Robert Mintz Quotations

Since these are the first two major corporate executives to take the government on at trial in the post-Enron era, it's critically important that the government emerge at the end of the day with a victory,

Obviously they are taking a look at the evidence. They must be heavy into deliberations.

If the government plays their cross- examination of the defendants only to a draw, they lose. They have to do better than that.

He was a model of contrition on the stand.

There is a good possibility the judge will give them some additional time. But we're talking weeks instead of months.

His testimony may be his only opportunity to save himself, but at the same time, he runs the risk of sealing his fate and almost guaranteeing his conviction if jurors find his testimony incredible.

He'll be able to tell jurors exactly what those two knew about the much-maligned partnerships.

It appears that that's the jury has found one corrupt persuader but was unable to agree on which one.

It is certainly going to set the defense scrambling to restructure some of their tactics.

We have not seen any glimpse of his legendary, hair- trigger temper or the arrogance that personified his conduct at Enron.

This trial schedule is a tacit acknowledgement that the case was far too complex for the jury to understand what was going on,

When you look at how long the government has been preparing this case it is not surprising that they have not scrapped their plans and immediately embraced him as a critical witness.

The government is trying to paint this as a clear case of right vs. wrong. What the defense is doing is suggesting this case is not nearly as black and white as the government is trying to suggest.

The Government's only shot at convictions is to simplify this case.

There is still no explosive evidence. Jurors will be expecting prosecutors to dissect their testimony with a scalpel.

Duncan wasn't all that convincing at the end of the day.

It would be a mistake to confuse this with leniency. For these two former executives, even several years in a state prison will be a very long stretch of time.

The test will be the conversations. Prosecutors need to clearly spell out a disconnect ? between what was presented inside and what was said outside to the public.

Sometimes people feel they have no choice. It's their one chance to tell their own story.

Prosecutors have to show this was not simply bad management and bad judgment, but outright fraud. The only way to do that is with insiders.

They've done deal after deal with an eye toward getting to the top. Now that they are there, they're not in a position to hand out any attractive plea offers without looking like they're just giving away the store.

It's the difference between legitimate spinning and impermissible lying.

They will say he was the proverbial captain willing to go down with the ship.

They've got to make this case clear-cut for the jury and keep them awake and involved. Otherwise, they play right into the defense's hands.

If there's a lack of coordination, both prosecutorial entities will see their cases suffer,

The jurors can determine that this is a 43-year-old man with three young daughters looking at a very long stretch in jail.

The key for the defense is to put aside the baggage that is Enron, get the jury to see their clients as individuals and show why each of these transactions was business as usual. The longer, the more technical this gets, the more it hurts the government.