.gif)
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday examined controversial graft law in a case that has given a former Enron boss and the disgraced Anglo-Canadian media mogul Conrad Black hope for another day in court.
The nine US Supreme Court Justices heard lawyers for Black -- who is serving a six-year sentence for skimming millions of dollars from newspapers sales -- argue that fraud laws used his conviction were too vague.
They are protesting a clause in American law, passed by Congress in 1988, which makes corporate bosses able to be prosecuted for depriving shareholders of "honest services."
"The unvarnished text of the statute is vague, amorphous, open-ended, and essentially, not very helpful," argued Black's lawyer Miguel Estrada.
Black, 64, who once headed the world's third-largest media empire, was convicted in July 2007 of stealing millions of dollars from the sales of newspapers being off-loaded by Hollinger International.
The law was also used to convict Enron president Jeffrey Skilling, who was sentenced to 24 years in prison. His Supreme Court hearing is expected in 2010.
Although the two Supreme Court cases are not directly linked, Chief Justice Roberts told government lawyers "it would be very unusual if we decide we agree with you and in the next case we say it's unconstitutional."
The Justices appeared susceptible to Black's arguments, with Justice Breyer tearing into government lawyers who argued in favor of the "honest services" provision.
"Perhaps there are 150 million workers in the United States. I think possibly 140 of them would flunk your test," he told a Department of Justice lawyer.
