U.S. judges grill lawyers in Conrad Black case

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 5:11 PM - 0 Comments

This morning’s oral hearing at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago brought together two top American legal minds, conservative Judge Richard Posner and lawyer Miguel Estrada (whose own nomination to a federal appeals court by George W. Bush was blocked by Democrats). The hard-charging U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald had his name on the government’s briefs but did not argue the government’s case in person. The question before them was whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to dramatically narrow the definition of “honest services” fraud meant that the conviction of Black and his associates should be reversed because the jury could have convicted them based on a legal definition of fraud that was no longer valid.

Because Posner was so aggressive in his questioning of the lawyers, it is hard to say what the other two judges on the panel might have been thinking. Were they silent at times because Posner was already asking the questions they wanted answered, or because they accepted the lawyer’s position? In a nutshell, Posner seemed to resist the argument that Black and the others should be cleared of one count of fraud for pocketing $600,000 from the sales of Hollinger properties to newspaper-buyers Paxton and Forum that were not authorized by the Hollinger board. But both he and Judge Diane Sykes seemed to have more sympathy for the defendants’ case that they should be cleared of two counts of fraud for taking $5.5 million payments relating of a sale of other Hollinger properties to American Publishing Company. Finally, Posner and Sykes seemed skeptical of Black’s argument that his obstruction of justice conviction (for improperly removing 13 boxes of documents from his office) should be reversed.

Here is how the hearing unfolded: Continue…

Conrad Black case goes back to court (UPDATED)

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 8:09 AM - 0 Comments

Lawyers for Conrad Black return to court today in Chicago in what could be the climax of his long legal battle for his freedom.

They have already achieved the improbable – persuading the United States Supreme Court to take up Black’s appeal (the court grants only about four percent of petitions that come its way) – and the more unlikely still, getting a 7-2 decision in their favour. Today they are seeking to use the new precedent from the top court to have the convictions reversed. Black is has been out of prison on bail pending the decision. He has served more than two years of a six and a half year sentence.

On June 24, the US Supreme Court ruled that part of the law used to convict Black, along with other Hollinger executives, Peter Atkinson, John Boultbee and Mark Kipnis, of fraud, was so broad as to be unconstitutionally vague. The court remanded the case back to the appeals court to decide whether a jury instructed on the narrower definition of fraud, and faced with more limited evidence, would have still convicted Black and the others, or whether the legal error was merely “harmless.”

The case comes down to this: the jury had been instructed that fraud had two aspects to it: the theft of money from the corporation and the denial to the corporation of the “honest services” of its executives. The Supreme Court said that the honest services theory of fraud had come to be defined too broadly in American law. In a June opinion, the Supreme Court said that to be convicted of honest services fraud there has to be evidence of a bribery or kickback scheme – neither of which were alleged in the case of Black and his associates.

The jury that convicted the defendants did not explain what theory of fraud it based its convictions on: theft, denial of honest services, or both. Black’s lawyers have asked the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal to reverse the convictions of the executives’ on the grounds that it is possible that the jury found them guilty on the theory of fraud that the Supreme Court has now said was incorrect. Federal prosecutors argue that the evidence of theft was “overwhelming” and that the legal error in the jury instruction on honest services would not have made a difference. In other words, that the error was “harmless.”

Below are several of the basic disagreements presented in the legal briefs that the court will have to sort out:

1. What does the government have to prove to show the error was “harmless”?

• a. The government says it needs to show that “rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.”
• b. Black’s lawyers argue that the government must prove that not even one juror voted to convict based on the incorrect theory of fraud. The court must reverse the convictions “if there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction.”

2. Was the jury told that they could convict for a denial of “honest services” even if they did not find evidence of theft?

• a. Black’s lawyers argues that prosecutors incorrectly led the jury to believe that they could convict of honest services fraud if the defendants had failed to make proper disclosures to the Board and its Audit Committee, thus “permitting a guilty verdict even if no juror through that the defendants schemed to steal money.” They argued that rather than stealing money, the defendants falsely categorized millions of dollars in management fees (that were rightfully owed the defendants) as non-compete payments in order to escape Canadian taxes, but that this did not defraud shareholders.
• b. The government responds that it never told the jury that they could convict in the absence of theft. The government had argued that “defendants stole Hollinger International’s money by making false representations, that is, by disguising money they stole as non-competition payments.” Prosecutors say they never argued that there was an “independent, stand-alone honest services violation that the jury should use to convict defendants.”

