The United States Supreme Court took a substantial step toward doing just that yesterday when it vacated Skilling’s conviction under the federal “honest services” wire fraud statute, and remanded the case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Skilling’s conviction on other charges against him was so tainted by the government’s reliance on the “honest services” theory that they all must be dismissed. Tom Kirkendall, Larry Ribstein and Stephen Bainbridge, all of whom have blogged extensively on the Enron case and the over-criminalization of business over the years, have more details on their various sites.

Skilling’s case – which is perhaps the most egregious example of the criminalization of business conduct in the most recent generation of ani-business prosecutions – now heads back to the lower courts and further litigation. In addition to the honest services question now put into play by yesterday’s ruling, there remain issues relating to Skilling’s sentencing and his motion for a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct to resolve. It would certainly appear that the convictions that the government managed to claim are but a house of cards waiting to topple. Here’s hoping that yesterday’s ruling is a further step toward not only freeing Jeff Skilling, but to also reigning in the nonsensical criminalization of bad business decisions and poor judgment.

The man on the right is Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He was Osama bin Laden’s driver. He was convicted of materially aiding terrorists. He was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison. The man on the left is Jamie Olis. He was an accountant for Dynergy Corp., and was convicted of materially aiding activities that were later determined to be “fraudulent tax planning.” He was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison (reduced to 6 years – still 6 months more than bin Laden’s driver – after appeal). Tell me, who is more dangerous. And what do these two sentences tell us about the priorities of our justice system and our political classes. Free Jamie Olis!