 |
| Glynn Wilson |
| Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in front of the federal courthouse in Montgomery, with Sephira Bailey Shuttlesworth, wife of Birmingham Civil Rights icon Fred Shuttlesworth, in the background. |
Federal prosecutors in Montgomery filed their response this week to Alabama Governor Don Siegelman’s and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy’s motion for a new trial, and their demands for recusal of Chief U.S. District Justice Mark E. Fuller.
It is boilerplate legalese that basically says they do not deserve a new trial and the judge should not recuse himself.
Siegelman reacted immediately to the news.
“I am shocked by the contentions of the United States Government’s response to the motion for the judge to recuse himself from all other proceedings in this case,” Siegelman said in an e-mail message.
“The government farcically argues that the trial judge and 11th Circuit decided in my case that the system operated fairly for me because the trial judge assumed that the emails from Juror No. 7 and Juror No. 40 were ‘authentic’.” he said. “So when he denied our motion for a new trial, based on those emails, both courts said that it’s OK for jurors to be emailing each other before the close of the government’s case, OK to be in a a conspiracy to subvert the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.”
Keep in mind what these jurors were saying and what they were trying to do, he said.
For background, check this story from our archives:
Explosive New Story Lends Credence to Siegelman Appeal
“The emails revealed a deep hidden prejudice against both me and Richard Scrushy and just as important, the emails showed that the jurors were violating the order of the Court and plotting to get other jurors to vote for a conviction,” Siegelman said. “How in the world can anyone have respect for a system of justice if this kind of conduct is given a stamp of approval by a trial judge and a court of appeals?
“According to the United States government these courts have just said that jurors are now free to conspire by email or text messaging during the course of a trial and are free to conspire with one another to try to get votes for a conviction even before the evidence and witnesses have been heard,” he said. “How can the U.S. government think that such a judgment promotes public trust and confidence in the fairness of our judicial and court systems?”
© 2009 – 2012, Glynn Wilson. All rights reserved. The Locust Fork News-Journal, LocustFork.Net
Related Posts
November 14, 2008 -- Explosive New Story Lends Credence to Siegelman Appeal (0)
New Reporting May Show Bush Was 'In the Loop'Glynn Wilson
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in front of the federal courthouse in Montgomery, with Sephira Bailey Shuttlesworth, w...
June 30, 2009 -- Siegelman Files Motion Asking for New Trial (0)
Glynn WilsonFormer Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in Atlanta for his appeal hearing Dec. 9, 2008ANALYSIS
by Glynn WilsonFormer Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has filed a motion in federal cour...
July 23, 2009 -- Coalition Calls for Siegelman Charges to be Dropped (0)
The Restore Justice At Justice Coalition calls on Attorney General Eric Holder to dismiss all charges against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.The Restore Justice At Justice campaign, repre...
As I have said from the beginning, there should have been a mistrial on this case. With everything that was occurring, e-mails, jurors, stories,etc., I cannot comprehend why this judge and case was allowed to continue.
This shows that there is something crucially wrong with our system.
Maybe federal prosecutors did not get the memo that there’s a new administration in Washington? It’s hard to believe that if this decision were placed directly in front of President Obama, a former law professor, he would sign off on opposing Siegelman’s motion.
Some of this may be related to the tradition – a bad one – that even with a new and ideologically different administration in office, past actions of the government have to be defended as if the present administration had made them. This has happened many times in the past and looks like it’s happening again.
The road has been long and torturous for Don Siegelman and it is to be devoutly hoped that he will, eventually, be exonerated. Meantime, the lawyer-bureaucrats seem determined to prolong his agony as long as possible.
But there is no good reason for them to do that.
Quick additional note: a new trial does not guarantee anything except rectifying the obviously bias within which the prosecution and previous trial were steeped. But admitting that such bias can taint the justice process must be too much for the proesecutors to stomach.
From Roger Shuler via e-mail:
Federal prosecutors in Alabama argue in a new motion that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller acted impartially in the Don Siegelman case and should not recuse himself from further proceedings. The prosecutors evidently wrote this argument with a straight face, while preparing a response on a motion to recuse from Siegelman’s codefendant, former HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy. At the heart of the prosecution’s response is this novel idea: It’s perfectly fine for jurors to be swapping e-mails during the course of a criminal trial.
Prosecutors in Siegelman Case Have No Shame
This is Bush-League Justice. The question is why we are still getting this in the administration of a President who clearly knows better.
The crux of the matter is not JUST whether the jurors can exchange emails but whether before the end of the government’s case and before hearing any of the defendant’s case, they can be planning on how to convict the defendant.
I can tell you why the judge and Laura Canary
are allowed to remain on the case. These two are shielding Karl Rove’s involvement in Gov. Siegelman’s original prosecution. (Prosecutor Laura Canary is the wife of Rove’s pal). Others being protected are the horrifically
corrupt Sen. Jeff Sessions and the other Alabama
senator. I don’t know how Obama and Holder are
being made to scrupulously avoid exposing the
abuse of power that characterizes the former
administration.
According to a comment received via e-mail:
The link above is only the response to the motion for recusal.
The prosecutors asked for 30 more days on the response to the motion for a new trial.
“I really could not imagine them not delaying as long as possible.”
Here is the link.
This is a quote from the article:
In a memorandum in response to the government’s request for more time to answer the new-trial motion, Scrushy says prosecutors had a month to respond but now seek another 30 days even though they cite no good reason for the need for extra time.
Also, are you familiar with “mainjustice.com” where they have a list of presumed replacements for US attorneys?
http://www.mainjustice.com/us-attorney-update/
Eric Dale