3. Was the jury so persuaded by the government’s evidence of theft that they would have convicted regardless of the definition of honest services?

• a. Blacks’ lawyers argue no.
  • i. The fact that the jury acquitted the defendants on 9 fraud counts, two tax counts, and (Black only) a racketeering charge that “turned on theft” shows that “the jury in this case was deeply skeptical of the government’s witnesses and theories.” The jury’s “sweeping rejection of the government’s theft theories” implies that the jurors convicted on the basis that the defendants violated “honest services” by failing to make purportedly required disclosures or by not placing corporate interest above all else.
  • ii. The government’s “own star witness,” David Radler, said there was no theft in the transaction at issue. Payments that the government argues were fraudulent non-compete payments were merely management fees disguised as non-compete payments because such payments had recently been made tax-free by Revenue Canada.

• b. The government makes the case that there was strong evidence that executives pocketed millions in fake non-compete payments from a company that owned only a tiny paper called the Mammoth Times and lied about it to the company. (The defense argues that the non-competes covered all affiliated newspapers, which numbered in the hundreds.)
  Further, prosecutors told the jurors they could only convict if they found “unfair dealing” or an “unfair price” in the transaction. Therefore, if the jurors believed that the money was merely mis-labeled management fees owed to the defendants, there was no unfair dealing or unfair price and they would not have found fraud. The convictions therefore imply that the jurors did not believe the defendants explanations regarding the payments and must have considered them to be stolen money.
  The government responds that Radler was hardly their star witness and that the jury was told they could conclude he was lying and still convict.

4. Did the evidence on honest services make the jury more likely to view Black’s removal of 13 boxes from his Toronto office as an attempt to obstruct justice?

• a. Black has maintained all along that he was removing the boxes because he was being evicted from the premises. He had no criminal intent, he argues. He had already complied with five document requests, producing more than 112,000 pages of documents. Lawyers had already spent weeks photocopying everything in the office. His lawyers had not told him that a new document request had been made by the Securities and Exchange Commission so he could not have been trying to hide the documents.
• b. The jury’s view of his actions was tainted by the reams of evidence that established his non-disclosure which now is not a crime.
• c. If the fraud convictions are struck down, his lawyers ask for the 78-month sentence to be lowered.
  The government argues that the evidence of obstruction is “strong”: “Everything the defendant did in sneaking out the boxes was evidence of corrupt intent.”

UPDATE:

First impressions….

It was a mixed bag for Conrad Black’s legal case this morning judging by the questions asked by the three judges in a rapid-fire oral argument that lasted just over 40 minutes.

• The judges seemed skeptical that his obstruction of justice conviction should be overturned. In one instance Judge Posner said bluntly, “I don’t see a connection” between honest services fraud and the obstruction conviction.
• Judge Posner repeatedly expressed doubts about overturning a fraud conviction relating to $600,000 in payments pocketed by the defendants in deals with Paxton and Forum.
• Judges Posner and Sykes seemed more sympathetic to reversing the fraud conviction relating to $5.5 million in fees paid to the defendants in the deal with APC.

More to come…

Judging the judge in Conrad Black’s appeal

By Nancy Macdonald - Monday, August 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM - 0 Comments

Robyn Twomey/Corbis/ John Gress/Reuters

Richard Posner is famous, in legal circles, for a rare act of judicial insolence. In an antitrust ruling more than a decade ago, the appeals court judge wrote an opinion mocking a controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent as “wobbly,” “moth-eaten,” and “unsound.” The high court’s response was even more surprising: they rolled over and unanimously struck the precedent. They even congratulated him.

