Full appeals court declines to hear Siegelman case. Now what?

[madfloridian]

Full appeals court refuses to hear Siegelman case

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the requests of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy for the full 12-judge court to review arguments to overturn their convictions in a government corruption case.

A three-judge panel from the 11th Circuit in March upheld 5 of the seven bribery and corruption charges against Siegelman and all six charges against Scrushy.

Attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy had asked the full court to review the appeal. The court's refusal was posted on its Web site Friday.

Now what comes next? The original prosecutor is recommending he get 20 years now instead of the original seven years.

20 years for Siegelman recommended

Federal prosecutors have recommended that former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman be sentenced to 20 years in prison when he receives a new sentencing hearing in federal court in Montgomery.

Apparently the DOJ is saying they can not intervene.

"If we get a rehearing then we have a few months to pursue options with the Department of Justice," Siegelman told the Huffington Post in an interview. "If we don't, then I'm going to be re-sentenced to prison by the same judge and prosecutors which I say, parenthetically with an exclamation point, is probably the most bizarre twist yet. I'd be still fighting the same right-wing Karl Rove-anointed and Bush-appointed prosecutors even with Barack Obama and Eric Holder in charge."

And yet, despite his pleas, federal intervention seems unlikely. The DOJ says there is virtually nothing it can do when it comes to Siegelman's appeal. "Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full 11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. "The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the court's, not DOJ's."

DOJ says nothing they can do

So legally what is next for Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, even as Ted Stevens walks free and clear.

[billyoc]

1. He gets sentenced to between 7 and 20 years.

[madfloridian]

2. And Karl Rove is all over the media getting free press and air time...

to rip our Democrats apart and continue his spin that is a danger to Democracy.

[JMDEM]

3. This needs to reach the Greatest page. K&R.

[madfloridian]

30. much

appreciated.

:hi:

[Kaleko]

32. Please read and sign Don Siegelman's latest petition.

Fresh from my inbox:

Send the Bush Appointees Packing!

The Bush holdovers in the Department of Justice have asked that I be sentenced to an additional 20 years in prison. The Bush appointed U.S. Attorney, whose husband is Karl Rove’s closest friend in Alabama, joined with the Chief of the Public Integrity Section of D.O.J., also a Bush holdover, in asking for the longer sentence.


More at link: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5180/t/3541/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2746

Justice for Don Siegelman!!!

[madfloridian]

34. Done!

:hi:

[Kaleko]

38. Thank you, madflo!

:thumbsup:

Anyone else feeling the urge to sign, write letters or donate will be taken behind the barn

and hugged & kissed with wild abandon!!!

[madfloridian]

47. Most welcome

I feel rather hopeless about this today.

[tsuki]

4. The DOJ is lying. Subornation of perjury is a criminal offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

"Subornation of perjury is a crime. It is also an offense for which an attorney can be disciplined, disbarred or jailed. Subornation is the circumstance where an attorney gets, or allows, another party to lie. If an attorney makes a false representation in court, that is also a crime and he could be subject to similar punishment as subornation.

Under American federal criminal law, "Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both". Subornation of perjury occurs when anyone--not just a lawyer--encourages a witness to perjure her/himself. Violators can face a maximum of five years in prison.<2>That law has analogous provisions in every state of the union."

[madfloridian]

5. Edited...same text

More later.

[mod mom]

6. This is so maddening. Many of us have contacted DoJ, our elected official and member of the press

countless times to deaf ears. Is AG Holder afraid that reviewing this case will open the can of worms to the criminal activity that has been entrenched in some of our elected officials for some time (think Judge Fuller + the "enterprise")?

:mad:

[merh]

7. Siegelman's next step is to appeal to SCOTUS

The appellate circuits are split when it comes to the interpretation of the devil statute he was convicted under (18 USC sec 666), so he has a shot at having SCOTUS grant him the Petition for Certiorari.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm

Relative to the sentence, his attorneys can argue to Judge Fuller that the 11th Circuit upheld his earlier sentence and that their reversal was not to allow him to increase the sentence, but to decrease the sentence by subtracting the reversed sentences. It is not until he is sentenced can he appeal the sentence (should Fuller grant the increase).

