The only reason is because the conviction was on appeal and a lot of the evidence was given by a (now) dead guy.
But I thought appeals were not to decide evidence, but to decide about possible improper procedures at the first trial. IOW, you could decide on the admissibility of certain evidence, but not change the evidence itself.
The conviction wasn't on appeal yet - neither Lay's nor Skilling's. Sentenving was to take place on September 11th (not a random choice) but both attorneys went to court and after the hearing on June 18th, which I had missed knowing about until Lay died, it was delayed to October 23rd.
Apparently, after so many legal pundits chiming in on this the past couple of days, appeals can't start until the sentence is pronounced.
Skilling, his wife and attorney are going to Aspen for the weekend, for Lay's memorial service, then coming back to Houston for the memorial service here next week.
Of course, Skilling has been saying in court he needs his assets unfrozen so he can pay child support.