Honest services fraud: The law in in question has been on the books since 1988 (Title 18, s. 1346) and has been used in high-profile prosecutions like that of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Enron executive Jeff Skilling -- his is one of three "honest services" cases the SCOTUS will hear this term. Closer to home, "honest services" prosecutions also resulted in the conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, State Rep. Sue Schmitz and former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford.
One of the two cases coming before the court next week involves Conrad M. Black, the newspaper executive who was convicted of defrauding his media company, Hollinger International. He is arguing that the law should not be applied to him because he did not contemplate “economic harm” to Hollinger.
In the second, Bruce Weyhrauch, a former Alaska state legislator, was convicted of failing to disclose a conflict of interest. He had not violated state law, however, and argues that the federal prosecution on honest-services charges violates important principles of federalism.
The third case, to be argued later in the term, involves Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron. He is arguing that the honest-services law is unconstitutionally vague.
Is this law an invaluable tool in the fight against public corruption or an invitation to political prosecution just waiting for an overzealous or unscrupulous prosecutor? Or perhaps just too vague to be workable?
Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog lays out what would no longer be covered by the statute if these three appeals are successful:
** A corporate executive’s use of a fraudulent scheme to increase his own compensation — if there is no proof that the mischief caused “economic harm” to the corporation. (That is what Canadian newspaper mogul Conrad Black is arguing for in his case, Black v. U.S., 08-896, now scheduled for argument on Dec. 8.)
** A state legislature’s failure to disclose that, while supporting tax legislation favorable to a company, he was seeking future legal work from that company — if there is no proof that state law requires a disclosure of such conflicts of interest. (That is what former Alaska legislator Bruce Weyhrauch is arguing for in his case, Weyhrauch v. U.S., 08-1196, scheduled for argument right after the Black case on Dec. 8.)
** A corporate executive’s efforts to deceive stockholders, accountants, federal regulators and the investing public about the company’s financial condition and performance — if there is no proof that the executive obtained some private gain. (That is what former Enron Corp. CEO Jeffrey K. Skilling is arguing for in his case, Skilling v. U.S., 08-1394, just granted on Tuesday and likely to be heard in either February or March.)
I can't say anything useful about most of these cases, but I know Sue Schmitz personally and am convinced she had absolutely no idea she was breaking any law or was even approaching criminal activity. Based on that case, at least, the honest services law would be more of a deterrent if the "bright line" were clearer to those in danger of stepping over it.
A Department of Justice whistle-blower who accused prosecutors of misconduct in the closely watched federal corruption trial of former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama has been fired, and claims retaliation is the reason. The government denies that it was retaliating.
The whistle-blower, Tamarah T. Grimes, worked as a legal aide with the team prosecuting Mr. Siegelman and Richard M. Scrushy, the former chairman of HealthSouth, on bribery and corruption charges.
Note from mooncat: Federal whistleblower protections notwithstanding, those who report employer misbehavior are very often fired for their honesty some trumped upreason. The U.S. Attorney's office should have known and done better, considering how politically charged the Siegelman/Scrushy case was already.
A hearing from the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was Don Siegelman's last chance to have his convictions overturned short of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy had asked the full 12-judge court to review the appeal. The court's refusal was posted on its Web site Friday.
Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn said he believes the Supreme Court would be particularly interested in reviewing key questions: whether prosecutors proved at trial that there was a "quid pro quo" agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy and if U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller erred by not telling jurors such an agreement is required in federal bribery cases.
"This case has drawn national attention. I believe this is a case that will be of interest to the Supreme Court," Kilborn said.
Related: Special prosecutor Nora Dannehy interviewed Karl Rove today. Dannehy is investigating charges that political considerations led to the firing of several U.S. Attorney's during Bush's second term.
Whatever else you may say, the prosecutors in the Siegelman case aren't shy about asking for the moon. Kind of like selling a house, I guess, where you need to give yourself a lot of room to drop the price. Question is, where will the appellate court decide to compromise, 5 years or time served?
Prosecutors originally asked the judge to sentence Don Siegelman to 30 years; they got about 7. Since then the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Siegelman's release on bond and dismissed 2 of the 7 original convictions. And of course, many questions have been raised about Siegelman's prosecution and conviction.
