I’m for criminal prosecution of these slime bags but please tell me they are at least going to be disbarred.

Can you imagine the reaction if it was the defense that behaved in this manner?

Holy cow. IANAL, but I’ve been on a few juries, and that’s just drilled into you at every break. And I know lawyers - you’d have to be completely incompetent to allow such communication to (a) go unreported and (b) continue.

I expect Don Siegelman will not see another second in jail; it’s my hope that perhaps Karl ERove can finish his term for him.

Good Morning, Christy!

This absolutely blew my mind. I cannot imagine any federal judge here, let alone our state bar, not blowing an attorney out of the water for something like this. Uh. Mah. Gawd.

It’s impossible to really convey to the non-lawyers reading this how much an ex parte communication — let alone multiple ones — like this are NOT done. EVER. And how huge a deal this would ordinarily be within the DOJ were it to have been disclosed in any other time than the Bush Administration. I cannot begin to exolain how appalling this is on so many levels at once. And when you toss in the utter disregard for the ethical wall from the USAtty?

Gahhhhhhhhh!!!!!

One thing you can say for the GOP: Their respect for the Constitution and the laws of the U.S.–not to mention judicial and legal ethics–is certainly not a burden for them. Being nonexistent, and all.

The question is, what will happen to these unethical worms? And I predict it will be little or nothing outside a flurry of sternly worded letters from the toothless leaders in Congress, which will be smugly ignored by the relevant officials at Justice. I hope they prove me wrong; I don’t think they will because if we’ve learned one thing during the past eight years, IOIYAR. And if we’ve learned two things, it’s that Democrats can barely contain themselves from bending over and shouting “Thank you sir! May I have another!?”

wow, and what we all ready knew was bad enough, this is beyond belief.

Morning Christy.

I remember being told not to hold it against any officer of the court that they weren’t “friendly”, because such communication was forbidden, and not to be insulted if, wearing our Juror badges, we stepped into an elevator and all conversation ceased.

Does this rise to the level of disbarment?

And there you have it - the American justice system as the tool of a political party. I’m surprised the prosecutors in the Siegelman case didn’t push for the death penalty.

The scales of justice seemed to be tipped.
It wouldn’t work that way if it was a regular little guy. Just like none of us are getting bailed out of any financial messes (if we had them, I mean.)

Christy,
Who is Grimes?

I think it would be a mistake for us to criminalize our policy differences with Siegelman prosecution team. /snark

Thanks for finding this, Christy. However, it will do nothing for my blood pressure this morning.

A key prosecution e-mail describes how jurors repeatedly contacted the government’s legal team during the trial to express, among other things, one juror’s romantic interest in a member of the prosecution team.

Seriously bad on top of all the other seriously bad. I can imagine some rethug apparatchniks finding that coy and cute.

wow. why did the marshalls agree to play courier?

Two minutes of ohmmmmmmm for you.

What are the remedies, Christy, and penalties for the prosecution?

What sanctions should be applied?

Absolutely correct — jurors, attorneys, witnesses — everyone is given very strict instructions about any and all communications being severely limited if not restricted entirely throughout the trial, including limiting what witnesses see or hear prior to testifying so that their testimony is not tainted by conversations with someone else. Jurors, especially, are to be free of that sort of conflict to the extent humanly possible precisely because their role is the administration of justice.

To taint that process, not just once but on multiple occasions — and to use the US Marshall service at the courthouse as a conduit when they also know it is expressly forbidden to have ex parte contact with jurors — is unfathomable to me. This has absolutely blown my mind this morning, because conduct like this would get serious sanction here, above and beyond the very public, very angry ass-chewing from every federal judge I’ve ever been in front of in my jurisdiction and the ugly ethical investigation they would initiate as well.

To have a governmental attorney pull a crappy-assed stunt like this during a federal trial of a public official in a public corruption case? The disregard for the integrity of the process is beyond appalling. Normally, you hold yourself to an even higher standard in a case like this precisely because of the public’s interest in the matter.

