« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Siegelman Won't Pay Restitution On Acquitted Charge
Former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) won't have to pay $118,000 in restitution on charges of which he was acquitted, the judge overseeing his case decided.
Originally, Siegelman had been ordered to pay the money to reimburse the state for losses based on a warehouse scandal. A jury acquitted Siegelman of charges relating to that scandal, but the prosecution pressed for punishment during the sentencing portion of the trial. The judge changed his mind yesterday, siding with Siegelman's lawyers.
The prosecution's decision to push for a harsher sentence based on the warehouse scandal and a variety of other charges of which Siegelman was acquitted sparked outrage from the defense lawyers. Siegelman's supporters pointed to the decision as more evidence of a political vendetta behind the initial investigation.
Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) has sent a letter to the head of the House Judiciary Committee asking that the case be looked into as part of the broader investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department.
Comments (6)
Rebel wrote on July 10, 2007 2:40 PM:Trust me. The judges flip flop was a result of the possible future congressional investigation Davis requested. The judge to trying, after the fact, to appear judicial and non political. The problem in he already failed that test.
anon wrote on July 10, 2007 3:39 PM:...The judge to trying, after the fact, to appear judicial and non political...
Yup, that's also what's going on in the Worely case.
As Scott Horton has pointed out, the judge in the Siegelman case is part owner of a firm that received some huge FBI-related security contracts _during_ the course of the trial and just didn't come clean about it. It's unclear to me exactly how much of a conflict of interest is involved but it certainly _looks_ like a conflict of interest and should have been more than enough reason for the the judge to recuse himself from the Siegelman case. You can bet the judge isn't going to be happy to have congress poking around his bank account, regardless.
alabama wrote on July 10, 2007 7:48 PM:Poor poor Judge Fuller maybe it has dawned on him that he is about to be investigated. His feeble attempts to appear unbias show his fear for the congressional hearings that will show him to be the republican troll judge that he is. Fuller has much to lose if he is exposed and could find himself in the very shackles that he had siegelman and scrushy hauled off in. How do you ask? Fuller signed judicial finicial disclosure forms these forms at the bottom of the page say that they are subject to penalties of perjury. It appears Fuller may have forgotten to list a couple of things on these forms one such thing was a company called Aureus International. Seems Fuller owns a large interest in this company and just forgot to list it on his judicial disclosure form how convient since it is this company that markets itself as doing business with the fbi. Now ya'll tell me how you would like being tried by a judge that owned a large interest in a company doing business with the fbi. Can ya'll believe this federal judge just forgot to list this company on his judicial disclosure form. I believe there will come a day when we see Mr Fuller Shackled just like he did to Mr Siegelman and Mr Scrushy. What is that old bible saying Judge not lest you be judged.
alabama wrote on July 10, 2007 7:49 PM:Poor poor Judge Fuller maybe it has dawned on him that he is about to be investigated. His feeble attempts to appear unbias show his fear for the congressional hearings that will show him to be the republican troll judge that he is. Fuller has much to lose if he is exposed and could find himself in the very shackles that he had siegelman and scrushy hauled off in. How do you ask? Fuller signed judicial finicial disclosure forms these forms at the bottom of the page say that they are subject to penalties of perjury. It appears Fuller may have forgotten to list a couple of things on these forms one such thing was a company called Aureus International. Seems Fuller owns a large interest in this company and just forgot to list it on his judicial disclosure form how convient since it is this company that markets itself as doing business with the fbi. Now ya'll tell me how you would like being tried by a judge that owned a large interest in a company doing business with the fbi. Can ya'll believe this federal judge just forgot to list this company on his judicial disclosure form. I believe there will come a day when we see Mr Fuller Shackled just like he did to Mr Siegelman and Mr Scrushy. What is that old bible saying Judge not lest you be judged.
Roberta wrote on July 10, 2007 11:27 PM:Any idea how to find the first ruling by the judge? I'd like to compare the documents and know what was fine then but is in error now.
I am so glad Congress has taken this up. I hope that if there are other cases of this kind--or even a reasonable suspicion that charges filed against someone in office benefited an opponent in an election--people will make the connection. If it happened once, it's likely it's happened other times. Savvy malefactors seldom get caught until they get cocky about success.
Even if there isn't the direct hand of Karl Rove to point at, it could be that Bill Canary's GOP counterparts received some indirect advice about how to go about discrediting a strong, incumbent opponent.
Defense attorneys--does this ring a bell with one of your clients? If so, get in touch with your congressman!
anon wrote on July 11, 2007 2:47 AM:Roberta, I haven't found the new Worely papers on-line. The AL state web presence is wobbly at best. I haven't found anything Worely in the AL AG site and only a few mentions in the official state law sites. Perhaps someone in AL knows where to find them? Dunno.
I hope this isn't a repeat. The new design is lovely but the comments have the hiccups.
Talk about piling on, the judge in the Worely case (the AL Dem ex-Secretary of State accused of sending a fairly pedestrian direct mail solicitation to members of her staff) also has second, or third, thoughts about the credibility of prosecutors, the nature of the crime, and so on.
The Worely case is OT but it's the most significant development in the Siegleman case even though it's not--theoretically--about Siegelman at all. Based on comparing Worely's case against the charges, if not the evidence, it looks like Worely deserves, oh, say $500 in fines for mailing--at most--and not felony charges. Did Rove do it? Dunno. Is Worely guilty of some other charge? Not really relevant. Is Worely's case unusual? Yes. Does Worely contest the facts of the case? Not so much.
Anyway, it's interesting and it's Siegelman-related. The Newhouse wire articles and most of the Newhouse coverage in general is all prosecutor all the time. However, no one else is covering the story. Yesterday's Newhouse Worely article:
...A judge hinted strongly Monday that he might throw out five felony charges accusing former Secretary of State Nancy Worley of violating state election laws.
Worley, 55, was scheduled to go on trial, but it was postponed until Wednesday or Thursday while Montgomery County Circuit Judge Truman M. Hobbs Jr. presides over a capital murder case....