Academic

A Texas Lawyer story today about Allen Stanford, the Southern man's Bernie Madoff, prompted me to consider change of venue issues in white-collar crime cases.  Bear with me a moment.  Remember a few weeks ago convicted Enron President Jeffrey Skilling had his day in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing both the unconstitutionality of "theft of honest services" and that he was improperly denied a change of venue from the federal court in Houston, Texas.  We have lots of posts on these happenings, including here and here.  I have said before that, after living in Houston during the "fall of Enron," I thought that if there was ever a situation where a case should be moved because the jury pool was tainted, this must be it.  Hatred for all things Enron, particularly its leaders, was very high among a community of those who lost jobs, retirement accounts, contracts, etc.

So here is Stanford, who seems to be fighting with his rotating teams of attorneys over whether they should move for a change of venue.  According to this story, Stanford has changed his attorney of record several times, alienating the likes of Texas legends Dick DeGuerin and Mac Secrest.  His latest substitutions come with outgoing attorney Kent Schaffer alluding to a difference in strategy, and incoming attorney Michael Essmyer specifying that this strategic decision concerned a motion to change venue.  Apparently, Stanford wants one, but Schaffer thought it was a bad idea.  (I also don't think it's a winning argument, but that's another question.)  He reminds us that Lea Fastow got a change of venue -- to Brownsville, Texas -- before pleading guilty to twelve months in prison.  Schaffer remarks:  "Brownsville -- I can't think of a worse community to try a case of a former billionaire."

First, what is he saying about Brownsville?  Brownsville is the southernmost city in Texas, right at the tip, across the border from Matamoros, Mexico.  According to the Census Bureau, Brownsville is the most impoverished city in the country (140k people) with 36% living below the poverty line.  So, Schaffer may have rightly suspected a little anti-billionaire bias. 

Second, Schaffer is really making the point that his client could find a worse venue.  So, in a perfectly fair world, where would Skilling's trial or Stanford's trial go?  White-collar defendants seem to have two worries about juror bias:  (1) those who have a reaction to the harm alleged, i.e., victims or friends of victims and (2) those who have a reaction to who they are -- rich, privileged, possibly white and therefore privileged, etc.  Getting out of the vicinity of the harm may put you somewhere in the vicinity of a different bias.

Now I'm not saying that white-collar criminals have a special problem getting a fair and unbiased jury.  Surely we've all learned from centuries of trials in the U.S. that other groups have faced much worse juror bias obstacles.  I'm just interested to know where is Stanford's dream venue (besides Antigua)?  Would Skilling have risked status bias in Brownsville to get away from the anti-Enron furor?