Federal Judge Fails To Set Early Trial Date in Siegelman, Scrushy Trial
 |
| Photo by Glynn Wilson |
| Former Gov. Don Siegelman maintains his innocence outside the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Ala., and insists he is still running for governor. |
by Glynn Wilson
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, failed to set a firm trial date Friday morning in the alleged conspiracy case of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.
After trying to resolve scheduling conflicts between defense attorneys, Judge Fuller did recommend a May 1 trial date with jury selection to start April 19 and indicated he reserved a courtroom for the entire month of May. The final decision on a trial date should be made public by the middle of next week after attorneys and the judge have a chance to reschedule court appearances in other cases.
Siegelman maintains his innocence and still intends to run for the Democratic Party's nomination for governor in spite of the conspiracy charges and the trial's disruption of the primary election scheduled for June 6.
Publicly, he indicated his approval for the date since it could mean the trial would be over and the verdict known before June 6. But aides said privately if the trial does not start before May 1 it would spell political trouble for Siegelman. If the trial takes most of the month of May, that would leave little time to raise money and mount a campaign.
U.S. Attorney Leura Garrett Canary, appointed by Bush in 2001, has called the appointment of Scrushy to a state health board by Siegelman - allegedly in return for campaign contributions to promote the statewide lottory plan - "a widespread racketeering conspiracy."
But Siegelman and Scrushy maintain there was no quid pro quo, per se.
Whether the federal government can prove the charges remains to be seen and some experts privately doubt it, especially considering how U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, another Bush appointee, handled the Scrushy and Siegelman cases in Birmingham.
A federal grand jury in Montgomery indicted Siegelman and Scrushy in October, 2005, along with two former members of Siegelman's cabinet, Paul Hamrick and Mack Roberts, although the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating the case for the past five years. Prosecutors in Birmingham failed to get a conviction in a case filed against Siegelman last year. It was dropped for insufficient evidence of a "conspiracy" by Federal District Judge U.W. Clemon, appointed by President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.
Scrushy faced a jury trial that lasted four months last winter and spring, and he walked away with a "not guilty" verdict.
Judge Fuller did not issue a ruling Friday on whether Roberts and Scrushy would get a separate trial apart from Siegelman and Hamrick, although he hinted to attorneys that until he rules on that issue, they should assume the trials will all be held together.
Federal prosecutor Louis Franklin estimated the trial would take two weeks, according to the Associated Press. But defense attorneys outside the courthouse, including Scrushy attorney Art Leach, said with all the defendants being tried together, and since the government has turned over 120 boxes of material for them to go through, two weeks is not practical.
One aide to Siegelman said the May date is part of a "pattern of delay" by the Justice Department in a partisan effort to plant the conspiracy trial in the heart of the 2006 election campaign.
"They've had 5 years and $40 million," he said. "We have no choice."
Scrushy also responded to questions from reporters Friday morning about an AP story that ran in newspapers all over the country Thursday making the charge that he paid a reporter working through a public relations firm for positive stories during his trial in Birmingham last year.
"These allegations are false," Scrushy said, maintaining that he paid $5,000 on five separate occassions for a church building fund and for Hurricane Katrina relief. He invited reporters to his office to see the evidence and hear tapes that he says prove the charges are false and part of an attempt to extort money from him.
 |
| Photo by Glynn Wilson |
| Former Gov. Don Siegelman and deposed HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy exit the federal courthouse in Montgomery Friday morning, with the conspiracy trial's defense entourage, about as far apart as possible. |
Comments
While I fall short of proclaiming Siegelman and Scrushy "innocent", I seriously doubt that the prosecution has the evidence (or the smarts) to gain a conviction.
In my opinion unless they have rock solid evidence, the taxpayer's money could be more wisely spent.
It's all political and it would be even if the party affiliations were reversed.
Posted by: John Sides | January 20, 2006 07:14 PM
Hey John. I'm not making judgements in advance and not betting beers on this one yet. I'll have to see what the prosecution lays out in opening arguments, and I believe in the jury system.
But it seems pretty clear to me that the press in Alabama is going to work harder in this case to help convict Siegelman and Scrushy than they did in the Birmingham case against Scrushy.
After I put my story up this afternoon, the AP came out with this missive tonight. Most people won't see it until the Saturday papers come out, although some of the TV stations may get it on at 10.
Testimony Unveiled in Siegelman, Scrushy Case
What I'm waiting to see is how hard the press corps here works on the Abramoff-Riley story, which seems to me to have more investigative merit than the Siegelman-Scrushy story. This seems like classic political spoils to me, certainly not a "widespread racketeering conspiracy."
If the deal was made like it is presented here, it would certainly be unethical. But to be tried under the RICO statutes seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: fast2write | January 20, 2006 09:10 PM
The story is, essentially, a reiteration of the indictment.
Here are the most telling sentences: "[Nick] Bailey served as Siegelman's executive secretary as well as other top posts for Siegelman as governor and lieutenant governor. Bailey pleaded guilty in June 2003 to taking bribes while working for Siegelman and is now cooperating with prosecutors."
Is it not odd that the government is listening to a convicted criminal make accusations?
Is it not equally odd how the failure of federal prosecutor Alice Martin of Florence to obtain a conviction of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy - even though 15 of his top corporate officers plead guilty to various charges and implicated him throughout the process as directly masterminding the fraud - suddenly thinks she can redeem herself from her mega-failed prosecution? Many attorneys and teachers of the law have commented that they believe the intricacies of Scrushy's case & prosecution, whom was the first prosecution under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley anti corporate fraud law, were above the level of understanding of the Birmingham, AL jury, and that the case should have been tried elsewhere - such as Dallas, New York City or Washington, D.C. - where more fiscally astute jurors would have understood the intricacies of pecuniary and securities fraud.
Regardless of the outcome of this case, my concern for Mr. Siegelman is the voting public's perception of him is as "damaged goods."
I think the Democratic leadership needs to seriously examine the implications of the possibility of him losing an election, even if he's found not guilty by a jury of his peers.
And on the unrelated matter of party registration: Are Democrats and Republicans ready to pay for private elections? It would only be a minor thing - if party registration were "enforced or required" - to have a court case filed demanding the state of Alabama to cease paying for party primaries.
Posted by: fast2write | January 22, 2006 06:17 PM