I'll never be a federal judge but I think "time served" would be a fair compromise in this case. Don Siegelman could finally get on with his life and maybe, just maybe, the government would be spared an even more public airing of the seamier sides of his prosecution.
Yeah, I know, some public figures in this case deserve more embarassment if not prosecution themselves. I said it would be a compromise, with significant humanitarian consideration for the fact that Seigelman needs and deserves an opportunity to get on with his life and get shut of prisons, legal teams and courtrooms.
(Bloggering retirement? Glad you're back. - promoted by mooncat)
This morning, a news story broke that led me out of blogging retirement. It is a news story I had anticipated throughout the long, hard fought presidential campaign last fall. The administration of a new Democratic president, Obama, has undertaken a review of the conviction of a prominent politician, still pending in the courts. His Attorney General has announced that the government is not just admitting fault, but dropping those charges because the trial prosecutors suppressed, and withheld from the defense, conflicting statements of a key prosecution witness. They are even considering action against the responsible prosecuting attorneys. Yay! Justice! It gave me new faith in the system to read that charges are being dropped against ...
Republican former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska???
Don't get me wrong, the suppression of exculpatory evidence is a serious matter, and Stevens may well deserve a new trial. But this is one of the exact issues with the conviction of Don Siegelman, where conflicting statements of former aide Nick Bailey were withheld from the defense. Further, the independent evidence of Stevens's guilt is far less equiviocal than that against Siegelman. And the Siegelman case features a plethora of other instances of prosecutorial misconduct, serious judicial bias, and far more compelling reasons for tossing his conviction, that were not present in the Stevens case. Stevens clearly derived substantial personal benefit from those building his Alaska luxury home. On the other hand, it's doubtful, even if you presume a quid pro quo between Siegelman and Scrushy over the CON Board seat, that the bribery statute applies, as Scrushy contributed to the lottery campaign, not to Siegelman's pocket.
To say that I am disappointed in the Obama administration is a gross understatement. This far surpasses the Rick Warren coddling, or Republican economic-plan coddling, or the inexplicable unwillingness to take the right steps with the banking system out of fear that Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman will call him a "socialist." (Oh, the horror!) Only my boundless cynicism at the ways of those within the Beltway gives me any hope that this move was taken, to provide prophylactic political cover for a drop of the Siegelman charges. Even so, failing to make both moves simultaneously is a slap in the face of the Alabama Democratic Party. And speaking of slapping Democrats, freshman Democratic Senator Nick Begich, who beat Stevens last November, has been measured in his public response to today's development. But I would love to be a fly on the wall of his office this afternoon.
No rant on this topic would be complete without a nod to Obama's gauleiter in Alabama, Congressman Artur Davis. The Congressman has yet to make a statement on the Stevens de facto pardon, but I hope his response will not be long in coming, and will not temporize about whether a similar move for Siegelman is overdue. For those who would like to share that sentiment with Congressman Davis, his Washington office can be reached at 202- 225-2665, and his main office in his District, in Birmingham, can be reached at 205-254-1960. Davis wasted no time jumping into the PACT controversy, so let's see if he can be that quick to pressure his good friend to do the right thing in the Siegelman case.
The court ordered a new sentencing hearing for Siegelman and it is possible (likely?) that the original 7 year sentence will be reduced. Siegelman has already served 9 months in federal prison but is currently free on bond.
They've been asking him to come for years, but Karl Rove is finally going to talk to the House Judiciary Committee about political meddling with the Department of Justice. Former White House Council Harriet Miers is also included in the deal.
Under the agreement, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers will provide depositions and sworn public testimony about the firings, but the scope of their testimony will be limited to the dismissals and closely related issues.
Moreover, the two former Bush officials will not be asked about their conversations with Mr. Bush on the subject or their discussions with other members of the White House counsel’s office.
The committee will also be able to ask questions about the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat who has said he was victim of a politically motivated prosecution, possibly involving administration officials.
Personally, I don't think Karl Rove would recognze the truth if it slapped him in the face in broad daylight, but at least he'll be on the record. Just as exciting is what's going on in the Senate Jucidiary Committee. Chairman Pat Leahey and other Democrats are pushing for a "truth commission" using congressional oversight to dig into the goings on of the Bush administration. Republicans argue that such a commission might immunize people and impede future prosecutions. The Leahey part of Rachel Maddow's segment starts at about 3:55 in the video.
