to be tried with Skilling and Lay, made just before trial to take a deal (he is looking at about seven years) looks awfully good right now. He will be sipping lemonade on his deck with his family before Skilling and Lay are finished even half of prison terms.