Robert Mintz Quotations

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

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,

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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