## Facts

- Jeffrey K. Skilling, a longtime Enron executive, served as Enron’s CEO from February to August 2001 and resigned shortly before Enron’s bankruptcy and stock collapse.
- Federal investigators alleged an extensive scheme to mislead investors by overstating Enron’s financial condition through manipulated public financial reporting and false statements.
- Skilling was indicted for conspiracy and numerous substantive offenses, including securities fraud, wire fraud, false statements to auditors, and insider trading.
- The conspiracy count alleged, among other objects, “honest-services” wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346, based on depriving Enron and its shareholders of Skilling’s “honest services.”
- Skilling sought a change of venue from Houston due to extensive local publicity and alleged community hostility; the district court denied the motion and relied on voir dire to screen bias.
- After a four-month trial, the jury convicted Skilling on the conspiracy count and many substantive fraud counts, acquitted him on several insider-trading counts, and he received a 292-month sentence.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing; it upheld the honest-services theory and found the jury-selection process adequate despite publicity.

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial publicity and community sentiment required a change of venue or reversal because Skilling was denied an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague and, if not, whether it reaches undisclosed self-dealing without bribes or kickbacks.

## Decision

- The Court held that Skilling was not denied a fair trial in Houston; neither presumed prejudice nor actual juror bias was shown.
- The Court construed 18 U.S.C. § 1346 narrowly to cover only bribery and kickback schemes and rejected broader applications to undisclosed self-dealing.
- Because the government did not allege bribes or kickbacks, the honest-services theory submitted to the jury was legally invalid as applied to Skilling.
- The Court vacated the judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the honest-services error was harmless given alternative, valid conspiracy objects and other verdicts.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of juror prejudice from pretrial publicity is reserved for extraordinary circumstances resembling a “circus atmosphere,” not merely widespread negative coverage.
- In assessing jury impartiality, courts consider the community’s size and characteristics, the tone and content of publicity, time between events and trial, and the effectiveness of voir dire in screening bias.
- To avoid vagueness concerns, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 is limited to the core of pre-1987 honest-services prosecutions: schemes involving bribes or kickbacks in breach of a fiduciary duty.
- Undisclosed self-dealing, standing alone and without bribes or kickbacks, is outside § 1346’s reach.
- When a jury may have relied on a legally invalid theory alongside valid theories, the case requires a harmless-error inquiry on remand.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Skilling’s conviction against a fair-trial challenge despite extensive Enron-related publicity, but sharply narrowed federal honest-services fraud to bribery and kickback schemes, requiring lower courts to assess whether the erroneous honest-services theory affected the conspiracy verdict.


Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010)