Four-Eight-Four [dot org]

So, while browsing MSNBC today, I stumbled upon this surprising bit of information: “Judge throws out convictions of Enronâ��s Lay: Fraud ruling vacated since companyâ��s founder died before he could appeal.”

Huh? Say again?

Yes, that’s right boys and girls, since he appealed, and then died, his conviction has been vacated. Erased. Gone. Kaput.

U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, in a ruling Tuesday, agreed with Lay�s lawyers that his death required that his conviction be erased and his indictment dismissed. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant�s death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn�t had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn�t be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.

I’m not sure what’s more surprising … that a judge would “un-convict” Lay for such an asinine reason, or the fact that there’s precedent for such a ruling because some brain-dead nitwit ruled in a similar matter two years ago. And that’s not all … check this out:

Prosecutors offered no counter legal argument in the case, but asked Lake to hold off on a ruling until next week so Congress could consider legislation from the Justice Department that changes current federal law regarding the abatement of criminal convictions. Congress recessed for the elections without considering the legislation. In their motion to Lake last month, prosecutors Sean Berkowitz and John Hueston wrote that certain provisions of the proposed legislation would apply to Lay�s case, including �that the death of a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating either a verdict returned or the underlying indictment.�

Yes, that’s right … Congress was going to consider legislation that would have prevented the sort of ruling issued today, but somehow that legislation would have then been applied to something that happened before the legislation was even considered. Completely mind-boggling. Saith the US Constitution in Article I, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If the Latin there is causing smoke to boil out of your ears, here’s a bit more explanation from Wikipedia:

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “from something done afterward”) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

Sounds an awful lot like what the prosecution wanted was a violation of the spirit of that principle, if not the letter. Of course, how many of you out there are surprised any more when the US Government ignores the intent of the Constitution? It’s been happening for a good 170 years or more now, so we’re all used to it.

What an all-around mess …

Read more: Judge throws out convictions of Enron�s Lay