It can certainly be the case that landmark Supreme Court decisions can dramatically alter the playbooks of prosecutors. For example, SCOTUS has in recent years

It can certainly be the case that landmark Supreme Court decisions can dramatically alter the playbooks of prosecutors. For example, SCOTUS has in recent years tightened then widened the definition of insider trading. Gov. McDonnell got his corruption conviction thrown out. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “odds of winning...depends heavily on the folks judging the cases.” It’s been my experience in jury selection, both as a potential juror and as a party to litigation, that the lawyers on both sides are going to move to strike any jurors who are “extreme” in any characteristic. Very rich or very poor, very young or very old, etc. It can certainly be the case that appellate court judges have a strong pro or anti corporate bias, but ultimately appellate courts overturn on the basis of constitutional or procedural issues. They can’t overturn the original findings of a jury just because they disgaree. Re: the influence of money, both in terms of lawyers and campaign contributions: if the federal government actually decides to throw its full weight behind a case, there is a limit to how much a corporation can spend on legal defense. And, even if the defense is represented by the best lawyers, a compelling criminal case can overcome that. Keep in mind that Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, and Andersen were represented by the white shoe-iest of criminal defense firms. At several points, each prosecution encountered significant difficulties, but the government prevailed in the end. On political money, there is also a limit to its influence. As someone who worked for the Obama campaign in 2012, I was acutely aware that we were being outspent by hundreds of millions of dollars on the other side. A huge majority of Obama’s 2008 Wall Street backers defected to Romney after the passage of Dodd-Frank. However, various political scientists have found that if both sides are adequately funded in a race, the marginal effectiveness of an additional dollar dramatically decreases. Running an ad 500 times a week vs your opponent being able to do it 1500 times makes no measurable impact. It’s true that in local races, money can have a huge distortionary impact. However, for the kinds of races that affect who gets appointed to lead the DOJ, namely the presidential race, I think this is somewhat overblown. All this is to say that while I suspect that we would both strongly support significant restrictions on the influence of money in our campaign system, it would be wrong to say that our campaign finance system and the ascendancy of conservative judges eliminates the ability to prosecute white collar crime. With sufficient public anger, and dedicated and courageous prosecutors, there can be successful cases brought against wrongdoers that add some measure of equity to the system.