GLUV Corp (fka GVRP)

[WTMHouston]

<<The Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean Andersen is not guilty. The justices threw out the conviction due to a technicality. They do this on many of the cases they hear.>>

It is hardly a technicality to tell a jury that they can convict without finding or needing to find that a crime occurred, which is exactly what happened. For example:

"[T]he jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA—213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly” so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA—212."

What happened in this case would be like telling a jury to convict a company of fraud if and just because the jury did not like the way the company did business -- without regard to and regardless of whether there was actual fraud. Under this standard, some people on IHUB (and most on RB) would be convicted daily of fraud.

Moreover, the jury that heard this case seemed to have more than a few problems finding guilt. They deliberated for 10 days, including for 3 days after they told the judge they were hopelessly deadlocked.

If nothing else, the fact that the decision was 9-0 (which although not unheard of, is a pretty uncommon event with this court -- even though I lost one up there two years ago 9-0 so I wish it was even rarer) and was written by Rehnquist ought to be a pretty good indication that this was not even a close call and was far from a simple technicality.

The full opinion is here:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html

While the Supreme Court's ruling does not automatically mean that Anderson was not guilty, the Supreme Court seemed pretty convinced that under the circumstances a conviction would have been unlikely without the screwy and illegal instructions given to the jury. Given that the government was so adamant about not charging the government in a way that might result in an acquittal (i.e., the proper way), it is doubtful that the government thought they could get an acquittal with a jury charge that actually made the jury find that a crime had been committed.

One final point: the Supreme Court does not "do this [reverse on technicalities] on many of the cases they hear." I will resist the temptation to editorialize on the massive inaccuracy of such a statement -- it is sufficient here simply to note that it is simply, plainly, and demonstrably wrong for all kinds of reasons.