I have tried to explain to you on numerous occasions that the Stevens case, though similar, is not exactly like Siegelman's case and the comparison you make is wrong.

Stevens was tried before a US District Judge that took his job seriously and that understood the Rules of Evidence and the Criminal Procedure. He knew that the prosecution has certain duties and obligations and he saw that the US Attorneys prosecuting Stevens were not following the law and/or being fair to Stevens. It is the US District Judge that was angry about the prosecutor's behavior and their discovery failings and lies.

Stevens had been convicted by the jury, but the US District Judge was not happy with the proceedings and had before him a Motion to Dismiss or Grant a New Trial due to the prosecutors misconduct and discovery violations. He had not yet sentenced Stevens so the final judgment had not been entered.

Siegelman and his co-defendant were tried, found guilty by a jury and sentenced by the US District Judge. It is alleged that Fuller allowed the prosecutorial misconduct and it is obvious he overlooked the abuses.

Siegelman's case has been on appeal - he is pursuing his legal options and Congress and the DOJ (the office of professional responsibility and the special US Attorney assigned to the case) has been looking into the claims. It may well be that Holder and his people can step in now that the Bush US Attorneys still operating in Alabama have tried to increase the sentence rather than decrease it in accordance with the 11th Circuit's opinion and the reversals.

Nothing is as easy as you want it to be - I wish it were as simple as you assume it should be.

[madfloridian]

8. No, I do not understand at all why Siegelman is being subjected to this.

I have read your explanations, but I was only a lowly school teacher...not a lawyer.

I have this thing about honesty and truth and integrity.

There has been no good explanation yet, and I will know it if I hear one.

Please stop talking down to me and insulting me on this topic.

Thank you.

[merh]

10. I just explained the differences to you.

You just refuse to use common sense and reason.

The US District Judge that heard the Stevens case is the one that called the prosecutors' behavior and abuses into question.

The US District Judge that heard the Siegelman case did not call the prosecutors' behavior into question. From what I have read, the Siegelman defense did not allege selective prosecution so the 11th Circuit was not asked to consider the allegation. It is alleged by the defenders of Siegelman that the US District Judge was in on the political prosecution and that he went out of his way to make sure of the conviction.

The Siegelman case is being investigated and your allegation that it is not is unfounded.

And for those who wonder why Obama hasn't pardoned Siegelman, the answer is simple. Pardons are not allowed until the convictions are upheld, until all other legal avenues have been exhausted and appeals had.

What you are asking the DOJ to do now is exactly what you are angry with bushco for doing. That is, politicizing the DOJ and using it to free simply because of politics and not under the rules of law and the facts of the case.

[madfloridian]

12. Common sense and reason? There is little of that in this case at all.

I am pretty well known for having a moderate degree of such. I don't remember mentioning pardon at all.

[bertman]

15. Thank you for the explanation, merh. I am relieved to hear 1) that the Siegelman case

IS still being investigated, 2) a pardon has not been issued because it is not yet in order, 3) President Obama's DOJ is actually following the law.

It's obvious that the BushCo folks who threw Siegelman in jail are not going to give up. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice often turn very slowly.

Recommend and kick this thread.

[madfloridian]

16. No...you are wrong on this.

"What you are asking the DOJ to do now is exactly what you are angry with bushco for doing. That is, politicizing the DOJ and using it to free simply because of politics and not under the rules of law and the facts of the case."

No, I am not.

It was the judges themselves, Bush and Rove friendly ones, who politicized it.

I am only asking for fairness.

Oh, and who is doing that investigation....from the link above,the DOJ says it is not doing it.

"And yet, despite his pleas, federal intervention seems unlikely. The DOJ says there is virtually nothing it can do when it comes to Siegelman's appeal. "Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full 11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. "The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the court's, not DOJ's."

[merh]

19. Fairness and justice mandate that the legal process be

applied to everyone equally, that the cases be reviewed on their individual merits and/or weaknesses.

You demand that Siegelman be freed simple because Stevens was freed. That is not equity or the proper legal standard that must be applied.

For every charged crime there are victims or the alleged crime, the government has a duty to the victims and to society and to the defendants.

