"Was The Siegelman Jury On Drugs?"

[Hissyspit]

From Legal Schnauzer (Alabama):

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/was-siegelman-jury-on-drugs.html

Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Was the Siegelman Jury on Drugs?

I recently had cause to conduct some research on the Don Siegelman trial and discovered something interesting: There are a whole lot of myths about this case.

Why was I going back into the archives to read up on the trial from 2006? Well, you might say Eddie Curran made me do it.

- snip -

I suspected Curran was blowing copious amounts of stale air, but I couldn't be sure without doing some research. My trips to the archives confirmed what I suspected about Curran's most recent writings. But they also taught me quite a bit about the Siegelman case.

For example, let's consider these myths:

* The case was about bribery -- Actually, the case was mostly about honest-services mail fraud. Roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. And five of the seven counts on which Siegelman was convicted related to honest-services mail fraud. He was convicted of only one count of bribery.

* The case was primarily about the $500,000 contribution from Scrushy to Siegelman's education lottery fund -- Based on the jury's verdict, it was not about the money. As we noted earlier, the conviction was built overwhelmingly on honest-services mail fraud. And by law, honest-services mail fraud is not a crime about money. It can involve the transfer of gifts, cash, and favors. But money is not a necessary element of the crime. You can check out the elements of the crime here. The key finding regarding money is:

Do public officials have to receive personal gain from their scheme? This is a matter of considerable debate. At least one judicial circuit has said yes. Most circuits have said no. In general, courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, (1978)

* If the case wasn't about money, then what was it about? -- Based on the jury verdict, it was primarily about the fact that Don Siegelman appointed Richard Scrushy to the Alabama Certificate of Need Board, which regulates hospitals. How do we know this? Because we know that honest-services mail fraud is not about money. Here is the crux of the crime that made up five-sevenths of the Siegelman conviction:

"Even if a public official engages in 'reprehensible misconduct related to an official position,' his conviction for honest services fraud cannot stand where the conduct does not actually deprive the public of its right to honest services, and it is not shown to intend the result." U.S. v. Walker, 490 F. 3d 1282 (2007).

* But Scrushy was appointed to this board by three previous governors! -- Exactly. And that's why I asked the question in the headline: Was the Siegelman jury on drugs? Again, money was not an issue in five of the seven counts for which Siegelman was convicted, so forget about the $500,000 donation from Scrushy. Based on the jury's verdict, here was the key question: Was Richard Scrushy qualified to serve on the CON board? Well, three previous governors had found him to be qualified. As founder and CEO of HealthSouth, Scrushy knew the health-care ropes. The only way Don Siegelman could have "deprived the public of its right to (his) honest services" would have been to appoint someone who wasn't qualified for the position. That clearly did not occur. So five of the seven counts upon which Siegelman was convicted must be pitched out the window.

- snip -

So were the Siegelman jurors on drugs? I ask that question in jest; I suspect they were honest, hard-working folks trying to do a thankless task. But we know they were under the influence of a judge who appears to have had an agenda in the case. And that might have been all it took to make the jurors look like a bunch of whack jobs.

What, ultimately, did I learn from my research? The Siegelman conviction looks nasty from a distance. And it looks even uglier up close.

[BrklynGreenDog]

1. They probably could have been convinced to convict a ham sandwich.

So the saying almost goes. Malicious prosecutor + biased judge + complicated legal definitions = unjust conviction.

[Hissyspit]

2. Welcome to DU, BrklynGreenDog

:toast: :patriot:

[Hissyspit]

3. Going to bed kick. n/t

[Senator]

4. K&R

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R

[Sanity Claws]

6. Crappy jury instructions?

The judge wanted him convicted and so instructed the jury incorrectly.
I understand there still is no transcript but the jury instructions should be in the court file. I wonder if someone can review them.

[malaise]

7. No

Just Rethug Kool Aid.

[lonestarnot]

8. K & R

[annabanana]

9. jiminy! I defy ANYONE to justify the continued imprisonment of this

man through the appeals process...