So, the Republicans don't want to just investigate Bush wrongdoers, they want to prosecute them, too? Sen. Leahey says "Be careful what you wish for, that may be what you get." I say the Democrats have the other guys right where they want them and it's time to cave and let the prosecutions begin.
(We might as well start the new year off with a bang and some activism. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a healthy, happy and safe New Year. I look forward to ranting with all of you in 2009.
We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.
Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:
The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.
Shuler says that the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.
Martin’s office, according to a report from Raw Story, denied that “her office was in any way involved with Shuler’s termination. ‘There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler’s employer,’ she wrote.” So what led to the firing? That apparently will be for a court to determine. In the meantime it’s worth noting some other cases of Internet abuse at the university to see how they were handled.
Apparently the university actually is prepared to be liberal about Internet use–as long as that use isn’t in “liberal” interests. Huntsville CBS affiliate WHNT recently broadcast a study of the university’s bizarre double standard. One university employee recently used her work account to pen this note to the leaders of an Anti-Proposition 8 group in California: “You freaks make me sick. You are the scourge of the earth and are responsible for everything that’s wrong in this sorry world because of the immorality you have brought on the world as a whole.” The university’s response to the use of its facilities to transmit this hate mail? According to WHNT, they won’t say more than that they did “follow up appropriately as outlined by UAB’s Acceptable Use Policy”; there is no evidence of whether any disciplinary action was taken. WHNT’s Greg Privett also noted a widely circulated ditty coming from the university’s pediatrics office. It starts “Wuz the night befo Crizzmus” and it proceeds to ridicule President-Elect Obama in overtly racist tones. Surely this violates the university’s “acceptable use” policy?
It seems that in Birmingham one type of “political speech” is protected and can be freely spread using the university’s servers while another is not–even when the employee is expressing it on private time and his own computer. George Orwell would understand.
Now, who can you contact? Some ideas below the fold.
Former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman, is in Atlanta today to watch as his attorneys appear before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"I'm optimistic baed on the law and the facts. This year's a lot different for me. Last year, I was in federal prison. his year, I'm out and my spirits have been lifted by the support of friends and family."
In fact, Siegelman has received quite a bit of high-profile support. Yesterday, I received an email request for contributions to his defense fund that was signed by Al Gore.
Remember my "What's on Your TeeVee" Diary? I wrote it in an attempt to illustrate the correlation between the media and corporations. Media Mouse.org has an excellent analysis about how the media is covering the economic crisis:
On Monday, the Grand Rapids Press published another front-page story about the "financial crisis," with a headline that read "Second Citigroup bailout starts at $20B." The Associated Press (AP) article states, "The government unveiled a bold plan Sunday to rescue Citigroup, injecting $20 billion into the troubled firm as well as guaranteeing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky assets."
The story includes a statement from the US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve that states in part, "With these transactions, the US government is taking the actions necessary to strengthen the financial system and protect US taxpayers and the US economy." Such a claim is never verified by the reporter, so readers never learn how this bailout will "protect US taxpayers." In fact, the only other source cited in the story was a Citigroup executive who is quoted as saying, "We appreciate the tremendous effort by the government to assure market stability." After that comment, the reporter doesn't ask what is meant by market stability or seek out an independent opinion on this latest bailout announcement.
It's going to be Dem vs Dem in the new Congress. Bring it On.
Forget the Republican filibuster and the race to 60. The real fight in the next Congress is Democrats vs. themselves.
With nearly complete control of Washington for the first time in three decades, Democrats are entering a treacherous power zone in which many of their priorities could easily be undone by the geographic, demographic and ideological factions that compete for supremacy within the party.
Sigh. Do anyone of these chuckleheads ever consider that the reason the left has been so "angry" for the last eight plus years is that what we've said and what we've valued has been criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced and our characters attacked? Of course not. And when the nation shows that they have awakened to what we've been saying all along and announced with their vote that they want to give the left a shot, we're still criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced and our characters attacked because we might like to see some people actually reflective of our values in office.
