Tom Kirkendall has another excellent roundup of the Lay/Skilling trial. According to Kirkendall, the prosecution is having some trouble, and in fact have wandered pretty far afield from their original indictment (a document that the prosecution now actually has disowned). In effect, Lay and Skilling seem to be being tried for different things than they were ostensibly brought to trial for. Most interesting is this:
On the other hand, the Task Force's case to date has wandered away from
the SPE's, so there is a decent chance that a difficult-to-control
Fastow could end up being a not-so-important witness in the
ever-changing big scheme of this corporate criminal case of the decade.
If Kirkendall is reading the trial correctly, and the SPE's and Fastow's testimony are becoming irrelevant, then the trial has virtually nothing to do with anything we have heard about in the media about Enron.
Barrionuevo and Eichenwald, who have been following the trial for the NY Times, agrees that the government case is shifting but believe it is due to the strength of what has been presented so far.
A steady drumbeat of damaging testimony in the five-week-old criminal trial against the former chief executives, Jeffrey K. Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay,
has led legal experts to praise the government case presented so far.
That has raised questions about the risks prosecutors would run by
putting Mr. Fastow, the former chief financial officer, on the stand as
early as Tuesday.
I haven't followed the testimony in any depth, so I can't choose from these two point of views, except to say that the government tactics of essentially changing the charges mid-trial and suppressing defense witnesses by naming a record number as unindicted co-conspirators may or may not be effective, but strike me as fairly scary abuses of the justice system.