Scrushelman Moves Closer To New Trial

This is the entire report:

Federal judge Mark Fuller ruled today there is enough evidence to warrant further inquiry into alleged juror misconduct in the bribery and corruption trial of HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy and former Gov. Don Siegelman.

Fuller will hold a hearing at 8:30 a.m. Nov. 17 in his Montgomery courtroom to investigate the matter. He has ordered Scrushy, Siegelman and their attorneys to attend.

At issue is testimony from a jury member who said other jurors may have used information obtained from the Internet as part of their deliberations. Such use of information is prohibited, and Scrushy and Siegelman have asked for a new trial.

Fuller wrote due to the testimony and affidavit of juror Charlie Stanford “the court finds that Siegelman and Scrushy have made colorable showing of extrinsic influence on the jury sufficient to warrant a further inquiry by the Court into certain aspects of the jury’s conduct during the trial.”

Scrushy and Siegelman were convicted in June on charges stemming from a bribery case.

My previous comments on this case and this particular issue are here.  

What today’s ruling means is: 

1) I’m guessing that because the issue is moving forward the judge has decided either that no-one acted improperly in interviewing Mr. Stanford, or else, if anyone did, he is not going to penalize the defendants for it.

2) This is not just desperation; there is a real issue here. The defense may not ultimately win, but this is more than, as the Government put it, “desperate pleadings filed by desperate men with unlimited resources trying to avoid the consequences of their criminal activity.”

3) We get to find out exactly what was brought into the deliberations, who did it, who considered it, and what role it played.

If there was outside information, and if it was material, then Scrushelman is going to get a new trial.

Explore posts in the same categories: Corrupt Politicians, Trials

2 Comments on “Scrushelman Moves Closer To New Trial”

  1. Willie Says:

    From chilly France, where paying for what you get is very much in evidence here. Makes our little state look sad.

    I have known Siegleman for many years. I never thought him a bad person, quite smart, but in later years when you talked to him you got the feeling he was not listening. I think his biggest fault was being in Montgomery too long.

    When I read an article about the jury foreman after the trial, I just got the feeling that there were issues in the verdict that just did not pass the smell test. Several people on the jury apparently had agenda’s that had nothing to do with the evidence. I still think that if we convict these two guys on the buying influence charge, we need to revisit every politically appointed ambassador over the last 100 years in the US.

  2. […] The judge held a hearing Friday on Scrushy and Seigelman’s claims of juror misonduct. Their basic argument is that the juror’s brought outside material into the deliberations. You can get my previous comments here. Based on what was in the news reports about Friday’s hearing, I don’t think the argument will win them a new trial. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: