MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Prosecutors have asked a federal court in Montgomery to turn down defense requests for a new trial for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.The federal prosecutors made the motion in a nearly 60-page filing late Thursday. The filing denies claims by defense attorneys that the testimony of the government’s key witness, former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey, was coached and scripted.
The filing signed by chief prosecutor Louis Franklin also denies claims that Siegelman was selectively prosecuted because he is a Democrat. Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted in 2006 of bribery and other charges in a government corruption case. Prosecutors charged that Siegelman appointed Scrushy to a key hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman’s 1999 campaign for a statewide lottery.
In the motion for a new trial, Siegelman’s attorneys argued that the former governor was the victim of selective prosecution. They said other politicians, including Republican Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, had received campaign donations from supporters who were later appointed to state positions.
In the motion for a new trial, Siegelman’s attorneys argued that the former governor was the victim of selective prosecution. They said other politicians, including Republican Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, had received campaign donations from supporters who were later appointed to state positions.
Their motion also said that lobbyist and landfill developer Lanny Young, who testified that he had done favors for Siegelman, had also done favors for other Alabama politicians, including Republican U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions and former Attorney General Bill Pryor, a Republican who is now a federal judge.
Prosecutors said in their reply that there was no proof that a crime had been committed in those cases.
Concerning donors to Riley’s campaign who were later appointed to public offices, prosecutors said: “Those instances are distinct ... because they, unlike the record evidence here, are void of any evidence of actual bribery and/or mail fraud in connection with an ostensible campaign contribution.“
There is something to this case, if the prosecutors don't want a new trial something could be revealed in this case. The prosecutors are really hiding information I believe. I wish and hope that this will be brought to an end very soon.
