U.S. v. Siegelman
| Decision Date | 13 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:05-CR-119-MEF.,2:05-CR-119-MEF. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Don Eugene SIEGELMAN and Richard M. Scrushy |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
James B. Perrine, Louis V. Franklin, Sr., Stephen P. Feaga, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jennifer M. Garrett, Joseph L. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, Richard C. Pilger, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America.
This cause is before the Court on matters relating to Defendants Don Eugene Siegelman's and Richard M. Scrushy's Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. # 467). On September 29, 2006, Defendants Don Eugene Siegelman ("Siegelman") and Richard M. Scrushy ("Scrushy")1 jointly filed this motion. In their joint motion, Defendants argued that their Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury had been denied based on a variety of arguments relating to the conduct of the jurors during the lengthy and high-profile trial.2 Consequently, they jointly sought a new trial based on the exhibits and argument then submitted to the Court. In the alternative, they sought further information about possible juror misconduct or improper extraneous influence on juror deliberations and a future opportunity to argue that the additional information provided further support for their contention that a new trial was warranted. The Government opposed all of the relief Defendants sought on a variety of grounds. By prior Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court denied the joint motion to the extent that it sought a new trial solely on the basis of exhibits and arguments initially submitted. Additionally, this Court denied the various mechanisms proposed by Defendants' joint motion for gathering additional factual evidence relating to possible juror misconduct or exposure to extrinsic evidence. Instead, following the relevant precedents from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court itself conducted two evidentiary hearings and allowed limited supplemental argument on the issue of whether a new trial was required in light of the evidence revealed at those hearings. Not surprisingly, the parties maintain their original positions on the appropriateness of a new trial. After careful consideration, it is the conclusion of this Court that the sole remaining requested relief in the Defendants' joint motion, the grant of a new trial, is due to be DENIED.
On May 17, 2005, a federal grand jury handed down an indictment against Siegelman and Scrushy. Initially, the indictment was sealed. In October of 2005, a Superseding Indictment was handed down by the grand jury which added additional defendants and charges to the case. In December of 2005, the grand jury handed down the Second Superseding Indictment. It is this indictment which presented the actual charges against the four defendants who proceeded to trial.
From the moment that the indictment was unsealed, the case drew significant media attention. The indictment included allegations of public corruption. Additionally, Siegelman, a former Governor of Alabama, was seeking his political party's nomination to run for Governor again and remained a candidate for that office when the trial started.3 Scrushy is a prominent Alabama businessman. In 2005, Scrushy had been tried and acquitted of federal criminal charges in another case filed in the United States District Court for the Northern Division of Alabama, relating to certain events while he was the Chief Executive Officer of HealthSouth, a large health care corporation.
Because of the intense public interest in this case and the large volume of requests made to the Clerk's office for a copy of the Second Superseding Indictment, the Court posted a link to a copy of the Second Superseding Indictment on the home page of the website maintained by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The link was posted before trial began, and it remained active until sometime after the jury had reached its verdict. The posting of this link was consistent with this Court's prior practice in other cases of posting links to court filings which generate significant public interest. The link enabled anyone accessing the website to view or print a copy of the Second Superseding Indictment.
The indictment4 named Siegelman as a defendant and alleged that during relevant periods of time, he held various public offices in the executive branch of the government of the State of Alabama.
[F]rom on or "about January 16, 1995, to on or about January 18, 1999, [Siegelman was] the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alabama, and while Lieutenant Governor was also, from on or about March 31, 1996, to on or about November 3, 1998, a candidate for Governor of the State of Alabama, and was, from on or about January 18, 1999, to on or about January 20, 2003, the Governor of the State of Alabama.
(Second Superseding Indictment at ¶ 1.c).
The indictment also named as defendants Paul Michael Hamrick ("Hamrick"), Gary Mack Roberts ("Roberts"), and Scrushy. During the relevant time periods, Hamrick was employed in the Lieutenant Governor's Office of the State of Alabama and later as Chief of Staff to the Governor. Siegelman appointed Roberts to serve as the Director of the Alabama Department of. Transportation.5 Scrushy was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HealthSouth Corporation, an entity which was regulated by the State of Alabama Certificate of Need Review Board ("CON Board").
