Former Enron CEO will get high court hearing

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling

Quick Vote

What do you think is the most important quality in a job?

• Satisfying work
• Good pay and benefits
• Flexible hours
• Growth opportunities

or View results

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling will be given a hearing before the Supreme Court in his effort to overturn his 2006 convictions on securities fraud and other charges.

The justices accepted his appeal and will hold oral arguments early next year over the culpability of Skilling's corporate duties.

Skilling's attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, said "pervasive media coverage" prevented his client from receiving a fair trial from a Houston, Texas, jury.

Skilling, 55, is currently in federal prison. He was convicted of 19 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and insider trading relating to the collapse of the Texas-based energy services giant in late 2001.

He had been a longtime executive at what became the world's largest wholesaler of gas and electricity, with $27 billion traded in a single quarter at Enron's height. Skilling was named CEO in February 2001, but resigned under pressure six months later as the company began to collapse financially. Thousands of investors and company employees lost their savings and their jobs in a case that became emblematic of corporate corruption cases during the past decade.

Skilling and Enron's top executive, Kenneth Lay, were accused of spearheading a massive campaign to mislead investors and shareholders with an aggressive investment strategy aimed at suppressing the company's shaky financial footing.

Both men were convicted in May 2006. Skilling was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison and fined $45 million. Lay died in July 2006 before being sentenced. Skilling's conviction was upheld by a federal appeals court.

Skilling's attorney claims all 19 convictions should be overturned because Skilling was improperly convicted of withholding his "honest services" from Enron's shareholders, a violation of federal law dealing with fiduciary responsibilities. Petrocelli said the government never proved his client's conduct was designed to achieve "private gain," as the law required, as opposed to advancing the company's interests. He also said the "honest services" requirement is too vague.

"The government did not contend, and the record did not suggest in any way, that Skilling intended to put his own interests ahead of Enron's," the appeal noted.

And Petrocelli claimed, "The widespread, persistent, and scathing demonization of Skilling by the Houston media far exceeded the editorial commentary" allowed by the high court in similar cases, said the appeal. Questionnaires submitted by potential jurors "confirmed the breadth and intensity of the hostility toward Skilling."

There was no immediate reaction from the Justice Department, which had told the court Skilling's claims were all without merit, and urged the justices to let the conviction and sentence stand.

Petrocelli, a Los Angeles, California-based trial attorney, told CNN in May when the appeal was filed that questions raised by this case had current relevance, given the ongoing financial meltdown. "The issues presented in this appeal cry out for resolution by the Supreme Court," he said.

The case is Skilling v. U.S. (08-1394).