You betcha Obama's going to have problems from the "angry left" if he listens to the nattering naysayers of negativity and concern trolls telling him to turn his back on progressives.
Um, huh? The logic of this escapes me. The American public has rejected GOP policies and rule and so therefore, Obama must reject a Democratic program? I have an idea for you, Matt (along with all of the ABC news bookers): how about we give a Democratic program (and a Democratic panel) a try for once? THAT would be a change.
State court administrators say eligible voters across Alabama are wrongly being denied the right to vote because of a legal opinion by Gov. Bob Riley's office concerning felony records.
The Administrative Office of Courts said Wednesday that, based on information provided by Riley's legal aides, people have been stricken from voter rolls and refused registration when they are actually eligible to cast ballots.
The office blamed the problem on a mistake by Riley's office in listing which criminal convictions disqualify residents from voting or registering to vote.
Riley's office denied doing anything wrong and said the opinion at the heart of the dispute was correct. Court administrators said the practice went on for months, but the number affected wasn't known.
The 358-page report said that White House officials were more involved in the firings than the administration initially admitted, but that investigators were impeded from resolving questions about the White House's actions because several former White House aides, including former presidential adviser Karl Rove, refused to cooperate.
Siegelman has claimed that Rove played a role in pushing for his prosecution, a claim that federal prosecutors in Alabama have denied.
"The report makes plain that, at a minimum, the process by which nine U.S. attorneys were removed in 2006 was haphazard, arbitrary and unprofessional, and the way in which the Justice Department handled those removals and the resulting public controversy was profoundly lacking," Mukasey said, according to AP.
It is unlikely that the Justice Department report will have any direct impact on Siegelman's appeal of his conviction, which is scheduled to be heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in early December.
But as evidence of political meddling in the operations of the Justice Department by the Bush White House mount, Siegelman's claims of being targeted for political reasons start to sound more plausible.
Almost since the scandal broke early last year, there have been clear signs that the plan to fire U.S. attorneys as a means of advancing the Bush administration's political goals was being driven by the White House. That impression has been strengthened as top current and former White House officials, including Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, have consistently stonewalled efforts to look into the matter.
The OIG investigation was no exception. As the report notes, Miers, Rove and several other Whte House officials refused to talk to investigators, and the White House wouldn't provide internal emails or documents relating to the firings. Perhaps the most crucial of the documents denied to OIG was a memo, written in March 2007, which contained the results of an internal White House investigation into the firings, conducted by associate White House counsel Michael Scudder. Scudder had interviewed top DOJ and White House officials, including Rove, and had compiled a timeline that "appeared to contain information we had not obtained elsewhere in our investigation," according to the OIG report.
I trust the judgement of California Congresswoman Barbara Lee. She was the only one with the courage and the judgement to vote against the Afghanistan invasion and the Iraq invasion. She and other progressives voted against the bailout. Afro-Netizen: post a copy of her floor statement explaining why she and other progressives voted NO to the bailout.
So there is no question that we are confronting an economic and financial crisis.
“But I’m convinced that this bailout plan is not the solution to this mess.
“First, it does little to address the underlying problem – the foreclosure crisis. We need a moratorium on foreclosures and bankruptcy reform to help people stay in their homes.
“Second, this bill should be paid for by the high-flying industry that created this problem. $700 billion should not be given to Wall Street and the Bush Administration unless those who cause this mess pay for it. We should also prohibit the tax deductibility -and my bill the Income Equity Act (H.R. 3876) would do this across the board - of executive compensation in any company where the highest paid corporate officer is paid more than 25 the times the pay of a bailed-out company’s lowest-paid worker.
“And third, we need an economic stimulus package to deal with the crushing reality of the recession that is hitting people hard and growing every day.
“I cannot vote to reward those predatory and subprime lenders who are creating such havoc in the lives of millions of Americans.
NCRC is persistently arguing that Congress cannot pass legislation bailing out Wall Street that does not include rescuing our communities too with:
Loan Modifications – Foreclosure prevention efforts should take the form of broad scale loan modifications styled after the Home Owners Loan Corporation of the 1930s, such as NCRC’s proposed Homeowners Emergency Loan Program (or HELP Now), about which NCRC’s John Taylor wrote in the Spring 2008 issue of Shelterforce.