[madfloridian]

20. No, I did not demand that at all. You are not even being fair now.

This is a terribly wrong situation, and we can not rationalize it away.

It is not common sense.

[merh]

25. No one is rationalizing it away.

I have simply answered your questions and explained the differences between the two cases and the stages of the cases.

If you want to do something to help Siegelman, post your rallying threads that the Obama DOJ nominations be confirmed and not held up by congress.

In addition to Dawn Johnsen the other DOJ nominees that need to be confirmed are:

David Kris, National Security Division

Tony West, Civil Division

Lanny Breuer, Criminal Division

Christine Varney, Antitrust Division

Ronald H. Weich, Office of Legislative Affairs

How can Obama nominate folks to take over the US Attorney posts in Alabama and other states if he doesn't have the leadership on board at the DOJ to properly vet and recommend the new US Attorneys?

How can he pursue the criminals of the previous administration without a leader in the Criminal Division?

Sign the petition and scream to all that will listen that we need the DOJ nominees be confirmed so we can move on with returning Justice to the Justice Department.

https://secure.pfaw.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=rjc_doj_nominees&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr010=vizxg23ww1.app305b

[lala_rawraw]

37. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

The DOJ NOT stepping to alter the sentence or overturn the case DOES NOT mean they are NOT investigating. They are. Period, end of story.

note
spelling edit.

second edit... i read wrong what you wrote, so i took out my snide remark:)

[madfloridian]

40. It still sounds rather snide. And very rude considering I never said such.

I quoted the DOJ.

"And yet, despite his pleas, federal intervention seems unlikely. The DOJ says there is virtually nothing it can do when it comes to Siegelman's appeal. "Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full 11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. "The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the court's, not DOJ's."

I admit I am no lawyer, but something is just not right when this goes on and on.

I don't believe I said no one was investigating.

I don't like being attacked like that.

[madfloridian]

41. You can edit the post all day, but the subject line is still rude.

:eyes:

[madfloridian]

45. "i read wrong what you wrote, so i took out my snide remark"

But the subject line remains.

[mod mom]

18. Rather insulting aren't you?

"You just refuse to use common sense and reason"

sheesh! :eyes: uncalled for!

I think I speak for many DUers that we not looking for a pardon, rather an investigation that exposes the political prosecution and those responsible. We want justice rather than a reversal of injustice.

[merh]

21. The case is being investigated.

I have explained to the OP on several ocassions the difference between Stevens and Siegelman yet she posts that there are no differences and that no one has explained them and the like.

Common sense and reason does not provide that one dismiss the explanations provide by saying, "I don't understand and I don't like your explanation so none has been given."

[madfloridian]

23. I will continue to post. WHO is investigating. DOJ says they are not.

"And yet, despite his pleas, federal intervention seems unlikely. The DOJ says there is virtually nothing it can do when it comes to Siegelman's appeal. "Because Mr. Siegelman has requested the full 11th Circuit Appeals Court to review the recent ruling by the three-judge panel, the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. "The decision whether to hold an en banc hearing is the court's, not DOJ's."

You seem to be zeroing in on me and on this topic like you are defending them for not taking it on.

[merh]

27. Complaints made against the prosecutors are investigated by the

OPR - Mary Patrice Brown was just named to head that division of the OPR the first part of April.

Rove is to be questioned by the prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, the acting U.S. attorney in Connecticut. Mukasey assigned her to investigate the U.S. attorney firings. I don't believe she will be allowed to release a report on her findings until Holder and his staff review it. From what I have read, she is a stand up prosecutor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5657737

FYI "the Department will continue to litigate this matter in the courts, not in the media," said DOJ spokesperson Laura Sweeney. "

To litigate in court and not in the media does not mean there is no internal investigation being had. It is simple stating that they are handling the appellate duties of their office and not publicizing everything they do.

[madfloridian]

22. Yes, he is on this topic.

And has been in several threads now.

I never mentioned pardon, haven't seen it mentioned come to think of it.

This is really getting to be a sad case especially since our president decided that those who advocated torture might just go free.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Yes, pardon implies guilt. After what The Man's been through, I should think that would

be scant justice. They'd never stop calling him a jailbird.

