SCOTT HORTON: Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Siegelman Case

[L. Coyote]

New Allegations of Prosecutorial Misconduct in the Siegelman Case
July 24 - Scott Horton - http://harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003311


When Attorney General Michael Mukasey appeared as a nominee before the Senate Judiciary Committee, senators led by New York’s Chuck Schumer expressed their concern about the highly suspect prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. The questions have continued through almost every appearance that Mukasey has made before both the House and the Senate. Mukasey has persistently refused to provide answers. First, he suggested that the case is something that he can only look into later, after an appeal is completed. But later, as allegations heated up, Mukasey used a standard dodge in his public statements—advising that an internal investigation is underway and that he will share the results with Congress before he leaves office.

Recent developments, however, cast strong doubt on the bona fides of the purported internal investigation. During yesterday’s hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Artur Davis asked Mukasey to explain why prosecutors handling the case—already the target of numerous credible charges of misconduct–engaged in improper ex parte dealings with the trial judge, Mark Everett Fuller, and conducted a separate investigation into a juror in violation of an unequivocal trial order. As usual, he didn’t get much of an answer.

Following the Siegelman trial, serious allegations of jury tampering arose when envelopes surfaced containing what purported to be email communications concerning the trial between jury members. I summarized the allegations and Judge Fuller’s reaction to them here (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000714). If the evidence was genuine, it would have been explosive–it would have established impermissible jury tampering, and would have required setting aside the conviction and conducting a new trial. Defense counsel asked that the court issue subpoenas to Internet service providers to ascertain whether the emails were genuine and to learn the identities of those behind them. These efforts to get to the bottom of the matter were opposed by the prosecutors, who insisted that there was nothing that warranted an investigation, and the judge refused the defense motion. Instead the judge asked the jurors a series of highly conclusory statements that hardly seem designed to get to the bottom of the matter, then put the case over for almost one year for sentencing (a period that coincides with the retention period of many Internet service providers). In the course of jury selection, defense counsel sought and obtained an explicit instruction from the judge forbidding the prosecutors from conducting any independent investigation (outside the supervision of the court and the knowledge of the defendants) into any of the jurors. Here is the passage from the transcript:

..............

[annabanana]

1. stinky srinky business. . . . kick. . .n/t

[struggle4progress]

2. Great article: well worth the read

:kick:

[L. Coyote]

3. Horton is back.

For a while he was blogging less, and I was paying less attention to his site, No Comment. No Comment deserves a frequent check-in!

[Senator]

4. K&R&Impeach Now

[malaise]

5. This should be on the news every day n/t

[L. Coyote]

6. washingtonindependent.com: Rove's Answers Don't Satisfy Lawmakers

Rove's Answers Don't Satisfy Lawmakers
Despite Written Statements, Former White House Aide Still Wanted for Testimony on Alabama Gov's Case
Matthew Blake 07/28/2008 - http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/roves-answers-dont

....

A House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday revealed that Rove provided Lamar Smith, (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the committee, written responses to questions about the high-profile Siegelman prosecution. .....

Sarah-Kate Sullivan, spokeswoman for Rep. Arthur Davis (D-Al.), who has played a leading role in Congress's investigation of the Siegelman prosecution. "We need live, personal testimony."

Sullivan added that the judiciary committee expects Rove to testify this Wednesday. John Conyers, (D-Mi.), the committee chairman, has vowed that the committee may otherwise vote to hold Rove in contempt of Congress.

Rove has said he doesn't have to testify because Bush has granted him executive privilege. But executive privilege is usually asserted to protect candid policy discussion between the president and his closest advisers -- not political advice.

The committee Democrats assert that Rove wouldn't be answering questions about presidential policy deliberations. He would be testifying on whether he had discussions about the Siegelman case with the Justice Dept. and Alabama GOP officials. Conyers disparaged Rove's unique executive privilege claim at the hearing Wednesday, saying that the White House, "has an unprecedented concept of granting total immunity for Karl Rove."

.................

[Wilms]

7. K&R n/t

[L. Coyote]

8. VIDEO: Young Turks: Siegelman and Cenk Discuss Rove's Witch Hunt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x163229

Cenk raises the question of "Do all Republicans have a taint...."

I wrote, "They are obstructing justice!"