Until recently, few in Canada had heard of Posner, a judge who has written some 53 books and who is widely considered one of America’s top legal minds. But from his perch at the U.S. Federal Court’s Seventh Circuit, Posner is once again considering Conrad Black’s case, after the Supreme Court returned it to the appellate panel. Black’s fate now rests largely with a man who has shown him no sympathy in the past—a judge who once described himself as “cold, furtive, callous,” with a cruel streak.

Continue…

Conrad Black’s appeal to be heard September 29

By macleans.ca - Friday, August 27, 2010 at 11:51 AM - 0 Comments

On September 29, a three-judge panel will hear Conrad Black’s appeal of his 2007 convictions on three counts of fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of “honest services” provisions, saying the rules should only apply to bribes or kickbacks. The broad interpretation of honest services guarantees convinced a Chicago jury they were justified in convicting the media baron. Black recently dropped his request to return to Canada, but will be free to return after next month’s court date if he wins his appeal.

CBC News

Another victory for Conrad Black

By macleans.ca - Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM - 0 Comments

The appeal by a group of directors, advisers and a vice president of Hollinger International against six libel suits filed by Conrad Black has been dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Black alleged in the suits that press releases and reports posted on the company’s website, and later reprinted in the Canadian media, defamed him. The defendants said there was no connection between the reports and Ontario, and that the trial should be held in Illinois or New York. The presiding judge dismissed the appeal because she found the reports were directed to Canadian media, and that Black’s established reputation in Ontario had been damaged. Black is currently out on bail in the U.S. while waiting to hear whether his 2007 conviction for defrauding Hollinger investors will be overturned.

Toronto Sun

Conrad Black drops bid to return to Canada

By macleans.ca - Friday, August 6, 2010 at 12:52 PM - 0 Comments

Sources have told the National Post former media baron Conrad Black has dropped his appeal to return from Canada after being released from prison on bail two weeks ago. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Amy St. Eve required financial disclosure as a precondition to letting Black return to Canada, but his lawyers said there will be no more such submissions, essentially killing his request to leave the U.S. Black said he isn’t ready to file a sworn affidavit that would lay out all of the details of his financial status and relationships. His next court appearance, where he could choose make an appeal to leave the country, is Sept. 20.

National Post

Conrad Black on life in the "bondage of the U.S. government"

By macleans.ca - Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 10:21 AM - 0 Comments

In his first dispatch to the media since leaving a Florida prison, Conrad Black describes the more than two years he spent in the “bondage of the U.S. government” as “an interesting experience.” ”Of course, I was glad, jubilant, to leave, (though a return is not an impossible result of the pending rehearing),” the former press baron writes of the day of his departure in Saturday’s National Post, “but also grateful for many of the relationships I had formed; enlightened by my observation of American justice on the other side of the wall; and happy to have got on well in an environment very foreign to any I had known before.” But along with the reminiscences of his time behind bars, Black mixes in some damning indictments of U.S. justice. The prison system, Black contends, is home to an “ostracized, voiceless legion of the walking dead,” many of whom have been “grossly over-sentenced” as a result of ”the failure of the U.S. War on Drugs.” And the public defenders paid to represent them, “it is universally and plausibly alleged, are more often than not stooges of the prosecutors.” It’s well worth the read.

National Post

Previously on The Country I Live In

By Scott Feschuk - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 6:06 AM - 0 Comments

I’ve been away from Canada for four of the past five weeks, and it’s always fun to return and see what’s been missed. A comprehensive review:

1. The dominant domestic news story of the past month hinges on the intricacies of statistical analysis.

2. Finally demonstrating a populist touch, Michael Ignatieff has started production on his own Speed sequel: If his party’s popularity in opinion polls falls below 25 per cent, the Liberal Express explodes! (Subplot: If the bus keeps stopping for Timbits, the occupants of the Liberal Express explode!)

3. Conrad Black has apparently tunneled out of prison and escaped.

4. Upon being informed of No. 3, David Radler has soiled himself.*

* Not reported, but a safe assumption.

Don’t ever change, Canada.

