Jacob Frenkel Quotations

The only time the Department of Justice asks for a stay is because it is going down the road of returning an indictment.

The fact that some dire predictions didn't materialize mainly reflects the robustness of the U.S. economy. 2005 has showed us that it is able to absorb more shocks than previously thought.

Less rope is needed for two necks, as the government's noose tightens. The government always benefits from the addition of high-level insiders who would have been party to conversations with most senior executives.

Less rope is needed for two necks as the Government's noose tightens.

Mr. Wright has conveyed previously to the government his intent to be responsive to the government's investigation. He has not indicated to the government either personally or through counsel any change in those plans.

If a quarterback is injured in a big football game, the game doesn't stop. But it is disruptive and a significant distraction on a professional level because Lay and Ramsey have developed a relationship.

if (Black is) charged, if there's a trial, and if there is a conviction, we would be looking at a sentence along the high end of the corporate executives who already have been convicted and sentenced in the United States - into two decades.

It changes the face of the trial for the prosecutors and the defense. They had to have some contingency plan for trial preparations for a case without Causey. Now they just put that plan in place.

It changes the face of the trial for the prosecutors and the defense.

Someone of means, who for his entire life was able to appreciate the value of freedom, and enjoy his success, is now having his life in many respects controlled by mid-level penal officials.

Judges normally show greater sympathy for people of advanced years and deteriorating health,

We have the government being very aggressive on the concept of criminal intent in jury charges. And now we have the number two example of it being overturned.

The experience of the oil shocks in the 1970s is not a guide for the future.

What it really means is a shorter, more focused trial, which is better for the government. It probably takes out of the equation some of the more complex accounting issues. The defense was likely hoping to make this case seem like a complex civil financial fraud case, and without Causey, that will be more difficult.

What it means is they have locked down a key cooperator who can, at a minimum, disprove what has been a publicly articulated key element of her defense, that being the stop-loss order,

While it's hard to compare-and-contrast (the two trials), there's no question that prosecutors tried a more streamlined case this time.

The government's prosecutions of corporate fraud will be judged based on the verdict in this case. If there is an acquittal, the government's corporate fraud prosecutions will be deemed at best a modest success. To the extent the government is being tested, this is the final exam.

There certainly existed a mindset in the late '90s by some that the corporate till was a personal entitlement.

Various counsel have communicated with the government on his behalf since the allegations arose.

there's never any assurance that a juror who meets a certain profile will return a verdict a certain way.

These cases have significant policy implications. To see two senior executives facing prison terms representing the balance of their lives sends a very strong message.

These cases are not a slam dunk. The biggest challenge for the government, if it wins, is to make the win stick.

The strategy in all these prosecutions is to secure cooperation and slowly build cases against more senior participants.

I've always felt that he had a very strong case on appeal, ... if there's any case that's likely to be reversed, this is it.

Sometimes doing that takes a little bit longer than many would like or expect.

Sometimes it takes the filing of an indictment to induce a plea and cooperation.

Prosecutors are also about to go up against an unprecedented level of firepower.

a desperate move made with the hope of eliciting some sympathy from the court to permit him to spend some part of the remainder of his life outside of jail.

Now anyone who wants to know what trial court judges in New York state are doing when confronted with conviction in a high-profile corporate fraud case, the answer is imposing a significant sentence.

The bottom line is, different jury, different city, different facts,

That's why they downgraded us from the podium.

You're painting a picture of more compelling evidence,

This is not somebody who made some inadvertent false statement, ... This is a case where a jury convicted a CEO for lying to two different government agencies. That's a big deal.

This case is a non-starter that has political appeal,

They had to have some contingency plan for trial preparations for a case without Causey. Now they just put that plan in place.

There may be information in there that would be helpful to Mr. Greenberg in support of his position that others were responsible. The report will likely have information they need to prepare their defense.

It means that the prosecutors are already having the name plate written to go over the jail cell.

For a CEO to be told when to get up, when to eat, where to stand and what to wear, this is a significant punishment,

It's more likely that you can lose a case in jury selection than win the case.

Congressional prodding historically has resulted in responses and reaction from the SEC.

Not that (the justices) intended it that way. But it has that effect.

Not disclosing material facts about the transaction, such as guarantees against loss, could constitute a crime.

It takes a mature, confident and thoughtful judge to acknowledge and identify a real legal issue. That's not to say there may not be other significant issues; it's just she has identified one she believes is the most likely to be considered on appeal.

It's rather unlikely that potential jurors either didn't have family members or didn't know people that were directly affected by Enron. My greatest concern isn't the jurors who are speaking to the court honestly but those that want to get on the jury either to make a point to right the wrong of Enron...or to make sure that they can make the round of talk shows.

Any time there is a transfer of assets and there is a cloud over the assets, any transfer is at risk of being undone.

In the last two years, the government has painstakingly climbed ladders, gotten different people along the way to plead guilty in order to go after someone at the higher rung. We're now at the top of the ladder.

I don't think there's any question that there will be a prison component.

I don't think there's any question that prosecutors who adopt a 'KISS' (keep-it-simple, stupid) strategy usually are able to make a much more meaningful and cogent presentation to the jury.

I believe firmly there is still room based on the interests of all the parties to find some common ground before the first juror sets foot in the courtroom.

The hammer over the co-operator's head is the importance of the prosecutor giving full credit for the co-operation at the time of sentencing.

The city of Houston is littered with the victims of Enron. The biggest challenge may be finding 12 jurors who can be fair.