A Democratic panel of the federal appeals court ordered him freed on bond in 2008. But the Republican-dominated majority of the appeals court affirmed most of the defendants' convictions, setting up a resentencing for Siegelman before Fuller.
The trial and its aftermath prompted many allegations of government misconduct and pro-prosecution rulings by Fuller, summarized in my HuffPo article this month: "DoJ's Attack On Siegelman's Rights Threatens Election Rights For All. A key allegation raised by the defendants this summer is that prosecutors improperly coerced if not blackmailed their central witness Nick Bailey to suggest that Scrushy's donation was a bribe -- and also failed to provide the defense with required information about Bailey's pretrial coaching sessions.
Also, 91 former state attorneys general this month argued to the Supreme Court that Siegelman's donation request doesn't constitute a crime even if a jury believed all of the Bailey's comments and all other government evidence. Politicians commonly request funds from donors and then appoint them to positions, argued the bipartisan group of former chief law enforcers from more than 40 states.
Analysis
My take on today's developments is Siegelman felt he needed to use his remaining firepower primarily on new targets, omitting any mention of Rove as the moment of decision draws nigh.
For years, Siegelman has blamed Rove for orchestrating his prosecution and that of scores of other Democrats across the country via "loyal Bushies like Canary recruited to run the Bush Justice Department. Siegelman clearly felt he needed to come out swinging hard against the Justice Department itself after Rove claimed memory loss at so many key junctures of his interview with ill-prepared House Judiciary Committee representatives this summer.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