[puteulanus carolina]

48. The President can pardon anyone...

At any time. His pardon power is Constitutionally virtually unlimited. He doesn't have to wait until someone is tried and convicted. He doesn't even have to wait until someone is charged.

Remember when Poppy Bush pardoned Caspar Weinburger for Iran/Contra crimes? He was never even charged with a crime when Poppy pardoned him.

President Obama can pardon Gov. Siegelman right now if he wishes.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

49. Welcome to DU

:hi: from a fellow North Carolinian :hi:

[merh]

53. Go look at the procedures that have been set up

true the constitution doesn't limit the "whens" or the "hows" or the "whys", but the Office the Pardon Attorney, the division of the DOJ that the president relies upon to help vet the requests for pardons, has a set of "guidelines" and normally, they require that the person seeking a pardon has exhausted all legal avenues before seeking the pardon. (And to be honest, most of the time a pardon is granted only after the sentence has been completed.

See the webpages http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/petitions.htm

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/

[grantcart]

11. Do you think that the SCOTUS is likely to come to a different conclusion than

the 11th circuit?

What is the reputation of the 11th Circuit? Are they considered a partisan court?


Thanks for your clearing up some of the tangled issues.

[merh]

17. The main charge that Siegelman faced is the "federal theft and bribery"

statute - 18 USC sec 666. There is a huge split in the appellate circuits about how this law should be applied and what is required to prove the crime. Believe it or not, Justice Scalia has warned about the misuse of that statute to go after anyone and everyone.

Scalia spoke only for himself as the Justices declined, without explanation, to hear Sorich, et al., v. U.S. (08-410). The Court’s order and Scalia’s opinion can be found here. He contended that the Court should take on the task of interpreting the fraud law, and deciding whether, in fact, it is unconstitutional. “It seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail,” he wrote.

The case involves three former officials of Chicago’s city government — Robert Sorich, who was head of a city office on intergovernmental affairs, his deputy Timothy McCarthy, and Patrick Slattery, who was a high official in the city’s Streets and Sanitation Office. Federal prosecutors charged them with defrauding the city by depriving it of their honest services, for running an alleged scheme of getting jobs for politically favored individuals, in violation of city policies against patronage hiring and a court consent decree on the subject.

Each was convicted of mail fraud; Sorich was sentenced to 46 months in prison, McCarthy to 19 months and Slattery to 27 months.

Their joint petition for review argued that the Circuit Courts are split on whether there can be a fraud case involving the honest services provision if there is no proof of a state-imposed legal duty, and no proof that the official gained personally from the alleged fraud.

A considerable part of the case against them was based on Congress’ attempt, in 1988, to close what it considered a loophole in the federal mail fraud law. A year before, the Supreme Court had ruled, in McNally v. U.S., that the law as it then read was limited to protecting property rights, and not to protect the right of citizens to honest services by public officials. Congress responded by saying the law did include the crime of depriving “another of the intangible right of honest services.” (The section at issue is 18 U.S.C. 1346.)

Those 28 words, Scalia wrote, have led lower courts “to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior, including misconduct not only by public officials and employees but also by private employees and corporate fiduciaries.” The Justice listed some of these wide applications, and suggested others than could well be considered within the language of the statute.

The Court has long held, Scalia noted, that criminal laws must give fair warning of the conduc that is made criminal. “It is simply not fair,” he said, “to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/scalia-chaos-reigns-in-corruption-cases/

I think Siegelman has a shot and SCOTUS will hear his case.

[grantcart]

35. very helpful and obviously you have training in the field

I would be interested in any further posts you have on the subject - if you remember please pm if you issue an OP on the subject.

[lonestarnot]

59. w/o a doubt they will hear him.

[lala_rawraw]

39. SCOTUS will not hear the case

especially if the en banc 11th circuit declined and given the make-up of the court. so a pardon is really the only option.