I expect to see a lot of stuff about W admin come out over the next 20 years (i.e., the rest of my life) that is unimaginably bad. The only reason we can’t anticipate it is that our imaginations are not rich enough to figure out all the underhanded stuff they did. I expect to be shocked over & over again.

Morning. I saw your reply to my comment yesterday, btw.
I hear ya. I was just going personal because my stupid ex-husband is one of those crew types. He still makes way more money than I, and why?
But, hey, we’re cool. (you and me, not him and me - :)

OT - morning hearing news: Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari, will be testifying before Kucinich’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee on WFT Treasury’s changing evolving stories plans for the $700 billion bailout “troubled asset relief program” (TARP). details at oxdown.

I have never heard of conduct this egregious that did not result in severe, swift and ugly sanction. But this hasn’t been a usual case, now has it?

sanction?

why isn’t this kind of breach of ethics criminal christy?

This is certain to keep Seligman out of prison due to the trial being rife with prosecutorial misconduct. Wasn’t the basis of his release exactly this sort of thing?

Very good point. Shouldn’t their job description tell them that once deliberations start, all communications either originate with or end with the judge?

It’s hard to know what will happen next, because I’m not certain if the DOJ made a referral to the Alabama bar on the information from the whistleblower. I’m trying to ascertain that at the moment — and have a number of queries out to see if I can get answers. Will let you all know when I find out.

I’m surprised that anyone would be surprised. An administration that puts partisan politics above the rule of law views the law as both an obstacle to be hurdled to insure the desired result, the ends justify the means, and as a bludgeon to use against opponents, might makes right.

so, who heads the judicial oversight committees in congress? it’s a good time to maybe ask a couple questions.hmmm?

i’d think that would part of their training? … but what do i know?

demi, I felt like playing devil’s advocate. I was hoping I didn’t go to far and alienate you. But sometimes, you know how it is, going out far on a limb to challenge the status quo, as it seems. I sympathize with teh stupid ex-husband part. Sorry. I wasn’t thinking personal at all, which means I was being inconsiderate.

this is beyond belief.

Every day I feel more and more like Sheriff Ed Tom Bell’s “old people” in Cormac McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men. Talking about old people, Bell says,

It’s like they woke up and they don’t know how they got where they’re at.

It’s like the whole world, its values, mores, and norms have completely changed while no one was paying attention.

My biggest concern is this: Now that the precedent for evil has been set, how are we to keep from slipping back into the abyss, even if we are able to extricate ourselves for a time.

See my 17. We’re surpised because we are not imaginative enough to figure out in advance all the thoroughly scuzzy stuff they’ve done. We get the general principle, but the specifics continue to astonish.

My only experience with jury duty was as an alternate who got called up from the bullpen because one of the jurors spent 30 seconds on an elevator with a relative of the accused.

I think flirting with one of the prosecutors should be considered a much stronger reason to excuse yourself.

I think all this deserves a new term. Mickey Mouse justice?

well i hope your right,they are squirmy mofos

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....ive_pr.php

This came up because Rep. Conyers, who heads House Judiciary, is asking those questions publicly. His office disclosed this information — see the links above.

Don’t give it a second thought. I don’t think you were inconsiderate at all.
But, and this will be my final word. Without a writer, an editor has no job. Ya dig?

see TPM article at my 32

The answer on that question, btw, is there is no clear answer.

must go clean multiple k-litter boxes ,have a great mornin yall muckrakers

thanks selise!

Well, we already have the term kangaroo court. Looks like this trial should be Exhibit A.

yup,we need a justice Brandeis

I want to point out that the whole reason seiglman was targeted for charges is the fact that he wouldn’t allow them to steal his election

they got that done, what can we do to get the people involved in that election fraud put in jail?

Thanks. Saw that. It’ll be a long slog.

Oh crap, I’ve been an editor, and I have and would gladly give you and all the writers the credit. *blush* (I do like seeing my name in the acknowledgments though. My darn ex has yet to send me his newly published.)

To understand their “creative” thinking, we’d have to think like they do. I, for one, do not want to go there. Ever.

