More on the Arthur Andersen Verdict

Despite MSM articles (ie. NYTimes) and Moonbat posts on the Supreme Court opinion in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States that indicate the court's decision was more of a technicality than an exoneration, I don't believe there is much gray area. Arthur Andersen was cleared from criminal wrongdoing - period.

In a unanimous decision, the Court determined that withholding documents does not imply wrongdoing. Even the opinion stated that's why we have the fifth amendment and attorney-client privilege.

Even “persuad[ing]” a person “with intent to . . . cause” that person to “withhold” testimony or documents from the Government is not inherently malign. Under ordinary circumstances, it is not wrongful for a manager to instruct his employees to comply with a valid document retention policy, even though the policy, in part, is created to keep certain information from others, including the Government.

Second, the District Court gave poor instructions to the jury, thus changing the requirement for culpability. Under these instructions, the jury could convict the firm even if every employee's intent was innocent.

The jury instructions 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 its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict....However, the court agreed with the Government’s insistence on excluding “dishonestly” and adding the term “impede” to the phrase “subvert or undermine,” so the jury was told to convict if it found petitioner intended to “subvert, undermine, or impede” governmental factfinding by suggesting to its employees that they enforce the document retention policy.

The bottom line is that this was a complete exoneration (on a criminal basis anyway). Perhaps they were negligent in certain areas, but Arthur Andersen was innocent of criminal charges...not that it matters anymore.

From the Left: From the other side's analysis (see Huffington Post), you have people who think that fraud is the equivalent of not expensing stock options and that Andersen should have been convicted based on its "criminogenic culture." (Obviously, the unanimous court decision is really just part of a right wing conspiracy, with Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens all in on it.)