home
Don Siegelman Granted Release Pending Appeal | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Court's order suggests more (none / 0) (#14)
by aquarian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM EST
NYT reports only that the Court found his appeal raised a substantial question.  In fact, the Court's order goes further than that:  it found he has satisfied his "burden of establishing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial of all counts on which imprisonment has been imposed."

In other words, the Court actually found that Siegelman has established a likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal.  Although the Court could go on to deny Siegelman's appeal in the future, it gives a window into the Court's thinking today.

It is also interesting to note that before the Court entered this order, it had asked the district court, not once but TWICE, to explain why the district court did not release Siegelman while his case was on appeal.  I surmise that district court's explanation was not satisfactory to the Court of Appeals.  Justice for Siegelman may yet be served.

This is great news! (none / 0) (#15)
by madamab on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:07:57 AM EST
I've been following this case a bit, and I understand that the prosecution's own evidence proved that Siegelman was innocent. It had something to do with dated documents IIRC.

If an impartial judge hears the case, I have no doubts that Don Siegelman will go free.

[ Parent ]

Understandable misunderstanding of the bail law (none / 0) (#16)
by Peter G on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:10:31 PM EST
Aquarian: Completely understandable, but your comment is based on a misinterpretation of the federal Bail Reform Act standard for granting bail pending appeal.  As interpreted by the courts themselves (and quite logically so) a "substantial question" which is "likely to result in reversal," under this statute (18 USC 3143(b)) means one which will likely result in his release IF the defendant's position on the issue proves correct.  In other words, the error that the defendant points out as a basis for his/her appeal was not "waived" or would not be "harmless error."  The bail ruling is not a prejudgment on the merits of the appeal.  That is not to say it isn't a good sign; it definitely is.  But it does not guarantee or even predict a later win.  

[ Parent ]
Point taken -- not a bail expert (none / 0) (#17)
by aquarian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
Thanks for clarifying Peter (and being nice enough not to say Tsk, Tsk, read the statute!)

Didn't mean to suggest that court was prejudging merits -- courts of appeals frequently grant stays pending appeal based on "likelihood of success on the merits" and turn around and later deny appeal on merits.  Of course, I should have realized that the standard for criminal relief might be different than civil relief.

On the other hand, I take it that Siegelman had to establish some measure of credible support before the court would grant the motion. Based on the Court's ruling, and the failure of the district court to provide a satisfactory explanation, the prosecution has to be pretty concerned.  I am never one to predict where a court of appeals will come out, but there is a definite tone to this order.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter G on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST


[ Parent ]

Don Siegelman Granted Release Pending Appeal | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft