Shortly before announcing its verdict in the Arthur Andersen obstruction of justice trial last month, the jurors presented District Judge Melinda Harmon with the perplexing question of whether they had to be unanimous as to which Andersen employee acted with corrupt intent in obstructing the SEC investigation into the collapse of the Enron Corp. Because, as indicated on the special verdict form, the jury ultimately reached a unanimous decision on the identity of the corrupt actor, Judge Harmon’s decision that the jury need not be unanimous on this question may never be ruled on by an appellate court. The jury’s question, however, raises important issues about corporate criminal liability that warrant further consideration and exploration.
The Andersen jury asked “If each of us believes that one Andersen agent acted knowingly and with corrupt intent, is it for all of us to believe it was the same agent? Can one believe it was agent A, another believe it was agent B, and another believe it was agent C?” Recognizing that the question posed was one of first impression, Judge Harmon responded that each juror had to find that one Andersen employee had the specific intent to impede an official investigation, but that the jurors need not agree as to which employee had that intent.