Personally, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about with the census. On one hand, the Harper government’s move to scrap the mandatory long form has been condemned by Continue…

Conrad Black: Let the vengeance begin

By Jason Kirby and Chris Sorensen - Monday, July 26, 2010 at 8:41 AM - 0 Comments

M. Spencer Green/AP

It has been a good summer for Conrad Black. He won a key victory at the U.S. Supreme Court that could help overturn his fraud convictions and, this week, managed to secure his release on bail from a Florida prison. For Black’s accusers, though, the mood is likely less jubilant. With several defamation lawsuits already filed, Black has been promising vengeance on those who played a role in his downfall—and his moment of retribution appears to be drawing closer.

Black still has a way to go before he can claim complete vindication, but experts say those who dismissed his flurry of litigation as long as he languished in jail might want to think again. “If you’re convicted of a crime, that makes it very difficult to win any defamation lawsuits,” says Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School and a former attorney with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “If Black can get his convictions reversed that puts him in a much better position.”

Continue…

Conrad Black can't return to Canada just yet

By macleans.ca - Friday, July 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM - 0 Comments

For the time being at least, Conrad Black will have stay in the U.S. Chicago judge Amy St. Eve ruled on Friday that Black would not be allowed to return to Canada yet because she wants more financial information from his lawyers before making a ruling. The judge gave Black until Aug. 16 to provide a “complete and thorough” accounting of his personal fortune so that she can rule on whether he should be allowed to leave. Black’s lawyer Miguel Estrada told the court his client should be permitted to return to Toronto because of the undisclosed medical condition of Black’s wife, Barbara Amiel. Mr. Estrada said the condition is not too serious, but that it makes living in Palm Beach difficult.

The Globe and Mail

"I'd like to go back. Toronto's nice this time of year," says Black

By macleans.ca - Friday, July 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM - 0 Comments

Today, Conrad Black will know whether or not he is free to return to Canada, after a bail hearing in Chicago before federal judge Amy St. Eve. St. Eve has ordered Black to remain in the U.S. until she reviews his case. Black is currently free on a $2 million U.S. bond posted by his friend. He was freed on bail on Wednesday following a Supreme Court decision that found his fraud charges unconstitutional. (He was sentenced six and a half years in prison for defrauding investors and obstructing justice.) “I’m enjoying my new surroundings,” Black said, adding his preference is to return to Toronto, reported the Globe and Mail. “I’d like to go back. Toronto’s nice this time of year.”

BBC News
Globe and Mail

What on earth will my husband think?

By Barbara Amiel - Friday, July 23, 2010 at 9:20 AM - 0 Comments

Steve Carrera/Reuters

Last week I stood chequebook in hand at an immense Toronto Toyota dealership, ready to buy the world’s most hideously expensive minivan, and you’d think I had a nasty social disease. I had an appointment to test-drive the box-on-wheels, made after endless email exchanges, but the car wasn’t there.

As for the smart-looking headphoned receptionists chatting to air (or the car lounge lizards hanging around them), I was Grandma Moses. A line of salespeople loitered to the left.

Continue…

Is Conrad Black headed back to Toronto?

By macleans.ca - Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM - 0 Comments

Conrad Black is out of prison and back in the rented Palm Beach estate where his wife Barbara Amiel was waiting. And if all goes according to plan, the former media baron could be back in his native Canada sooner than later. Black is currently confined to the continental United States under bail conditions set by federal district court Judge Amy St. Eve. But Black’s lawyers are expected to use a hearing scheduled for Friday to argue their client should be allowed to return to Canada. Sources tell the Financial Post Black’s financial situation is dire and he is facing eviction from his Palm Beach mansion. Prosecutors have so far objected to his request to return to Toronto, but it’s believed his diminished financial state could be used to convince the court he is not a flight risk.

Financial Post

Conrad Black freed on $2 million bond

By macleans.ca - Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM - 0 Comments

Conrad Black was released on a $2 million bond and ordered to remain in the continental United States by Chicago judge Amy St. Eve Wednesday morning. Black had earlier requested he be allowed to return home to Toronto, but prosecutors objected, pointing out Black has access to a residence in Florida. Black must still appear before St. Eve for the final conditions of his bail will be set, and his lawyer indicated that may happen as early as Friday.