FYI, I just edited the headline a bit — in re-reading the e-mails, the only evidence I’m seeing is of notes coming from the jurors TO prosecutors, there isn’t any evidence as yet that prosecutors sent notes in return that I see. So the edit on the headline reflects that change. Sorry for any confusion…

Wanna take any bets in advance about whether Kashkari comes across as competent? Last I heard him, at a presser about a month ago, he was crowing about how he was making great progress about hiring people. Now we find out he hasn’t hired oversight folks. Doubt he’s done anything else.

need a good guffaw?????

http://www.petitiononline.com/.....ition.html

I’m genetically prevented from going there, I think. I just can’t wrap my mind around what they do.

Actually though, sometimes it’s the reverse. With some publishing the writer has no job without the editor.

this is going to be a challenge for doj. my quess is the general public has no idea of the level that should be achieved in fairness. stuff just now seeing the light of day. makes a person wonder how some folks even got into justice.

I live in a state of confusion already.
Does this clarification make the problem a horse of a different color?

Possibly there could be a new Bush-era specific term as well.

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs,

although not surprised by this news, it is always shocking to be up close and personal with the level of their constitutional depravity.

was trying to find Rove’s quotes dismissing Grimes allegations - because what he was saying was she had nuttin’ - whoops !

Christy you have done a great job giving us all the lay of the legal land - and the egregious nature of the Prosecution’s conduct in this case is beyond glaring

ps - still having preview issues - so I’ll do it live !

Could be. I was just sitting here thinking, that when, not if, the screenplay sells, that the ex won’t get a nickel. But, then I realized, oh yeah, I’ll probably lose my child support. Heck, it’s not that much anyway.
Fine. And, I won’t mind paying taxes on it either.
(Hear that, God?)

No — ANY communication that is ex parte and not disclosed is very, very bad. Where it originates is immaterial, although slightly less bad for not coming FROM the AUSAs, I suppose. But their failure to disclose immediately each and every time? Very, very bad.

oh, comeon. it’s fun. just put on yer sleazy hat and talk trash. then all of a sudden stuff pops into the mind. that is how to catch them and one reason dems have trouble with the concept.

I have seen a similar case from close up. The person alledged to have had inappropriate contact with a witness was immediately put on suspension, the trial was suspended and OPR brought into investigate.

So, if jurors have questions, they can/should ask only the judge?

Sorry. I can’t allow that kind of evil to bother my pretty little mind. *g*

Any misconduct like this usually results in immediate action, in my experience. The DOJ “nothing to see here” response was so out of the ordinary on this, I had to comment on it — absolutely bizarre.

OT Safari users update:
http://secunia.com/Advisories/32706/

i’ll do it for ya then. you take the high road.

and preferably not romantic queries.

Yes, the normal procedure is to send a note out through the Marshall to the judge. The judge then reads the note, shares it with counsel on both sides of the case, and each and every note from the jury is kept in the case file so that a record is kept not just of the communication, but of the back and forth of attorneys and the judge on what, if any, response is required as well as a record of what response is, ultimately, given. All of this is generally done on the record so that it’s included in the transcript for appeal, although it’s not generally done publicly –usually in chambers or at the bench, with the exception of any communications where they bring the jury back in for an admonishment by the judge on the record or for public breaks for lunch where there is usually yet another “don’t speak with people in the courthouse, tell me if they try, etc.” sort of warning each and every break in the action.

one more reason Lieberputz must go…sad,sad

http://www.newswest9.com/Globa.....?S=9345311

Okay, and you’ll get there first and report back.

Scott Horton seems skeptical Alabama’s ability to hold any Republican accountable for anything, much less national-level GOPers like the U.S. Attorney, et. al. I’ve got to say, this bunch of crooks (i.e.: everyone in the Bush Administration) seems able to do their thing with a remarkable amount of impunity–not to mention immunity.

