Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) asked Monday for a new trial based on evidence discovered after his 2006 federal conviction on corruption and bribery charges.
Siegelman followed the lead of his co-defendant in the case, former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, who filed a motion Friday for a new trial. Siegelman attorney Susan G. James wrote in a court filing that the former governor should have a new trial because prosecutors failed to produce Brady material, tampered with witnesses and targeted Siegelman for political reasons. James also said there should be a new trial because Middle District of Alabama U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, the wife of Republican operative Bill Canary, did not recuse herself from the case despite announcing she would.
The government alleged Siegleman had improperly appointed Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy donating $500,000 to a campaign for a state lottery that Siegelman supported. Scrushy is in prison. Siegelman is out on bond as he appeals.
Siegelman and Scrushy have said the prosecution was intended to remove a popular Democratic governor.
Here are the major concerns listed by James in the filing:
ISSUE I. THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE EXCULPATORY AND IMPEACHING INFORMATION IN ITS POSSESSION AS TO KEY WITNESSES AND CORRECT FALSE OR MISLEADING TESTIMONY DURING TRIAL VIOLATED SIEGELMAN’S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE JENCKS ACT.
Issue II: BECAUSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING IMPROPER CONTACTS WITH JURORS, IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT, AND IMPROPER CONDUCT IN PREPARING GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE BRADY MATERIAL, SIEGELMAN WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
Issue III. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF A SECRET INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF JUROR EMAILS, A CRITICAL MATERIAL FACT IN A MOTION THEN PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, VIOLATED SIEGELMAN’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
ISSUE IV: THE FAILURE OF U. S. ATTORNEY LEURA CANARY TO ABIDE BY HER ANNOUNCED RECUSAL DEPRIVED SIEGELMAN OF HIS ENTITLEMENT TO A DISINTERESTED PROSECUTOR.
ISSUE V: SIEGELMAN WAS SELECTIVELY PROSECUTED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES IN VIOLATION OF HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE A CONTRIBUTION TO AN EDUCATION LOTTERY FOUNDATION HE SUPPORTED.