[madfloridian]

9. Rove and the "Stain on Lady Justice" From 2007

"A Stain on Lady Justice"..Siegelman in jail, Rove writing for Newsweek.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has again asked the judge who sentenced former Gov. Don Siegelman for a more detailed explanation of why he refused to let Siegelman remain free on bond while the former governor appeals his conviction. In an apparent rush to throw Siegelman in shackles and denying the former governor the ability to even say goodbye to his family following his sentencing, the judge, Mark E. Fuller, a district judge in the Middle District of Alabama, failed to rule on the motion for release, gaveling down Siegelman's lawyer when she pressed him for a ruling.

Siegelman has applied to the appeals court for his release pending appeal and the appellate judges in reviewing the record, found that Fuller had never even made a ruling on the lawyer's motion.

They sent the matter back to him for a ruling, asking an explanation for his decision. The two judges who wrote Fuller for the explanation were Stanley Marcus, a Clinton appointee and Susan Black, an appointee of George H. W. Bush.

......"Questions raised about Judge's business interests

While Judge Fuller was presiding over the Siegelman/Scrushy trial, a business, Doss Aviation, Inc., in which he holds a 43.75% interest as he sits as a federal jurist, received $200 million in contracts from the Department of Defense.

One, a ten-year contract which totals $178.22 million contains an annual renewal clause, which makes his company totally dependent on the U. S. Government, Recently I disclosed this contract, but since then I have found that Doss Aviation added an additional $21 million in DOD contracts during the time he was sitting as the judge in the Siegelman/Scrushy case.

The link to the original article is dead about Stain on Lady Justice, but it is out there somewhere. I will find it.

[Divine Discontent]

13. from archive.org and the wayback machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20080120202527re_/www.al.com/news/independent/index.ssf?/base/columnists/119546734589670.xml&coll=4

I find our new president disappointing so far, because he hasn't thrown out all the bums from the corrupt B*sh Junta. I know it takes time, but it's a shame when they can pervert justice in this manner.

[madfloridian]

24. Thanks, saved me the trouble.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

26. How do you search for the 2nd page, which won't load?

I never have good luck with those sites.

Trying to find the whole story somewhere.

[Divine Discontent]

46. archive.org doesn't have it either. so I don't know where you'd find it without asking the original

writers for a copy or for a link where they might have it posted.

and yes - it's an upside down world where these cheats like Stevens walk free, torturer approvers like B*sh & Dick are filthy rich in blood money and free, and a guy like Siegelman is going to rot in prison unless something happens.

[madfloridian]

14. It is an upside down world.

A world in which people like Siegelman and Minor go to jail or back to jail because the wheels either grind slowly or not at all....and those who ordered and condoned torture are free and not fearful of being prosecuted.

[struggle4progress]

28. Now we get ready to follow the US attorneys investigation -- and we start reminding our

Reps & Sens about some of the other egregious abuses, like the Georgia Thompson case

[madfloridian]

29. " A former governor in Alabama, who committed no crime, is looking at going to prison for ...life"

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-continues-to-look-other-way-on.html

"In the Stevens case, a federal judge helped point out prosecutorial misconduct. In the Siegelman case, a federal judge was part of the misconduct. And based on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' flawed ruling that upheld much of the Siegelman conviction, it now appears that appellate judges are involved in a cover up of what really took place in Montgomery, Alabama.

My guess is that Attorney General Eric Holder has no problem pointing out, and dealing with, wayward prosecutors. But you can't deal with the Siegelman fiasco without looking into the conduct of corrupt judges. And that goes to the very heart of our justice system.

The Siegelman case shows that our justice is corrupt to its core, that even some of those we call "your honor" are, in fact, dishonorable.

My guess is that Holder simply does not want to deal with that--or, in a best-case scenario--he has not yet figured out how to deal with it. Barack Obama unquestionably inherited an unholy mess from the Bush administration. And it's unfair to expect it to be solved in four months.

But the crimes in the Bush Justice Department simply must not be papered over. I can understand if Holder needs time to figure out how to tell the American people that their justice system is corrupt from top to bottom.

But he needs to get on the stick. A former governor in Alabama, who committed no crime, is looking at going to prison for the rest of his life.

[madfloridian]

31. WP blog today...maybe more justices by June or July?

Will it be in time to keep Siegelman out of jail?