Anti-Predatory Lending Provisions—Congress should enact protections for homeowners to ensure that unfair and deceptive lending practices do not again lead to a foreclosure crisis. Sen. Christopher Dodd’s Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007 should be added to the current proposals.
Bankruptcy Reform—Congress should amend bankruptcy law to allow judges to modify the terms of primary mortgages, as is currently allowed for investment properties.
I would also add a call for a national foreclosure moratorium to stop the bleeding and give all the hard-working counselors throughout our country the time they need to work through loan modifications for the borrowers, who have been victimized by their own federal government having ignored their plight while Wall Street profiteered from their abuse
Remember Democratic State Legislator Sue Schmitz, the 63 year old educator who was yanked out of the shower by Federal Agents like she was Osama Bin Laden, and charged with fraud and mail theft? Well, her case came to trail and evidently there is a hung jury. The Legal Schnauzer says her case is like deja voodoo all over again with visions of Don Siegelman written all over it.
Watching the Republican Party have a fit over the reporting on Sarah Palin’s personal and family life (which the McCain campaign revealed in a press release, by the way, it wasn’t dug up by some Democratic operative) got me to thinking about why the personal lives of politicians matter. They matter because when the personal life of a candidate is not reflected in their policy positions, we need to ask why?
Note: My sentiments exactly
Trailor Witch give her take on private lives of politicians and their public policies and asks "Didn't Brittany Spears teach us anything":
America, did Britney Spears teach us nothing? [insert snarky grin] Young girls faced with conflicting urges and conflicting values can make some shockingly irresponsible mistakes. Of course, Bristol is no Britney, not by a country mile. But, like Britney, Bristol was reared in a conservative Christian household. And like all young American women, Bristol grew up in a culture in which sexual power and sexual proclivity have been prized as they have been at no other time in history.
General Links I Like:
Oliver Willis has a crosspost on The Huffington Post explaining why he is a Democrat (check out both blogs for some really good stuff)
The Democratic party, for better or worse, believes in a Frank Capra/Jimmy Stewart view of the world. It says time and time again that through our collective might we can improve the nation, and as a byproduct the world. It is optimistic to the point of being almost corny. The party looks as the world as it is, and says "Gosh darn it everyone, let's roll up our sleeves and clean up this mess." It is no coincidence that the current leader of the party, Barack Obama, is the sort of guy you can imagine saying "by golly" and not in an ironic way.
Then of course, there are the Republicans, and I always forget them too. I forget how white they are, and mean-spirited, and thin-lipped. I watch them and I think, is anyone buying this? Does anyone think we're better off today? That we're "winning" the war? That teaching creationism is simply a matter of exposing students to both sides of the question? That it's sexist to wonder whether a mother who just months ago committed to a Down syndrome child ought to be running for vice-president? Does anyone think that executive experience trumps wisdom and intellect? And who are these people who rise to their feet and cheer loudest when they hear the words "Off-shore drilling"?
While some in the Alabama delegation were partying with the Poarch Creek Indians last night - a beautiful event, by the way, others from Alabama attended an event at the Convention Center highlighting New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
Madison County's Pam Miles reported that former Governor Don Siegelman received a warm reception from everyone at the event. Delegates from many different states recognized him and wished him luck.
But some of the most interesting exchanges of the evening took place between Govenor Siegelman, Congressman John Conyers, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker Pelosi spotted Siegelman in the crowd and made a beeline for him, greeting him with a big hug. During conversation, Pelosi told Siegelman that, when Congress convenes in September, there won't be any more playing around with the Bush Administration:
"We will hold Rove in contempt."
Well, that sounds great, but do they have the backbone to enforce it? That's the far more important issue. Still, the fact that she brought it up herself and stressed the point does give us cause for hope.
In a similar vein, Congressman Conyers assured Siegelman:
"We're not done with him yet."
Cause for celebration? Or yet another ray of hope that turns into a big disappointment?
I've wondered for some time now if Democrats have the spine needed to take advantage of Republican corruption at the ballot box.
