Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is headed back to prison after a lengthy legal odyssey. “I never expected to be in this kind of place. I never expected my career in public service to end in a federal courtroom,” Siegelman said to reporters outside of the courthouse after being sentenced to 6 ½ years in federal prison. Siegelman, who is a Rhodes Scholar and the only man in Alabama history to serve as secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, had been free on appeal since 2008 as his case wound its way through the federal courts. Siegelman’s legal problems began in 2004 with an indictment in federal court alleging bribery, fraud and obstruction of justice arising out of health care fraud.
Prosecutors from George Bush’s Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, motioned for the trial judge on that matter to be replaced because of an alleged “anti-prosecutorial bias.” The target of this claim was Chief US District Judge U.W. Clemon, a Carter appointee who joined the federal bench in 1980. Judge Clemon issued several pre-trial rulings that were favorable for the defense and was thus deemed to be “unfit” by the prosecution. The charges were ultimately dismissed by prosecutors after only one day of trial.
USDJ U.W. Clemon’s removal was sought by prosecutors
The government came again at Siegelman in 2005 with new charges including bribery and mail fraud. The government alleged that he had traded political favors for campaign contributions with his codefendant Richard Scrushy, the former CEO of HealthSouth. By this time questions surrounding Siegelman’s prosecution had attracted national publicity. Siegelman alleged that he was the victim of a dirty tricks campaign engineered from inside the Bush White House by Karl Rove. Some theorized that Siegelman’s 2002 unsuccessful bid for reelection was the result of election fraud orchestrated by Rove and others. In that contest Siegelman was actually declared the winner by the Associated Press and went to bed on the evening of the election believing he had been reelected. The next morning it was reported that a voting machine malfunction had erroneously given Siegelman the winning votes and a recount was ordered. As a result of the recount the election was awarded to Siegelman’s opponent, Bob Riley. There was a great deal of controversy regarding how the recount was conducted, but the result stood against repeated legal challenges.
Siegelman strongly believed something was wrong with the way the election was handed to his opponent and was not afraid to speak about it openly. He also came to believe that his prosecution was part of a wider dirty tricks campaign. Others soon began to come forward with information confirming Siegelman’s suspicions. “I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done,” said Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general for the state of Arizona. “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of,” Woods explained. Woods is one of 52 former state attorneys general, from both parties, who have asked Congress to investigate the Siegelman case.
Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods believes Siegelman was unfairly targeted
Republican operative Dana Jill Simpson came forward to describe in a 2007 affidavit specifics of how Siegelman was targeted. Simpson claims to have been on a conference call between senior aides to Bob Riley and William Canary, a Republican strategist. According to Simpson’s affidavit, Canary said, “Don’t worry about Don Siegelman” because “’his girls’ would take care of Siegelman.” Canary then clarified that “his girls” was a reference to his wife, Laura Canary, the US attorney for the Middle District of Alabama and Alice Martin, the US attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
Dana Jill Simpson’s sworn affidavit details the plot against Siegelman
According to Simpson’s affidavit, Canary reassured others on the conference call that he had the help of a powerful friend in Washington. Canary advised “not to worry” and further claimed that he had already gotten it worked out with “Karl” and that Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice. Canary then said, “The Department of Justice is already pursuing Don Siegelman.” William Canary later called these allegations “outrageous” and “the desperate acts of a desperate politician.” Siegelman was subsequently indicted in both the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama.
William Canary promised Siegelman would be pursued by the DOJ
These charges culminated with a 2006 trial alleging a RICO conspiracy. A jury found both Siegelman and Scrushy guilty on seven of the 33 counts in the indictment. Siegelman was convicted on one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was acquitted on the remaining 25 counts including the RICO conspiracy. Judge Mark Fuller sentenced Siegelman to 88 months in federal prison. A timely appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals followed.
Did HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy make a legitimate donation, or was it a bribe?
Siegelman reported to federal prison and remained there for nine months. In March of 2008, the Eleventh Circuit granted his bail application and ordered him released while his appeal was pending. In March of 2009, the appellate court upheld Siegelman’s bribery, conspiracy and obstruction counts. They also refused his request for a new trial. The court did, however, strike down the honest services mail fraud counts and ordered a new sentencing hearing. Siegelman remained free while his attorneys prepared an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
During this period Siegelman was outspoken in his criticism of Judge Fuller and the prosecutors on his case. He pulled no punches when describing the circumstances that lead to his conviction. His high profile criticism was certain to anger legal opponents who patiently waited for the opportunity strike back.