"Washington, D.C.: Do you have any idea why Republican U.S. attorneys like the one who prosecuted Don Siegelman are still in office? RESIGN.

Carrie Johnson: Hi DC. How the Obama administration will handle the appointment of U.S. attorneys is on the minds of lots of people in Washington and around the country (not just we law geeks).

I wrote a story for the Post a couple of months ago suggesting the appointment process could take a while. About half of the Bush appointees left before or after the November election but a sizeable number remain in their jobs.

Yesterday, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. suggested that it would be a matter of weeks before a first batch of U.S. attorney nominees is unveiled by the White House. Already many key senators including those in NY, Nevada, IL and elsewhere have forwarded their recommendations to the White House for consideration. And we know too that Pat Fitzgerald in Chicago and Jim Letten in New Orleans likely will stay on the beat, while Dan Bogden of Nevada, one of the nine prosecutors fired by Bush, will likely return to that office. So, to make a long answer short, you should be seeing some activity on this front in June or July."

The first batch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/05/14/DI2009051403253.html

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[madfloridian]

42. Wow.

You just never know what topics will bring on the vituperative remarks.

Guess we learn something new each day.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

43. Since Raw Story and Scott Horton say Siegelman is jail bound..

And one gets insulted here for caring...I will leave it to them to discuss it.

When we stop caring and turn to insulting each other, the battle is lost for a country that cares.

Or maybe we lost it a long time ago.

Let all the "experts" weigh in on the topic.

[madfloridian]

44. Scott Horton says Siegelman likely jailbound for possibly 20 years.

And those of us who have been struggling to understand this while being attacked subtly and not so subtly every time....will still be left struggling to understand.

There are ways to differ with people without insulting them. Two folks in this thread have not learned that yet.

http://www.onepennysheet.com/?p=17244

"According to Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor who has been following the Siegelman case for Harper’s Magazine, it is not uncommon for an appeals court to decline a full member — or en banc review — of a case.

An appeals court “usually hears cases when there is a sharp difference of opinion on a panel,” Horton said Friday morning during a phone interview. Horton noted that in Siegelman’s case “there was a unanimous decision” rendered.

When asked what this development means for the Siegelman case, Horton expressed little hope that Siegelman could avoid going back to jail to serve out what could possibly now be a 20-year term."

[mod mom]

50. If this comes true, it might be enough to remove me from ever working for the party again.

IANAL but I've read enough to know some very prominent attorneys find this case highly suspect:

Review of Governor’s Conviction Sought


By JOHN SCHWARTZ and CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: April 21, 2009

Less than a month after the Justice Department asked a judge to drop the case against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska because of prosecutorial misconduct, 75 former state attorneys general from both parties have urged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to conduct a similar investigation of the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, who was convicted nearly three years ago on bribery and corruption charges.


In a letter to Mr. Holder, the attorneys general said Mr. Siegelman’s defense lawyers had raised “gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial.

“We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.

-snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22justice.html

IF THE DEMS ALLOW THIS TRAVESTY TO STAND, THEN I CAN NO LONGER STAND WITH THEM! :mad:

[madfloridian]

51. Those 75 attorneys are right..

"In a letter to Mr. Holder, the attorneys general said Mr. Siegelman’s defense lawyers had raised “gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial."

“We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York."

But we have to tread carefully at DU on the topic. 75 former attorneys general can say it, but if we demand to understand it here...we are told we know nothing at all. See above.

[mod mom]

52. Are they afraid of the Judge Fuller "Enterprise" connection? WTF?

[madfloridian]

54. I just don't know.

I must have irritated two somebodies, and I don't know why. I must have worded something wrong or something.

One of them says it will go to SCOTUS, another says it won't...that a pardon is needed.

Me, I don't pretend to know. But this is two posts I have written about it the last few days and still have the bruises showing.

:shrug:

I don't understand. The man is apparently going back to prison, and I don't understand.

[defendandprotect]

55. Bush and Cheney are walking around free . . . and harassment of Siegelmann continues on and on -- !!

[DemReadingDU]

56. morning kick

[Wednesdays]

57. K&R

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

58. Son of a bitch! That sucks. Very bad news indeed.