On the national stage, I've yet to hear Barack Obama make an issue of the corruption that grips the Bush Justice Department. One of Obama's surrogates even suggested it might be best for Democrats to let bygones be bygones. We wouldn't want to upset white conservatives by showing that loyal Bushies have been operating mini gulags that would have made Stalin proud.
This concern about a lack of boldness from Democrats came to mind here in the Deep South recently. It appears that the Democratic candidate for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court is unwilling to spotlight the gross corruption at the heart of last fall's 8-1 ruling that overturned most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil:
The dissenting vote in the ExxonMobil case came from the court's lone Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb. Alabama desperately needs Paseur to join Cobb so that we can begin to reverse the damage that has been done by the campaign "wizardry" of Karl Rove, Bill Canary, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the 1990s.
Turning Alabama courts into a Republican playground was Karl Rove's first major success outside of Texas, and it vaulted him onto the national scene. If Rove had not succeeded in Alabama court races, we probably never would have had the George W. Bush administration, Al Gore would be completing his second term right now and . . . well, the world would be a heckuva lot better off.
So it's important that Democrats around the country understand just how important Alabama state court races can be. Our courts were the "canary in a coal mine" that signaled the "Dubya Disaster" was right around the corner. A return to health for our nation could be signalled by a Deborah Bell Paseur victory in November--hopefully, to go along with a Barack Obama win.
In fact, Paseur reminds me of Obama in some ways. I don't think there is any question she is far superior to her Republican opponent. She has strong support from women's groups and law enforcement and has made a number of common-sense proposals for improving the operation of Alabama courts. But she seems reluctant to pull the mask off the eight Republicans on the state Supreme Court who got away with the ExxonMobil heist.
Just how bad was the ExxonMobil ruling? This gives an idea:
The post at the link above includes a link to the full ExxonMobil ruling, and Cobb's dissent is in the last 25 pages. The Cobb dissent is worth reading because it provides a blueprint for the kind of up-front public statements that Democratic candidates need to be making in the face of massive GOP corruption.
Former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman has pushed for his fellow progressives to make the ExxonMobil ruling a major campaign issue.
Pretty obvious, huh? But in the eyes of the law, they should receive equal treatment. Yesterday tryan pointed out that the standard for conviction appears to be different. Alaska Sen. Stevens (R - Bridge to Nowhere) was not charged with bribery because such a charge "requires proof of a specific quid pro quo" while the Siegelman jury was instructed that "NO SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO WAS REQUIRED" for a bribery conviction.
Today, we witness more evidence that Ted Stevens is not Don Siegelman, and the two are not equal in the eyes of the law. Ted Stevens is running for reelection and asked that his trial begin soon so as not to interfere with the election. In 2006, Don Siegelman was running for governor and he also wanted his trial to begin well before the primary election in June. One delay led to another, and another and Don Siegelman's trial didn't begin until May 1st.
Siegelman was indicted on October 26, 2005. His trial began about 6 months later and he was convicted June 29, 2006 -- three weeks after the Democratic primary.
Ted Stevens was indicted last Tuesday, July 29 and his trial is set to begin on September 24 -- only 2 months later. Do the wheels of justice turn more quickly if you're a Republican?
Actually, I hope the justice system works as it should for Stevens -- no political delays, no conspiring, just a fair trial with justice at the end of it. That's what every American should expect from our legal system, but what Don Siegelman and too many others have not received.
The CNNPolitics.com website had this to say about the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens for scheming to conceal thousands of dollars worth of gifts from a major employer in his state, a company on whose behalf he sometimes intervened in Washington:
Stevens has not been arrested. The Justice Department said Tuesday he would be allowed to turn himself in.
If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison for each of the counts, although he could face a lighter penalty.
The indictment does not accuse Stevens of accepting bribes, said Matt Friedrich, the acting assistant attorney general.
"Bribery is not charged in this case," he emphasized in a news conference Tuesday, adding such a charge "requires proof of a specific quid pro quo. This indictment does not allege that."
Note the quote above by Matt Friedrich, the acting United States Department of Justice assistant attorney general, who states that a bribery charge "requires proof of a specific quid pro quo. This indictment does not allege that."
Recall the jury instructions given by Judge Mark Fuller in Don Siegelman's case that NO SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO WAS REQUIRED for the jury to convict him of bribery.