[lala_rawraw]

10. excellent post

:)

[trof]

11. Not drugs. Worse. Collusion.

Justice Not Yet Served
By Julian McPhillips Guest Columnist Montgomery Advertiser
June 20 2007

And how does one reconcile jurors e-mailing other jurors during the
trial, contrary to the trial judge's express instructions? That alone
should entitle Scrushy and Siegelman to a new trial. Surely the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta cannot allow such a gross abuse
of the jury system to remain as a precedent.

This was not mere harmless error. One e-mail dated June 25, 2006,
at 10:41 p.m. stated "Gov and pastor (Scrushy's nickname) up s--t
creek, all public officials are scum; especially this one; pastor is really
a piece of work...they missed before, but we won't...also keep
working on (another juror)."

Many believe the federal prosecution against Scrushy Siegelman] in Montgomery was motivated by the stinging defeat the
U.S. attorneys suffered with Scrushy in Birmingham
during their six-month-long prosecution of him in 2005.

<link to Montgomery Advertiser>
http://donsiegelman.org/pages/topics/QUESTIONS/Jury_midconduct.html

[youngharry]

22. Collusion

RIGHT!!!

RIGHT!!!

RIGHT!!!

STRAIGHT FROM ROVE. THE CONNECTION IS UNDENIABLE!!!

TIME FOR CONGRESS TO APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!! CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON!!!

END THIS CRIMINAL INJUSTICE AGAINST DON SIEGELMAN

[tom_paine]

12. I wonder if the jury was a bunch of Freepers.

It would be just the kind of thing the Bushies'd do. It is also the kind of thing Democrats have remained clueless about.

Bushies believe lying about Democrats (and worse criminal infractions) is ok, even blessed, because they are convinced they are fighting a greater evil. This is an identical attidtude to the nazis and should enever be forgotten when dealing with them.

Freeper-types would have no compunctions about lying before a judge, "Oh yes, Your Honor, I am not political at all!"

Just wondering. When one lives in a totalitarian society, as we do, the question is not IF the Bushies control our judicial system, media, etc., but to what degree.

And clearly, Rove and "his girls" planned this very carefully.

In fact, it would only have to be a handful of Freepers. We have seen how Amerikan Subjects respond to O'Reilly-type bullying. They quickly tire, throw up their hands, and give the bully what he or she wants.

[trof]

18. See post 11.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

13. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

14. No, if they had been smoking doobies, he would never have been railroaded. n/t

[Hissyspit]

15. .

[Jack Rabbit]

16. If Congress is too lazy to impeach Busn or Cheney . . .

. . . can they at least get around to impeaching Judge Fuller? Or would that divide the nation more than it already is?

[Ilsa]

17. The Powers That Be know this was a fraud. That is why they have refused

to give a transcript of the trial to Siegelman's lawyer for the appeal.

[crimsonblue]

19. Let me get this straight...

So a scheme in which there is no victim or gainer is still a crime? What. The. Fuck. Do judges and lawyers not have common sense? If something happens in which no one is hurt or no one gains, in my book this is not a crime. fucking bush.

[trof]

20. You may have come late to this. It was political hatchet job.

Right out of Karl Rove and the Gonzales justice department.
Including repug prosecutors, repug state attorney general, repug judge.
Welcome to DU.
:hi:

[Pastiche423]

21. Great post

:kick: for Governor Don!

[drm604]

23. K&R for Don Siegelman. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

24. Pursue. Get him out of jail. The arrogance. Unbelievable arrogance..

[Festivito]

25. Rove, the judge, and prosecutors could be charged with the same crime.

They did defraud the people of a state, the honest services of good government and a good justice system using wire and/or mail, and did indeed defraud one person of his constitutional right to liberty using wire and/or mail by using high political position to effect such fraud denying the honest services of a jury.

Each of these go back to fraud.

WHEREAS,

Siegleman's charges go back to honest services of a position of no known nor demonstrated lack of honest service, rendering the charge, ethereal. NOTE that if there was a quid pro quo, the quo needs to exist.

[angrycarpenter]

26. Has this made it back into the MSM

Or are we The only ones talking about it?