National Post

Conrad Black granted bail

By macleans.ca - Monday, July 19, 2010 at 5:19 PM - 0 Comments

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled Monday that Conrad Black could be released on bail while he appeals his convictions for fraud. Black, who has been serving a six-and-a-half year prison sentence at a facility in Florida since 2007, won a significant legal victory last month when the U.S. Supreme Court sent his conviction on three counts of fraud back to a lower court for review. Chicago judge Amy St. Eve, who presided over Black’s trial, is responsible for setting the terms of his release.

The Globe and Mail

Maclean’s

Too late for him maybe, but . . .

By Mark Steyn - Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM - 98 Comments

CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/AP/CP

A year or so back, in the lobby of Fox News, I was approached by a gentleman who introduced himself as a member of Conrad Black’s legal team. That doesn’t narrow it down very much. There’ve been so many of them over the years: Canadian, American, young, old, rough and ready, bespoke and urbane, incompetent and . . . well, marginally less incompetent. “Good news,” this one told me. “We’re really pleased with the way things are going on the Supreme Court appeal.”

“That’s great,” I said, forcing a smile and feeling the way the Indian Foreign Minister must have felt when President Ahmadinejad told him not to worry because everything would be hunky-dory in two years’ time when the Twelfth Imam would be showing up. On balance, the Twelfth Imam seemed more likely to ride to Mahmoud’s rescue than the U.S. Supreme Court to Conrad’s. I’d been in Washington a few days earlier and various legal “experts” had derided Black’s SCOTUS appeal as a pathetic but characteristically self-aggrandizing last roll of the dice that was bound to come up snake eyes.

Continue…

Conrad Black’s final battle

By Jason Kirby and Luiza Ch. Savage with Chris Sorensen - Monday, July 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM - 22 Comments

AP/ Canadian Press

An ardent student of history, Conrad Black knows about the long view. His own protracted battle with the U.S. government for his freedom and his reputation is turning into the kind of epic saga that could fill one of his loquacious tomes. The former newspaper magnate has drawn comparisons to Napoleon at Elba—in exile, unrepentant, his empire in tatters. And now, like his hero, he is plotting a return.

It has been more than two years since Conrad Black was locked up in a central Florida prison. But from behind bars the former media baron has soldiered on, determined to be vindicated from the charges that he looted Hollinger International at the expense of shareholders. He’s already dramatically recast the story line that was scrawled out against him. At the outset his accusers presented a straightforward yet lurid tale of unbridled greed and excess, in which Black ran a “corporate kleptocracy” and made off with US$400 million.

Continue…

Does last week’s Supreme Court ruling vindicate Conrad Black?

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, June 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM - 20 Comments

Wall Street Journal apologizes to Conrad Black

By macleans.ca - Friday, June 25, 2010 at 12:28 PM - 6 Comments

Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling’s successful bid to have the U.S. Supreme Court rein in the “honest services” statute that has served as a backbone to several white-collar convictions south of the border was “a long overdue victory for the rule of law,” according to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Moreover, the decision has prompted a bout of self-reflection among the Journal‘s editorial board members, especially in light of the revised statute’s application in Conrad Black’s case. While the reversal of Black’s fraud convictions is primarily an indictment of the prosecutors who abused the “honest services” statute, it is also a wake-up call to the nation’s media, whom the Journal‘s editors write were too quick to hop on the anti-business bandwagon.  “The Black and Skilling cases are precisely the kind involving high-profile, unsympathetic defendants in which willful prosecutors like Mr. Fitzgerald are inclined to abuse the honest services law,” reads the editorial. “They know the media won’t write about the legal complexities, and they know juries are often inclined to find a rich CEO guilty of something. We regret that in the case of Mr. Black, that failure of media oversight included us.”

Wall Street Journal

Good Lord! Will Conrad Black walk?

By Philippe Gohier - Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 10:19 PM - 27 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has cast serious doubt on Conrad Black’s convictions on three counts of fraud and sent the case back to a lower court, which could decide to altogether clear the former press baron of fraud charges. Black’s appeal hinged on the government’s use of what’s called the “honest services” component of the U.S. fraud law to convict him. In their appeal to the top court, Black’s lawyers argued the definition of “honest services” as it applies to fraud cases was too broad to be meaningful. On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced it agreed with them.

