The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Friday, January 7, 2005
Argument: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Decision: Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Extra-Legal Jury Influences, Jury Instructions

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (argued the cause for Respondent)
Maureen E. Mahoney (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

As Enron's financial difficulties became public in 2001, Arthur Andersen instructed its employees to destroy Enron-related documents. This was consistent with Andersen's document retention policy. The government later charged Andersen for violating federal law, which made it a crime to "knowingly...corruptly persuade another person" to "withold" or "alter" documents in an "offical proceeding." The federal jury found Andersen guilty. The company appealed, arguing the jury instructions failed to convey the elements of a "corrupt persuasion" conviction - specifically, that a "consciousness of wrongdoing" was required. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.

Question

Did the jury instructions in the Arthur Andersen trial properly convey the elements of a "corrupt persuasion" conviction under federal document-handling law?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the jury instructions failed to convey that the federal document law required a "consciousness of wrongdoing" for conviction. There was nothing inherently corrupt in ordering employees to destroy documents, even if the aim was to keep the documents from the government. Thus, contrary to what the jurors had been told, Andersen could be convicted only if the persuaders were shown to be conscious that they were behaving corruptly.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for Arthur Andersen LLP, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 18 U.S.C. 1512
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_368/>
(last visited ).