http://www.stratify.com/infocenter/d...t_on_email.pdf
That's a legal discovery service article about different trials that have used internal emails/memos and how that influenced the verdicts. Personally, I think that this conviction being overturned (unless it leads to Ken Lay's conviction somehow) is a giant crock. I agree with the original verdict, and here's why:
The stratify.com article suggests that the jury found AA guilty because it's awfully suspicious that AA not follow their own document-destruction policy all the time, then suddenly start shredding documents connected to the SEC subpoena they know they're about to get. According to a textbook from my business ethics class, Enron was a muti-hundred-million dollar a year client for AA. Throw that on top of the shredding, and you've got a pretty convincing case against them. Definitely not legally airtight, because it still comes down to the "little-man" accountants versus the "big-man" execs in a he-said-they-said deal, but there are a lot more people that should have gone down for that.
I know that AA, being the accounting firm, was not responsible for the decisions of Enron executives. But the way that Enron hid its debt on the statements of its numerous SPEs basically could not have happened without a lot of help covering up on the part of AA. I think both firms should have been equally liable for the losses to Enron employees/investors/customers because of it. It does make me glad that AA lost their clients and accounting license. At least justice got served (somewhat) there.
In summary, as cashmoney said, he got off like a fat rat.