Wanna take any bets in advance about whether Kashkari comes across as competent? Last I heard him, at a presser about a month ago, he was crowing about how he was making great progress about hiring people. Now we find out he hasn’t hired oversight folks. Doubt he’s done anything else.

i put this in the comments:

he’s been in this job just over 1 month, he’s been at treasury just over 2 years and before that he was at GS in a totally unrelated field. and as far as i can tell he was only at GS about 4 years (he was still at business school in 2002). woefully unprepared for the job he’s been given doesn’t even come close.

and this from the wsj:

Assistant Secretary Neel Kashkari, appearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Oct. 23, said teams of Treasury staff were making “rapid progress” on a number of areas, including the programs to purchase mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. Treasury planned to hire asset managers for both programs in the near future, Mr. Kashkari testified.

I see — Kangaroos! Lotsa and lotsa Kangaroos! All over Alabama! Kangaroos! Republicans Kanagaroos!!

thanks!

If nothing else if a juror is enamored with a member of the prosecution team then that juror should have been brought before the judge and I think dimissed. If this is what is being discussed among jurors the problem becomes larger.

Re: The DOJ response. I’m also trying to wrap my head around the whole thing of why they were called in and impounded all the stuff from Mark Foley’s office. Isn’t this sort of stuff usually done by the FBI? It really seems to me that the DOJ basically had/has been turned into a tool of the GOP. Totally gutted in terms of any true ‘justice’ function. Extremely sad.

Thanks. That makes sense.

Kangaroos with boxing gloves!

Let me further say why this is important: all an appeals court has to go on for any consideration on appeal is the record made at trial of what occurred. Any and all communications with the jury are important because they can give information on how and what the jury is considering the evidence, especially during the deliberations process for a verdict.

Every note — and I mean every last one including notes for jurors needing a longer bathroom break — is kept in the record. Because every note can give information for appeal. To not disclose something like this taints the process on a number of levels, not only by injecting improper communications and not disclosing known potential for huge bias during deliberations, but also because there is no record now of those communications, because defense counsel was not apprised of them and so could not object on the record about this enormous breach — and could not thereby protect his client from potential bias and misconduct — and because the judge did not have the information either. AND the appeals court has nothing on the record to look at to adjudge how bad the breach may have been in terms of materially affecting the outcome of the case.

yes, i think the procecution was trying to avoid a mistrial. just a little coverup. nothing to see here. move on, etc.

Which raises serious questions of prosecutorial misconduct above and beyond the nondisclosures initially, yes? This is such an enormous breach…

Speaking of courtrooms and my exhusband. I’ll share.
At one of our divorce hearings, in the middle of the judge asking our attornies some question, the ex jumped to his feet and said, With all due respect, I…he didn’t finish his sentence because the bailiff was in his face telling him to sit down and not say another word unless the judge asked in a question.
When the hearing was over, I turned to leave and everyone in the court gave me a “You poor thing” look.
I was so humiliated.

boggles the mind.

I swear if his name hadn’t been Kash&Kari, Bush would not have approved his hire.

OT
Kucinich hearing getting ready to start CSPAN 1

One silly question: How did jurors get the email addresses of the prosecutors? Isn’t that a little unusual?

heck, that is the first thing to learn in court. just stfu.

This occurred during a time in the Bush “administration” when the police state and feeling of invulnerability was high.

Remember, they wanted a “permanent majority” of one hundred years! (Sounds alot like the Third Reich’s One Thousand Years to me)
The Neo’s obviously thought they had US sewn up and these things would never get out. Now, the press is opening up a bit and the slime is coming to the surface.

When Obama was elected ( he isn’t sworn in yet)I mostly cried because we dodged such a bullet. I think we are going to find out things that will curl all our hairs in the coming months.

Stay tuned.

Sure! :)

lol.

I am not surprised. This whole enterprise was corrupt. Why would you expect them to act ethically on any given aspect of this?

Everyone involved should be disbarred and fined into the poorhouse at a minimum.

Wouldn’t this get your head handed to you where you practice as well? It sure as hell would here.

Kucinich!

And I’ll betcha Mary Matalin thinks that it’s all just swell, like Lee Atwater’s politics is just swell, and nobody’s troubled about it except we little minds.