Count One of the indictment alleged that Siegelman and Hamrick engaged in a RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).6 With respect to the "enterprise" requirement of the RICO statutes, the indictment alleged that the "enterprise" is the "Executive Department of the State of Alabama . . . whose members functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise." The alleged broad purpose of the racketeering conspiracy alleged in Count One was "to give or withhold official governmental acts and influence . . . in exchange for money and property to which the participants in the conspiracy were not entitled," and "to deprive the State of Alabama of its right to the honest services of its public officials and employees in exchange for money and property" and "to conceal and otherwise protect the conspiracy and its participants from detection and prosecution." (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶ 5).
Count Two of the indictment alleged a substantive RICO count charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) which provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
Count Two of the indictment alleged that Defendants Siegelman and Hamrick "unlawfully and knowingly conducted and participated . . . in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity" as further set out in the indictment. Count Two set forth a number of separate racketeering acts.
Counts Three and Four of the indictment, in which both Siegelman and Scrushy were originally named, charged them with federal funds bribery and aiding and abetting each other "in connection with the appointment of Richard Scrushy to the CON Board," all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 666(a)(1)(B). (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶¶ 49-51).
Count Five, in which Siegelman and Scrushy were named, charged them with conspiracy to "defraud and deprive the State of Alabama of its right to the honest and faithful services" of Siegelman as Governor and Scrushy as a member of the CON board, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶¶ 52-66).
Counts Six through Nine, in which Siegelman and Scrushy were named, charged them with aiding and abetting each other to commit honest services mail fraud as part of their scheme to defraud and deprive the State of Alabama of its right to honest services of Siegelman and Scrushy in connection with the CON board, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341, & 1346. (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶¶ 57-60).
Counts Ten through Twelve, in which Siegelman and Hamrick were named, charged them with aiding and abetting each other to commit honest services mail fraud as part of their scheme to defraud and deprive the State of Alabama of its right to honest services from themselves as public officials in connection with governmental regulation of specified activities, allocation of bond funding and construction contracting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341, & 1346. (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶¶ 61-63).
Counts Thirteen and Fourteen, in which Siegelman and Hamrick were named, charged them with aiding and abetting each other to commit honest services mail fraud concerning performance bonds on a construction contract as part of their scheme to defraud and deprive the State of Alabama of its right to honest services from themselves as public officials, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343, & 1346. (Second Superseding Indict. at ¶¶ 64-65).
Count Fifteen, in which Hamrick was charged, and Counts Sixteen and Seventeen, in which Siegelman was named, charged them with obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(3) & 2. (Indict. at ¶¶ 64-68).
Counts Eighteen through Thirty-Three, in which Siegelman and Roberts were named, charged, them with aiding and abetting each other to commit honest services mail fraud as part of their scheme to defraud and deprive the State of Alabama of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Dunn
...the portions of the affidavits dealing with forbidden testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)."49 United States v. Siegelman, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1272 (M.D. Ala. 2006). Relevant here, the Rule 32 court noted that Alabama courts have found that jurors relied on extraneous informati......
-
Young v. State
...(2020) (noting that juror testimony is permitted regarding extraneous prejudicial information). But see United States v. Siegelman , 467 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1279 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (expressing doubt that juror testimony regarding alleged premature deliberations is admissible). The alternate juror......
-
Gavin v. Dunn
...issue was nothing more than prohibited juror testimony about the debate and deliberations of the jury. See United States v. Siegelman, 467 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1279 (M.D. Ala. 2006). Furthermore, Mr. Gavin has made no showing that the jurors' premature deliberations and vote on a potential sente......
-
Zahl v. Eastland
...an executed copy of the retainer, but the parties do not dispute that the agreement was executed by both.3 See United States v. Siegelman, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (M.D. Ala. 2006).4 The record is mostly silent on the circumstances surrounding Conroy's retention. In answers to interrogatories, ......