Robert Mintz Quotes (28 Quotes)

Harmon will probably say that they don't have to be unanimous as to who was the corrupt persuader.

The credibility of a cooperating witness is always going to be under attack. You're asking a jury to believe somebody who has already committed a crime.

They've done deal after deal with an eye toward getting to the top. Now that they are there, they're not in a position to hand out any attractive plea offers without looking like they're just giving away the store.

It would be a mistake to confuse this with leniency. For these two former executives, even several years in a state prison will be a very long stretch of time.

It appears that that's the jury has found one corrupt persuader but was unable to agree on which one.

They've got to make this case clear-cut for the jury and keep them awake and involved. Otherwise, they play right into the defense's hands.

I said, 'Really That was my unit. And I don't remember seeing you there,' ... So I called my friends and said, 'Did you know that George Bush served in our unit' And everyone said, 'No, I never saw him there.' It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size.

Prosecutors certainly want him to be credible. It if looks like he's shifting too much blame onto others, that could backfire.

If Harmon says they don't have to agree then it is likely a conviction for Andersen.

Prosecutors have to show this was not simply bad management and bad judgment, but outright fraud. The only way to do that is with insiders.

When you look at how long the government has been preparing this case it is not surprising that they have not scrapped their plans and immediately embraced him as a critical witness.

The biggest problem is that Duncan didn't come across as someone who was convinced of his own guilt. If he can't figure out that he is guilty how can you impute liability to the entire partnership

If the government plays their cross- examination of the defendants only to a draw, they lose. They have to do better than that.

The key for the defense is to put aside the baggage that is Enron, get the jury to see their clients as individuals and show why each of these transactions was business as usual. The longer, the more technical this gets, the more it hurts the government.

His ability to handle these questions without appearing arrogant or defensive may be the key to his testimony.

The jurors can determine that this is a 43-year-old man with three young daughters looking at a very long stretch in jail.

He was a model of contrition on the stand.

His testimony may be his only opportunity to save himself, but at the same time, he runs the risk of sealing his fate and almost guaranteeing his conviction if jurors find his testimony incredible.

There is a good possibility the judge will give them some additional time. But we're talking weeks instead of months.

Since these are the first two major corporate executives to take the government on at trial in the post-Enron era, it's critically important that the government emerge at the end of the day with a victory,

Sometimes people feel they have no choice. It's their one chance to tell their own story.

We have not seen any glimpse of his legendary, hair- trigger temper or the arrogance that personified his conduct at Enron.

The government is trying to paint this as a clear case of right vs. wrong. What the defense is doing is suggesting this case is not nearly as black and white as the government is trying to suggest.

The judge's hand is forced to delve into this once a defendant speaks out so publicly about a difference between himself and his counsel.

Typically, you don't see the government willing to sign on a cooperating defendant on the eve of the trial. This is a tacit acknowledgement by the government that their case is far from overwhelming and they are willing to take all the help they can get.

The enormous problem faced by both these defendants is that it is their word against an army of former colleagues, many of whom have subjected themselves to potential prison time by virtue of their admissions.

This trial schedule is a tacit acknowledgement that the case was far too complex for the jury to understand what was going on,

The crimes alleged at Enron were not the acts of a few greedy senior executives, but truly was an indictment of almost the entire corporate culture.