folo

This is the second of several posts on Don Siegelman’s motion for release pending appeal. He was convicted on charges of bribery and obstruction of justice. The first post dealt with a legal argument about whether the government should have been required to show an explicit quid pro quo to establish bribery. That is, Seigelman is arguing that the government should have been required to prove that there was a straight-up deal of cash for a government benefit.

This post is about the facts the government proved on Siegelman’s bribery conviction. These facts are a major issue that is argued back-and-forth between Siegelman and the government on his motion for release.

In an appeal from a jury verdict, the appeals court has to look at the facts from the winner’s perspective. If there are facts that support the jury verdict, an appeals court will not set it aside absent trial error. So I’m going to discuss the facts from the government perspective, largely from their response to the Siegelman brief. I am using the Siegelman brief as a “check” on whether these facts are in the record. I will note at the start of paragraphs when the facts come from Siegelman’s brief; otherwise they come from the government brief. This is an interesting exercise to me because it examines just what the government proved at trial.

To understand the nuts-and-bolts of the facts about the bribery charge, you need to know a cast of characters. I’ve already introduced Don Siegelman, former Alabama governor. He was convicted of being bribed by Richard Scrushy, who had a company in Birmingham called HealthSouth (which itself is another long story…). Either Scrushy or an executive of HealthSouth had for years prior to Siegelman’s becoming governor served on a state board regulating hospitals, the CON board.

Scrushy used as a lobbyist an old friend, Eric Hanson, who was also a defendant in the bribery trial.

Siegelman and Scrushy each had subordinates who became government witnesses. One, Nick Bailey, was Siegelman’s confidential assistant and executive secretary. Another, Mike Martin, was the Chief Financial Officer of HealthSouth.

Siegelman’s brief notes that, while Bailey was Siegelman’s aide, he ran an extortion scheme out of the governor’s office, extorting several hundred thousand dollars from Alabama businessmen, and used the money to cover his losses in the cattle futures market. He admitted that the governor had no knowledge of this. Bailey got a light sentence in exchange for testifying against Siegelman in the case I am writing about.

As noted in a prior post, Scrushy had previously made most of his political donations to Republicans, including $350,000 to Siegelman’s election opponent.

Siegelman’s brief states that Scrushy had served on the hospital board during the terms of three prior governors. One of Siegelman’s witnesses testified that when he came into office, Siegelman wanted Scrushy to go back onto that board. Siegelman also wanted Scrushy to contribute to the fund for the state lottery campaign.

This brings us to the facts that the government argued constituted bribery. Siegelman’s former assistant, the government witness Bailey, testified that he overheard a conversation between Seigelman and Eric Hanson, the outside lobbyist for Scrushy, in which Siegelman mentioned the money Scrushy had given to Siegelman’s opponent and said that it “would take $500,000 [for Scrushy] to get right with " Siegelman.

Bailey also testified that Scrushy had one or two meetings with Siegelman. After one, Bailey said he saw Siegelman holding a check for $250,00 and saying “He’s half way there.” Bailey says he asked, “What in the world is he going to want for that,” and Siegelman said, “the CON Board.” Bailey then said, “That won’t be a problem, will it?” Siegelman said, “I don’t think so.” Scrushy was later appointed to the hospital board.

Siegelman’s brief quotes the actual testimony from Bailey from the transcript:

Q. Okay. Now, when the Governor showed you that check, what, if anything, did he say to you?

A. He made a comment referring to Mr. Scrushy’s commitment to give 500,000 and he’s halfway there.

"

Q. What did you say when you showed him the check and he said, he’s halfway there?

A I responded by, what in the world is he going to want for that? And the Governor said the C-O-N Board or the CON Board. And I said, I wouldn’t think there would be a problem with it, and he said, I wouldn’t think so.

Q. You said he said at the outset of that conversation, he’s halfway there. Do you know what he’s talking about when he said this $250,000 was halfway there?

A. He was referring to the $500,000 commitment that Mr. Scrushy had made to our lottery campaign.

A chief financial officer of Scrushy’s corporation, HealthSouth, testified about Scrushy’s end, saying that getting the checks was time-sensitive, that Scrushy did not want his fingerprints on them, and that the lobbyist Hanson and Scrushy both had said that the money got Scrushy a seat on the CON board.

The next post will deal with the obstruction of justice charge against Siegelman.