Back to read comments now. I thought I was shockproof to the cravenness of Bush politics…and the way it’s trickled down to the lowest level. And this is low.

Disbarment, criminal prosecution, civil suit for violation of Siegelman’s civil rights…every bit of this should be thrown at everyone involved. Jurors, marshal’s service, prosecutors, judge….

One hopes the next AG sets up a special task force in the dept to aggressively pursues these grievous and heinous violations of ethical and legal standards.

Back to catch up on others’ thoughts now….

Not to go all off topic on the Bush D. of “justice (?)” thread, but it angers me beyond belief that this stuff and much more as happened under Lieberman’s watch over his baby, the “dept of Heimat security,” and Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Obama and others(?) . . . . want Lieberman to keep his job. So , myabe they think this fraud, waste and abuse of minors and people in general is a good thing? Please tell me it ain’t so. Or maybe cronyism is more important than human rights to them?

Third Reich also lasted 8 years iirc.

As I have said many times (just ask Christy), we should not be surprised when this Administration attempts to reach new moral lows. Incensed yes, surprised no. Now that things are coming to light, the bar will undoubtedly take the correct action. State bars are well populated on both sides of the political center line.

Here’s hopin’

This is such an enormous breach…

uh yep. perfect. What I wouldn’t give to know the Judge’s immediate response to these disclosures. The Bench’s response should be both swift and steep.

mr cbl and I pursued a Family Law matter in pro per for a few years and when it became known to the Court opposing counsel had defied her orders on Discovery , there was a very terse “Counsel approach the Bench . . . and bring your checkbook!”

Jane’s up
Just Say It, Bobo — “Union”

In the dictionary, under the word narcissistic, there is a photo of him. tee hee.

Gosh, watching cspan, it’s so mind boggling to see Kucinich and Issa sitting next to each other.

Good lord. I think I just felt a ripple in the force. *g*

Yeah, but after 8 years they were held accountable for their crimes. Not sure this will be the case with this regime.

Yes! Although I haved tried cases against attorneys who are less than above reproach, I have never run into anything even close to this.
But, in my opinion these prosecutors were not officers of the court; rather, they were political operatives acting on behalf of a criminal regime.
Their punishment should reflct their true status. As such, disbarment is not enough. Crushing fines and jail time are in order.

Or just your ordinary time and space glitch.

Uh oh, the oracle.

I’ve just been sitting here trying to imagine the response that one of our local federal judges would give on something like this. And it would be so ugly and so swiftly meted out. One of the things baffling me about this — and I’m trying to get confirmation on this — is that the Conyers’ disclosure may be the first that either the trial judge or defense counsel have learned of these communications with jurors, et alone the failure to recuse fully of the USAtty. Despite the DOJ having done some internal something-or-other (I hestitate to really call it an investigation, given it’s lack of any substantive results) in 2007 after the misconduct was brought forward ot superiors at Justice.

If they failed to disclose something this material knowing that Siegelman was appealing? Uh. Mah. Gawd. Have several queries out trying to confirm on this — will let you know if I hear back…

The “Alabama Bar” sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

Ha!
I’m still in a what’s the title of that book frame of mind. As soon as I saw Daryl sitting there, I thought “The Issa Man Cometh”.
I’m blaming you Christy. :)

Wondering what Kashkari’s shark skin suit cost.

Oh, if folks could give this a digg, it would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Consider this: They did this to a rich and powerful individual who had been the governor!
My gosh, what might they do to some poor schmuck?

Siegelman and Scrushy oral arguments to be heard on Dec 9/08.

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/sto.....8;nav=0RdE

It’s not illegal if a US Attorney does it.

Sauce for the President, sauce for the US Attorney; sauce for Wall Street, lard and tripe for Main Street.

Okay Christy, a juror known as “Flipper” to the other jurors, because she’s a gymnist and entertains the other jurors by doing flips, has a crush on one of the Prosecutors and has other jurors send out notes to the Prosecutors asking about him. Didn’t I see that in Jim Carey’s Liar, Liar.

