Federal judges hear arguments in Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy corruption conviction appeal

[BlueJessamine]

Source: The Birmingham News

Posted by Kim Chandler -- Birmingham News

December 09, 2008 10:57 AM


ATLANTA -- A panel of three federal judges heard arguments this morning about why the 2006 government corruption convictions of former Gov. Don Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy should be overturned.

The trio of judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked federal prosecutors and defense lawyers mostly about three issues in the case. Those questions revolved around:



1. Whether the trial was tainted by jury misconduct, specifically allegations that jurors exchanged e-mails during the trial.

2. Whether there was enough evidence that Scrushy and Siegelman struck a deal to exchange contributions to Siegelman's lottery campaign for a state board appointment.

3. Whether there was enough evidence to convict Siegelman of obstruction of justice.

The hearing started about 10 a.m. and lasted for about 45 minutes.

After the hearing, Siegelman said he was pleased with how the morning went, saying the questions indicated the judges had a depth of knowledge and understanding of the case.



Read more: http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/12/federal_judges_hear_arguments.html

---

~snip~

It is uncertain when the judges will issue a ruling. None is expected today.

On the web:

Siegelman appeal filing:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/12/BRIEF%20OF%20GOVERNOR%20DON%20SIEGELMAN%2C%20APPELLANT.pdf


Scrushy filing:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/12/INITIAL%20BRIEF%20OF%20APPELLANT%20RICHARD%20M.%20SCRUSHY.pdf



Government filing:

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/12/CORRECTED%20BRIEF%20FOR%20THE%20UNITED%20STATES.pdf

[acmavm]

1. The heard it all in only 45 minutes? I would have thought that it would take

all day considering that the corruption went all the way to the White House.

But, maybe not.

[Pastiche423]

4. I think the 45 minutes is a good sign

Especially since Gov. Don said, "...the questions indicated the judges had a depth of knowledge and understanding of the case."

If he wins his appeal, then he can go after kkkarl.

[acmavm]

5. I hope you're right.

[MessiahRp]

2. Who were the judges and who appointed them?

At this point I feel the need to ask this question before every ruling that hits a Federal Court.

Rp

[Sanity Claws]

3. Wasn't there an issue regarding the jury instructions?

I thought the jury instructions were so one-sided that they didn't even require the jury to find a quid-pro-quo as part of the alleged bribery.
It's easier to get a conviction reversed and remanded for poor instructions than for insufficiency of evidence.

[struggle4progress]

6. Appeal Hearing in Ex-Governor's Conviction (NYT)

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: December 9, 2008

ATLANTA — ... At the opening of the hearing, Judge Edmondson quickly steered Mr. Heldman toward the lesser element in Mr. Siegelman’s conviction, what government prosecutors contend was the covering up of a “corrupt payment” of $9,200 from a supporter through a series of “sham check transactions.” The government said this was obstruction of justice; Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers claim it never occurred ...

One of the judges, James C. Hill, seemed to find it interesting that the only evidence for bribery was an ambiguous conversation between Mr. Siegelman and his former aide, Nick Bailey, about Mr. Scrushy’s contribution.

Mr. Bailey testified that he said, “What in the world is he going to want for that?” referring to the first part of Mr. Scrushy’s $500,000 contribution. Mr. Siegelman is said to have replied, “the CON board,” referring to the state Certificate of Need board, which approves hospital projects.

“That may be his best argument,” said Judge Hill, referring to Mr. Siegelman ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/10siegelman.html