In its ruling, the Court wrote the “honest services” statute should apply only to “schemes to defraud that involve bribes and kickbacks,” rather than all cases in which a defendant is accused of breaching an intangible promise of loyalty to a company. Most significantly for Black, by narrowing the scope of the statue, the Court removed it as a justification for his conviction on three counts of fraud since the case against his involved neither bribes nor kickbacks.

Of course, Black isn’t out of the woods yet. As the judges noted in their ruling, jurors were presented with three options with respect to the fraud charges at Black’s initial trial: they could find Black innocent; they could find Black guilty because he collected bogus fees from Hollinger for noncompetition agreements; or they could find him guilty because he shirked his duty to provide “honest services” to the company. Thursday’s ruling only knocks out the third option given to jurors—that Black was guilty of disloyalty to Hollinger—and the Supreme Court justices are leaving it up to the Court of Appeals to decide “whether the error was ultimately harmless.” In other words, the Appeals Court could still decide there was sufficient evidence upon which to convict Black even if prosecutors had never uttered the phrase “honest services.” And even if he’s cleared of fraud, Black would still have his conviction for obstruction of justice hanging over his head, though his lawyers have argued “spillover prejudice” from the inappropriate use of the “honest services” provision corrupted that charge, too, and the Supreme Court remitted the case to the Appeals Court along with the fraud charges.

Without the “honest services” theory attached to its case, though, the prosecution faces a much more stringent burden of proof, according to Scott Hutchison, a Toronto-based lawyer who’s worked on a number of white-collar crime cases. After all, Black has long defended the contentious payments, no matter how exorbitant, as money he was entitled to. “If that’s true,” Hutchison says, “there’s no fraud. Companies are allowed to structure their transactions in ways that are mutually beneficial to everyone involved. The only way it would be a fraud is if there was an act of dishonesty perpetrated against the owners of the newspapers.”

Despite the setback, at least one of those who built the case against Black doesn’t appear worried. In an online chat with Globe and Mail readers, Eric Sussman, the former lead prosecutor in Black’s case, suggested Thursday’s ruling “will have very little impact” on Black’s convictions. “One ‘theory’ of fraud is gone, but not the other,” Sussman wrote. “As for spillover [onto the obstruction of justice conviction], the Supreme Court did not opine on this issue and the Court of Appeals seemed unmoved by the argument last time.”

Still, to long-time critics of the “honest services” statute, the ruling is a significant victory—not just for Black, but for everyone. A groundswell of opposition to the provision had built up in recent years over concerns it amounted to little more than a legal safety net allowing prosecutors to press ahead with—and ultimately win—what were otherwise weak cases. Chicago-based lawyer Marc Martin, a one-time member of Black’s legal team, estimates the statute was so overused the Supreme Court decision could affect as many as 80 or 90 per cent of mail fraud cases pressed in the city. “[Thursday's ruling] closes a loophole where prosecutors could come up with a theory about how some fiduciary duty was violated or some arcane non-criminal law was violated and use that as a basis for an ‘honest services’ prosecution,” he says. “It precludes prosecutors from prosecuting breaches of ethics as criminal offences.”

In fact, in light of Thursday’s ruling, it may no longer matter whether Conrad Black’s behaviour was unethical, and it’s entirely possible it was never supposed to be criminal in the first place. “I always said—in Black’s case and in other cases like it—that they’re pushing the envelope, that this is going beyond what the statute was ever intended for,” Martin says. “Up until today, no court ever agreed with me, but today we were vindicated.”

Conrad Black: from sentencing to today

By macleans.ca - Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM - 3 Comments

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the “Honest Services” statute—a favorite of white-collar crime prosecutors— was interpreted too broadly in convicting Conrad Black, as well as former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling. However, the ruling did not require their convictions to be overturned. In both cases, however, the justices left the ultimate resolution to the appeals courts. So where does this leave Black? We’ve compiled some links (more to come) that explain the Honest Services law and how this law was applied to Black’s case.

