Exhibit 1239 · Judicial opinion
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696
We hold that the jury instructions failed to convey properly the elements of a "corrup[t] persua[sion]" conviction under § 1512(b), and therefore reverse.
The Court reverses the conviction of Enron's auditor for obstruction by document destruction because the jury instructions did not require a nexus to a particular official proceeding or consciousness of wrongdoing. The opinion recounts that the firm's partner told employees that if documents were destroyed under the retention policy and litigation followed, 'that's great', and that an engagement-team email stated 'No more shredding' on 9 November 2001 after the SEC served subpoenas.
- Source
- Supreme Court of the United States (opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist, unanimous)
- Date
- 31 May 2005
- Quoted from
- Opinion of the Court, Part I, first paragraph (Cornell LII text)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/544/696
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The Court reversed on the instructions, not on a finding that the destruction was lawful. The partner's words are quoted by the Court from 374 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2004): '[I]f it's destroyed in the course of [the] normal policy and litigation is filed the next day, that's great. . . . [W]e've followed our own policy, and whatever there was that might have been of interest to somebody is gone and irretrievable.' Duncan's secretary: 'Per Dave— No more shredding. . . . We have been officially served for our documents.' (Cornell text, Part I). U.S. Reports page pin cites were not read from the Cornell text and are not given.