From a journalist, columnist and Web publisher who is anything but 'out-of-state'

by Glynn Wilson
Editor and Publisher
The Locust Fork (Alabama) News and Journal
Also working under a grant from The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin is grasping at straws as his legal career as a "career prosecutor" is near its end.

Since the Montgomery TV news station WSFA 12 decided to publish his entire recent statement as news with no context or rebuttal or original reporting, and since Mr. Franklin has decided to try and attack us as "out-of-state" anything, we better take his contrived words written in Washington apart.

"Recently, a number of articles, editorials, and postings on blogs have been authored by 'out-of-state' reporters, columnists, and bloggers about the investigation and prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy," he says.

Well, not all of us at the Locust Fork News and Journal, the Anniston Star, the Decatur Daily, etc. are "out of state."

In fact, we are right here in the neighborhood, and watched Mr. Franklin botch his first attempt at convicting Richard Scrushy in Birmingham. He was about as lame a lawyer as I've seen in my 27 years of covering trials.

"Though these media reports appear to be part of an orchestrated disinformation campaign about the case," he says - seeming to attempt to take a page out of Karl Rove's playbook, although really, it is Karl Rove's playbook - "...they have generated questions that I want to address once and for all on the record because I believe the public has a right to know the truth."

Now considering for a second that Mr. Franklin has any inkling of what the truth is, he certainly doesn't seem to be telling it in this case. And his comments may now be used against him in future cases.

"Leura Canary was not involved, in any way, in any of the decisions about who would and would not be prosecuted," he claims. But we know the truth, don't we?

As we seem to recall, she was the one who brought the prosecution against Siegelman in Montgomery, after Bill Pryor tried and then got himself a seat on the appeals court without Senate confirmation, cozying up to Mr. Bush while Congress was in recess.

"Her recusal was scrupulously honored by me," Franklin lies. There is ample evidence - and who would have it any other way - that of course they talked about the biggest case in town. The question is, what were they drinking and snorting when they talked about it?

So show us the documents, and especially that backdated recusal motion, and stop hiding behind a dead court reporter for refusing to release any of the trial records in this case, and most especially the trial transcript.

And would some able reporter please look into this dead court reporter please?

Even one of my most conservative focus group members on these points said tonight after hearing that story, "OK, now you can safely move into conspiracy theory territory."

"As the Acting United States Attorney in the case, I made all decisions about the case after consultation with other 'career prosecutors'," Franklin claims

Right.

"Any assertion or insinuation to the contrary is an outright falsehood and a lie," he says.

We will see, now won't we? As Jill Simpson likes to say, "Justice always prevails in the end. It really does."

"All viable federal felony offenses discovered during the investigation were appropriately and properly addressed," Franklin says. "Political party affiliation played no role in 'my' decision making."

Here was an assistant normally reserved for token research, trying a case because he was black, now taking credit for the entire scheme to run a political prosecution of Don Siegelman? Highly unlikely and most likely an outright lie.

"Our entire investigative file was turned over to the dozens of extremely able lawyers hired to represent the accused and all information discovered during the investigation was available to them to use in their defense in any way cognizable under the Constitution of the United States," Franklin blathers on, digging an even deeper whole for himself for the record.

"Common sense suggests that if a viable motion for selective prosecution existed, it would have been filed."

What?

"Simply put, no motion alleging selective prosecution was filed because there were no facts to support it."

Are you kidding me?

It would just not have occurred to Siegelman's defense team, even after the Jill Simpson affidavit surfaced. They don't seem to understand all this political stuff involved in a legal case. They are accustomed to law book research, not political prosecutions. In fact, it never occurred to them that there is such a thing, because there is not supposed to be such a thing in American jurisprudence.

"The comments of a few Monday morning quarterback writers, editors, and bloggers to the contrary are either a deliberate effort to deceive or are occurring because they do not have all the facts available to them," Franklin claims. "For a variety of reasons, these media members are unwilling to accept the inevitable result of facts being laid bare in the crucible of the federal criminal courtroom. This case was fully litigated in an open forum where everyone was compelled by law to speak the truth." blah, blah, blah, blah...

"In this context, Siegelman's and Scrushy's peers convicted them because they are guilty of public corruption offenses," Franklin says.

But any close observer of the events should know, and we reported this as it happened, the jury was hopelesslly hung, to the point of fisticuffs. Any honest judge would have declared a mistrial on that fateful Friday.

Could the Siegelman, Scrushy Trial Jury Be Hung?
Siegelman, Scrushy Trial Jury Deadlocked
Hung Jury Breaks for Weekend in Montgomery
Trouble Between Hung Jury Members in Siegelman Trial

That is until the Chief Judge who controls the courthouse in Montgomery, down to the locks on the doors, Mr. Fuller, issued a dynamite charge of all dyn-o-mite charges, telling them he had a lifetime appointment and he could wait as long as it would take for them to reach a verdict.

So they went home and at least a couple of them started reading news coverage online and e-mailing other members of the jury asking them to reach a guilty verdict so they could all, finally, go home. And afterall, that's what the judge seemed to want.

But, Mr. Franklin continues.

"Any unbiased review of the evidence discovered during this investigation and the manner in which the investigation was conducted will reveal the incredible commitment to the public interest and dedication to duty of the federal and state agents working under 'my' supervision. I am proud of them and the work they did. The taxpayers should be as well."

Well, I know of a whole bunch of taxpayers who are beginning to ask serious questions, along with the Congress of the United States, and the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

And that does include a few out of state columnists and bloggers, some of whom happen to be much better lawyers than Mr. Franklin ever will be...

Scott Horton: Javert’s Wailings Grow Louder in Alabama