Tuesday, September 26, 2006

What the Lay/Skilling Jury Heard From Fastow

Tom Kirkendall's Houston ClearThinkers has a tremendous post here that includes portions of Fastow's testimony during the Lay/Skilling trial. One of the pieces of testimony he presents is a part of the re-direct examination by Hueston on March 13th, when Fastow testified as follows:

"Q. And as a result of your pledge to cooperate, did you agree to plead guilty to a 10-year minimum sentence of imprisonment?

A. A 10-year maximum imprisonment.

Q. And what is the minimum amount of time that that plea agreement calls for?

A. It calls for a 10-year sentence.

Q. So after January 14th, can your cooperation lower that 10 years?

A. My understanding is that I will be sentenced to 10 years. The Judge ultimately has a discretion; but in my plea agreement, I agreed to the 10-year sentence."

Was it proper for the jury in the Lay/Skilling trial to hear that Fastow would do 10 years in prison and then have him receive a significantly lesser sentence?   This may provide another issue for Jeffrey Skilling on his appeal.  Check out the other segments that Tom Kirkendall's Houston ClearThinkers provides - here.



Enron, Sentencing | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What the Lay/Skilling Jury Heard From Fastow:


Not sure why this would matter to Skilling on appeal. I assume the whole line of questioning was about his credibility, bias, incentive to testify, etc. If he truthfully believed he would get 10 years, that is what the jury should have evaluated when weighing his testimony. If he lied that may be another matter.

Posted by: Random Litigator | Sep 27, 2006 3:14:06 PM

Post a comment