WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court unanimously threw out the conviction Tuesday of fallen accounting firm Arthur Andersen, a symbolic victory for a nearly defunct company torn apart in a document-shredding case involving onetime energy giant Enron.
But the ruling represents a major defeat for the federal government's aggressive efforts to fight corporate wrongdoing.
In a 9-0 opinion, the justices concluded "jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing." Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, saying, "Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required."
The opinion came unusually quickly after oral arguments in the case were held April 27, a clear sign the justices found the government's arguments quite unpersuasive. Lawyers for the Justice Department faced tough questioning from the bench during the arguments.
The ruling threw the case back to lower federal courts to sort out, but it gave no indication whether Andersen would be granted a new trial.
Andersen officials were convicted in June 2002 of obstruction of justice over the massive document destruction relating to its work for Enron, the energy services giant which a year before was facing a government probe of its complex finances.
The government likened Andersen's actions to "shredding its smoking guns." Deputy Solicitor General David Dreeben told the court, "It is the equivalent of sending someone to a crime scene, and wiping up the evidence before police get there with the yellow tape."
At issue for the court was whether the wording of jury instructions were improperly vague. Maureen Mahoney, attorney for Andersen, told the justices the government used improper legal definitions that made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair verdict.
The disagreement hinged on whether the term "corruptly persuading," contained in federal criminal statutes, in this case means "having an improper purpose ... to subvert, undermine, or impede" when it relates to obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The various legal standards of "criminal intent" were at the heart of Andersen's appeal.
In the ruling, Rehnquist noted prosecutors should have been more careful in their pursuit of Andersen. "Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where the act underlying the conviction -- 'persuasion' -- is by itself innocuous. Indeed, 'persuading' a person 'to withhold' testimony from a government proceeding, or government official is not inherently malign.
Consider, for instance, a mother who suggests to her son that he invoke his right against self-incrimination ... or a wife who persuades her husband not to disclose marital confidences."