Perhaps AG Friedrich should school Judge Fuller on the law of bribery. Tom Ryan
David Fiderer has written a good piece at Huffington Post about the alleged emails between members of the Siegelman jury, during the trial and during deliberation, and what the Court and prosecutors did when made aware of them. It's well worth the time to read it for yourself.
Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows that the folks in charge are extremely picky about communication with anyone about the case. They tell you not to do it and, as I recall, they threaten you with serious legal consequences if you talk about the case outside of school, so to speak. When the issue of the juror emails was raised back before Don Siegelman was sentenced, I thought there would surely have to be a new trial. But no, Judge Fuller said it was not a problem and had no impact on the outcome, etc., etc. and so forth. As I recall, Siegelman's defense team wasn't even successful in getting the court to order the preservation of the electronic records involved so that the issue could be revisited during the appeal -- which has dragged out an unconscionably long time.
Now, more information has come to light about these emails, which may or may not have been genuine. They involved two jurors, one of whom was the foreman. These were the only two jurors who spoke publicly after the trial.
Mooncat's condensed version is something like this: 1) Paper copies of the purported email exchange were snail-mailed to the defense counsel and a number of other people. 2) Defense counsel raised a ruckus. Unbeknownst to the defense, the government asked Postal Investigators to determine if the paper copies of the emails were genuine or forged. Apparently the Post Office was tasked with this because it was now snail mail, not email. 3) Eventually, the Postal Inspector decided they were forged. 4) This was shared with the Judge and the prosecution but not with the defense. 5) The Judge ruled that everything was hunky dory and proceeded with sentencing Siegelman.
How did they determine that the email's were forged? Did the postal inspector go to the ISP provider and subpoena the records? Apparently not, which makes the whole investigation suspect. And of course the information absolutely should have been shared with the defense so they could have asked these relevant questions at the time. The whole thing has a bad smell.
That's all bad enough and embarassing for the DOJ and the Court, but here's the part that I find really disturbing -- Hendrix and Langer are the two jurors mentioned above. Emphasis mine.
Both dismissed any notion of rifts among jurors, even though the jury itself had twice notified the judge that it was deadlocked. Both insisted that it was simply a matter of needing sufficient time to adequately evaluate each of the charges against each of the four defendants.
Other jurors saw it differently. Here's how one juror, in a sworn affidavit, describes the deadlock vote:
"Five for guilty, five for not guilty, and two undecided. The jurors 100% not guilty were [redacted]. Two jurors had hostile words at each other and at this time, the foreman [Hendrix] slipped a note to the judge without our knowledge and told him that we were deadlock.
[Hendrix's private note said that some on the panel were being "lackadaisical."]
"The judge said that he could keep us until the next 4th of July and we needed to have a unanimous decision. Our whole objective changed at that point after nine days, we felt he applied extreme pressure on us to get us to make a unanimous decision. We all decided to agree with whoever was in charge so we could leave and go home. I told everybody I was through deliberating - do whatever you want to do. Just tell me which way I should vote so I can go home. Thestake of the two men's lives were totally irrelevant at this point for all of us, and we had a more pressing objective in mind - just to leave and go home for good. We did not vote our conviction. We voted based on the pressure applied by the judge."
In a post-trial hearing into allegations of juror misconduct, seven other jurors admitted knowing that Hendrix and Langer had used information not available to the other jurors, which they used to direct the discussion and push the holdouts into voting guilty.
They wanted to go home, so they caved to pressure from the jury foreman. How embarassing for the members of the jury and how embarassing and shameful for our system of justice. Where is Henry Fonda when you need him?
Whatever else you may say, the prosecutors in the Siegelman case aren't shy about 
witness. They are even considering action against the responsible prosecuting attorneys. Yay! Justice! It gave me new faith in the system to read 
within the Beltway gives me any hope that this move was taken, to provide prophylactic political cover for a drop of the Siegelman charges. Even so, failing to make both moves simultaneously is a slap in the face of the Alabama Democratic Party. And speaking of slapping Democrats, freshman Democratic Senator Nick Begich, who beat Stevens last November, has been measured in his public response to today's development. But I would love to be a fly on the wall of his office this afternoon.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has 
Former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman, is in Atlanta today to watch as his attorneys appear before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