Finally having exhausted all of his appeals, Siegelman found himself back in Judge Fuller’s courtroom on August 3, 2012 for sentencing. Numerous character witnesses gave testimony on the former governor’s behalf. The widow of a civil rights icon and former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods both told Judge Fuller that nothing would be served by sending Siegelman back to prison. “He’s put himself on the line for people again and again. I don’t see the value in him wasting away in a jail cell somewhere,” said Sephira Shuttlesworth, the widow of Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
Grant Woods asked the court for mercy and likened the case to how big political contributors wind up with ambassadorships. “There’s a nudge, nudge, wink, wink with all of the major ambassadorships. But I don’t see anyone prosecuting the president, particularly from the Department of Justice,” Woods told the court. “The idea that he would consciously abuse the public trust is something I don’t believe. It would be way out of character,” Woods said. He went on to praise Siegelman and said he would never purposely violate the law. Woods also said that it would serve no good purpose for Siegelman to be back in jail and that the public would be better off if he served community service.
Prosecutor Louis Franklin was unmoved by pleas of leniency and asked Judge Fuller to sentence Siegelman to more than the 88 months originally imposed. Franklin claimed an increased sentence was warranted because of Siegelman’s “lack of remorse.” He went on to tell the judge that Siegelman was “blaming everybody other than himself for what he did,” including US Attorney Laura Canary and former White house Chief of Staff Karl Rove.
Laura Canary and Alice Martin were “Canary’s girls”
It appeared early in the sentencing hearing as if Judge Fuller was sympathetic to the prosecution’s position. Judge Fuller initially agreed to at least consider the prosecution’s request that Siegelman receive a sentence longer than 88 months. Judge Fuller noted that he could add another eight years to Siegelman’s sentence and still be within the federal sentencing guidelines. He finally told prosecutors that despite their recommendation, the sentence would be no longer than the original term of 88 months.
Siegelman’s lawyer, Susan James, pleaded with the court to consider his age (66) and noted that sentencing Siegelman again after all of this time was “cruel and unusual.” Siegelman addressed the court after his character witnesses had spoken and expressed contrition. “I apologize to people for the embarrassment my actions have caused,” Siegelman said. He added that he “deeply regrets” things he has done.
Attorney Susan James argued against sending Siegelman back to prison
Siegelman also told Fuller he hoped the judge would one day believe that Siegelman did not know he had crossed the line between soliciting campaign contributions and committing a crime. “I had no criminal intent,” he explained. Siegelman argued for leniency by saying, “I’m a felon who has been in prison, a felon who lost his reputation, lost my law license. I speak today to plead for your mercy.” His voice broke as he recounted all he had lost.
Judge Fuller, however, was mostly unmoved by Siegelman’s plea for mercy. The judge sentenced him to 78 months in federal prison, a very significant term but still 10 months less than the original sentence imposed. Judge Fuller acknowledged that the case had been hard on everyone, including Siegelman’s family. He made note of the good things Siegelman had accomplished in his years of public service, but said they did not justify the crimes for which he was convicted.
Despite pleas for leniency, Judge Mark Fuller sentenced Siegelman to 78 months in federal prison
AUSA Franklin seemed pleased with the result despite failing to convince the judge to sentence Siegelman to more than the original 88 months. Franklin said the case has “energized my faith in our legal system and renewed my commitment to prosecute politicians who commit bribery, honest services mail fraud, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.”
Interestingly, a case that was conceived by George Bush’s Department of Justice was pursued with equal vigor by Barak Obama’s federal prosecutors. “The outcome of this case reflects the unflagging commitment of the Department of Justice to hold public officials accountable for corruption,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said in a statement emailed to reporters on Friday. “The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section is determined to continue to vigorously pursue bribery cases involving federal, state and local officials.” The outcome of Don Siegelman’s long odyssey through the federal courts demonstrates that very little has changed in the DOJ despite the change in administrations. The relentless zeal and unbridled ambition of federal prosecutors remains unabated.