Shooting down the honesty policy (Canadian Business)
Conrad Black’s appeal may change U.S. law (National Post)
What Are Honest Services? (Huffington Post)

From the archives:

The United States vs. Conrad Black—The Maclean’s guide to the white-collar trial of the century
Mark Steyn live blog—the Conrad Black trial from opening arguments to sentencing
Why it’s time to set Conrad Black free—Rehab is mostly irrelevant for corporate fraud
Clash of the titans—Peter C. Newman on how the Aspers came to blows with press baron Conrad Black
A legal victory for Conrad Black—Former press baron’s libel suit against Richard Breeden can continue, in Ontario

Click here for our complete coverage on Black’s sentencing

Conrad Black's fraud conviction vacated

By macleans.ca - Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM - 3 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent Conrad Black’s case back to the federal appeals court, rejecting the lower court’s decision to uphold the former media baron’s fraud conviction. Supreme Court justices ruled the “honest services” law was misused in convicting Black as well as former Enron CEO, though the ruling doesn’t require their convictions to be overturned. Still, it’s a blow to a law that’s become popular with those prosecuting white collar crime, despite being denounced by critics for its vagueness.

New York Times

U.S. Supreme Court gives Conrad Black another chance

By Luiza Ch. Savage - Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM - 37 Comments

The full opinion is here:

The court ruled that the “Honest Services” statute under which he was convicted was interpreted too broadly.

The jury should have been told it only applies to bribery and kickback schemes. (A few judges wanted to strike it down as unconstitutionally vague altogether.)

It’s a short decision. The reasoning on the Honest Services statute is laid out in detail in a separate opinion in the case of Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling, also handed down this morning. That decision is here.

Update: I should add it’s unclear to me at this moment whether the case goes back to the same jury with new instructions, or whether the whole process starts from square one.

Update 2: I shouldn’t have said a new trial in the headline. First it goes back to the appeals court.

The Mailbag: Conrad Black, New Sex Moves, Aaron Wherry’s madness

By Scott Feschuk - Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM - 38 Comments

Welcome to the Tuesday Mailbag on Wednesday, where we’re still not sure what the hell happened last night on Lost (two Jacks? are we sure the space-time continuum can survive that much eye moisture?) but we are sure of one thing: it’s hard to imagine anything as funny as the Lost clip show that traditionally proceeds the season premiere. Believe me – I know a little bit about funny, in that a) I get paid to write a “humour” column, and b) I’ve seen Stephen Harper in a T-shirt. And nothing – with the possible exception of Stephen Harper in a T-shirt – is as hilarious as trying to picture a Lost virgin sitting down and thinking to himself, “Okay, I’m going to invest an hour in this thing and then I’ll be completely up to speed for the final season.”

Plane crash. Island. Polar bear. Flirting. Smoke monster. Crazy French chick. Mysterious billionaire. Mysterious energy pocket. Mysterious code that apparently saves the world, unless it doesn’t. Shipwreck. Mercenaries. Explosions. Big stone foot. Death. More death. DEATH. Mascara Eyeliner Guy. Time travel. Nosebleeds. Hippies. Book club. Hydrogen Bomb. Boom. Go.

The queries below were submitted by readers. Remember – there are no stupid questions, except for the question of whether that Toyota hurtling toward you in your rear view mirror is going to stop in time.

•••

Dear Scott:

Wherry’s writing about American Idol, and presumably has to watch it to do so. Did he tell Coyne he didn’t like proportional representation or something? What gives? – WDM

WDM –

This is kind of awkward, so come on over here out of earshot. I don’t want Wherry to hear.

[Whispering.] Okay, listen. Here’s the thing. Late last year, Aaron was getting pretty upset about rumours of prorogation. The thought of having to go three whole months without a daily forum in which to describe John Baird as an arrogant gas-sack – frankly, it gave him the shakes. It affected him mentally, if you catch my drift. He kept coming up to Wells, looking for reassurance.

Aaron: Tell us about the Parliament, Paul.

Paul: Aww, Aaron, come Continue…