Minutes ago, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Arthur Andersen on the grounds that the jury was not properly advised on the standard or culpability required to convict the accounting firm of corruptly persuading its employees to destroy documents. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court and he states that it is not improper for Arthur Andersen to advise its employees to comply with a lawful document retention program even if it denies others the right of access to evidence. The opinion should be forthcoming shortly on the web. This decision is not surprising given the questions asked at the oral argument.
UPDATE: Decision is available here. Some interesting points include:
- The current Arthur Andersen is a firm of 200 employees whose job is to wind down the legal affairs of the former accounting firm.
- The primary financial motivation in appealing the decision was to discourage and to make less attractive the many civil suits that have been filed and that were going to be filed against the accounting firm.
- Congress has changed the statutory structure of corrupt influence of obstructing access to evidence to require less proof than the statue interpreted in the Supreme Court case. Thus, the current statutory scheme favors prosecutors. However, some have commented that prosecutors may be more hesitant to bring such cases against the organization rather than an specific individual in the future. This decision may signal the Court's reluctance to relax mens rea against corporations despite the language of a statute.