home

Holder Should Dismiss the Siegelman Indictment

By TChris, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:25:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As a reader commented in response to the question posed in a post last night -- "Will [Attorney General] Holder's first step be his last step?" -- Don Siegelman must be asking the same question.

Siegelman's trial, like Ted Stevens', was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct. If Holder dismissed Stevens' indictment to impress upon federal prosecutors the importance of fair play, shouldn't the dismissal of Siegelman's indictment be the second shot of a doubled-barreled message? Siegelman's lawyer makes that argument in a letter that deserves Holder's attention.

< Obama Responds to North Korea Rocket Launch | Saving The "Non-Banks?" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Holder Should Dismiss the Siegelman Indictment | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i hope, (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    you aren't betting the rent money on that. after all, siegelman is a democrat.

    contrarian (none / 0) (#2)
    by candideinnc on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:02:42 AM EST
    I disagree.  I think the Stevens case should have been retried.  Perhaps Siegelman's case should also be retried, but the "get out of jail free" card is not something meant for all political malefactors.  When the Stevens misdeeds were brought up in the liberal blogs, I was told repeatedly that this wasn't about politics, but about abuse of office.  If that is the case, justice is NOT served by sweeping the crimes under the rug because the man is old.  He wouldn't be hammering rocks in the midday sun.

    Equal justice under the law means that lady justice should be blind to irrelevancies like age, political position and wealth.

    The Siegelman case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bemused on Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 07:38:01 AM EST
      is different in respects beyond party affilliation (although I'm not sure how Holder and Siegelman both being in the same party is viewed as making it less likely Siegelman would get such relief). First, you have the differernt procedural posture.

      Siegelman has already had judgment entered in the district court. Stevens had not. So, the Stevens matter is stll within the jurisdiction of the district court. Siegelma's case is pending on appeal (petition for en banc rehearing) and at this moment, the district court does not have jurisdiction to enter dispositive orders on any grounds.

      Moreover, the issues currently pending on appeal are (from his petition for rehearing):

    1. Whether the word "explicit," in the "explicit promise or undertaking" element of proof in alleged bribery cases involving campaign or issue-advocacy contributions, means what the word means in ordinary usage, i.e., expressly communicated, the opposite of implicit - or whether (as the panel concluded) even an implicit quid pro quo linkage counts as "explicit," so long as there was a particular action that was implicitly to be exchanged for the contribution.

    2. Whether (as the panel concluded) an 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) charge is satisfied by allegations that the defendant was complicit in the creation of a document that was allegedly designed as a "cover up" - or whether a faithful reading of the words of the statute demonstrates that this case is outside the statute.

     So, the misconduct allegations are not even before the appeals court at this time, and the government is not being asked to respond to them in any fashion in this stage of appeal.

      I don't think that as we speak, Holder could move for dismissal on a concession of misconduct because no court currently has jurisdiction to hear such claims. Siegelman's appeal probably needs to run its course and then when the case returns to the district court, either side can make motions.

      The nature of the alleged misconduct is also of a different nature than in the Stevens case. Siegelman's misconduct claims basically allege improper political motivation and improper behind the scenes involvement of a prosecutor with a  conflict of interest who publicly said she was recusing; that involves a lot more subjectivity than a  case of withholding evidence from the defense as in the Stevens case which involves a violation of the rules directly before the court.

    Holder Should Dismiss the Siegelman Indictment | 3 comments (3 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment