If the government cannot explain why what happened at Enron was wrong in terms 12 lay people can understand, then the government will likely fail to obtain convictions.

If the government cannot explain what happened at Enron and why it was wrong in terms a jury of 12 lay persons can understand, then the government will likely fail to obtain convictions. All the defense has to do is put on a sincere expert, or several sincere experts, that the jury likes. The government always has the burden of proof, and confusion and lack of clarity will only aid the defense.

If the government cannot explain what happened at Enron and why it was wrong in terms a jury of 12 laypersons can understand, then the government will likely fail to obtain convictions.

If the government cannot explain what happened at Enron and why it was wrong in terms a jury of 12 lay persons can understand, then the government will likely fail to obtain convictions.

If the government cannot explain what happened at Enron and why it was wrong in terms a jury of 12 la persons can understand, then the government will likely fail to obtain convictions.

If you bring a straight accounting case to a jury, where it comes down to a battle of the experts, the government has a high risk of losing that case.