Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Siegelman Hinkle Ruling

Siegelman Hinkle Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,958|Likes:
Published by Roger Shuler
Ruling on recusal in the Don Siegelman case.
Ruling on recusal in the Don Siegelman case.

More info:

Published by: Roger Shuler on Jul 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/13/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Page 1 of 40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEMIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMANORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.CASE NO. 2:05cr119-RHDON EUGENE SIEGELMAN andRICHARD M. SCRUSHY,Defendants.___________________________________/ 
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECUSE
A jury convicted the defendants on multiple counts. The district judgesentenced them. The defendants appealed. The Eleventh Circuit upheld theconvictions in substantial part, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, and theEleventh Circuit again upheld the convictions in substantial part. The case is back in the district court for resentencing. Also pending in the district court are motionsfor a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and motions to recuse thedistrict judge who presided over the trial and imposed the original sentences. Themotions to recuse attack the judge’s receipt of extrinsic information about emailspurportedly exchanged by some of the jurors. As allowed by the law of the circuit,the district judge determined that the motions to recuse should be decided by a
Case 2:05-cr-00119-MEF -CSC Document 1024 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 40
 
Page 2 of 40
different district judge. The acting chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit appointedme. I now deny the motions to recuse.IOn June 29, 2006—after nearly six weeks of trial and nine days of deliberations—the jury returned a verdict convicting the defendants Don EugeneSiegelman and Richard M. Scrushy of bribery, multiple counts of honest-servicesmail fraud, and conspiracy. The jury also convicted Mr. Siegelman of obstructing justice. The jury acquitted Mr. Siegelman on other counts and acquitted two otherdefendants on all charges.The court extended the deadline for new-trial motions to September 29,2006. ECF No. 443. Shortly before that deadline, someone anonymously mailedto the defendants’ attorneys and to Mr. Scrushy himself copies of purported emailsamong three jurors.
See
ECF No. 467 at 8. The emails, on their face, seemed morelikely amateurish fakes than authentic. Thus, for example, one purported to be ascreen shot from an email page with a link allowing the receiving party to “ReportAs Seem” rather than to “Report as Spam.” ECF No. 467-14 at 2. But if authentic,the emails indicated that two jurors communicated with one another and perhapswith other jurors about the merits before the trial was completed, that two jurorscommunicated with one another by email over a weekend after deliberations werein progress, and that one juror considered the possible penalties in the case too
Case No: 2:05cr119
Case 2:05-cr-00119-MEF -CSC Document 1024 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 40
 
Page 3 of 40
severe, thus suggesting the juror knew the possible penalties—information thatcould only have come from a source other than the evidence presented at trial.
See
ECF Nos. 467-12, 467-13, 467-14 & 467-15.On September 29, 2006, the defendants moved for a new trial. ECF No.467. One ground was juror misconduct: that some of the jurors deliberatedprematurely and without all the jurors participating, as purportedly shown by theemails, and improperly considered extrinsic information, as shown by the emailsand other sources, including media accounts of post-verdict interviews with jurors.The defendants asked for leave to contact the jurors to investigate; they could notdo so without leave because a local rule prohibits the parties and attorneys fromcontacting the jurors after a trial and the court had entered an order in this caseexplicitly confirming the ban.
See
N.D. Ala. Loc. R. 47.1; ECF No. 255 at 3. Thedefendants also asked for entry of an order initiating a broader investigation:requiring all 12 jurors to list their email and text-message providers; allowing thedefendants to subpoena the providers; and requiring two of the jurors to preservetheir computers without deleting any information. ECF No. 467 at 13-15. Mr.Siegelman separately moved for entry of an order requiring the two jurors topreserve all their emails and text messages. ECF No. 469. The defendants laterasked for an order requiring the two jurors to turn over their computers so that aforensic examination could be conducted. ECF Nos. 496, 506.
Case No: 2:05cr119
Case 2:05-cr-00119-MEF -CSC Document 1024 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 40

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->