Good morning, Christy.

As I read your post and the comments, I kept wondering if the judge had heard or known about this.

The judge cannot be happy about this, and, had he heard or known previously, one should like to ‘imagine’ that he would have done SOMETHING.

What, if anything, might he do now?

In one of Canary’s e-mails, dated September 19, 2005, she forwards senior prosecutors on the Siegelman case a three-page political commentary by Siegelman. Canary highlighted a single passage which, she told her subordinates, “Ya’ll need to read, because he refers to a ’survey’ which allegedly shows that 67% of Alabamans believe the investigation of him to be politically motivated.” Canary then suggests: “Perhaps [this is] grounds not to let [Siegelman] discuss court activities in the media!”

“Ya’ll”-my ass!

How could this much blatant, gross misconduct have gone on without the judge not knowing what was going on?
Jurors boinking with members of the prosecution team,
Note passing between jurors and the prosecution team with US Marshals as couriers,
Blatantly false testimony.
AUSA intervention after recusal.
Immediate sentencing and imprisonment.
No official trial transcript for more than a year.
No possibility for appeal until the official trial transcript is released.

This all sounds like a kangaroo court with plenty of collusion between prosecutor and judge.

This isn’t justice. It’s a mockery.

And the DOJ has done nothing to censure? Why is Mukasey still AG?
I do not remember the name of the trial judge, but why is he still on the bench?

This makes me shake with rage.

Several things: (1) I’m hearing that this disclosure from Chairman Conyers committee is the first that either the judge or defense counsel heard about this breach. I can’t stress enough how huge that is, if I can confirm it.

(2) The trial judge will likely hold a hearing to ream out the AUSAs on the record in the case, and will have to do so forthwith so that appellate record can be made prior to oral arguments on Dec. 9th. He can sanction the AUSAs involved, file a referral to the state bar for investigation and sanction of them; refer this matter for criminal sanction of the attorneys, US Marshalls and jurors involved — because they are all apprised strenusouly throughout trial proceedings of the consequences of violating judicial orders on no contact with jurors and what is expected should their be inappropriate contact. He can file a referral to the DOJ’s OIG and OPR for internal sanction. He can throw everyone’s ass in jail on contempt for a while until he decides what he wants to do.

In short — a LOT.

I know. It’s absolutely and completely horrifying and appalling. There is absolutely no excuse for any of it. None. Period.

Laura Canary is the fruit of the president’s leadership. Mr. Bush is an alumnus of Harvard’s famed MBA program, which preaches that leadership begins at the top. Enron’s Jeffrey Skilling, also an HBS alum, agrees with him. He wrote in a seminar paper, in effect, that as CEO, his sole obligation was to make his company profitable. If that involved behavior the government claimed was illegal, he needn’t stop unless and until the government caught him and made him stop.

That’s the kind of leadership — corporate and legal — a caricatured president breeds. He doesn’t believe in government, or government regulation of business (except to burden labor and favor business), or in laws that restrict how a president or CEO can do their jobs.

In the real world, competent CEO’s, like competent US Attorneys, obey the law. They promulgate elaborate codes of ethics and promise to comply with applicable laws in every jurisdiction in which their company does business. Not least, that’s because their competent general counsels have read the US Sentencing Guidelines and have told them in writing that doing so can help them avoid custodial sentences and reduce fines when they do break them. All good for business.

In a sense, though, under George Bush, Skilling is right. Breaking the law isn’t breaking the law if you don’t get caught, if they are no penalties, if a compliant legislature can be bought for lobbyist pennies on the dollar saved. Worked for Big Telco. Ms. Canary must have thought it would work for her.

Let’s not forget Judge Mark Fuller’s sterling reputation for impartiality and lack of conflicts of interest in this case.

http://www.harpers.org/archive.....c-90000351

Yep. Know that. But the 10th Circuit appeals court will also be on the hook with an affirmative duty to disclose this information to the state bar as well, if they find prosecutorial misconduct arising from a case at bar over which they have jurisdiction. Let alone defense counsel and Don Siegelman’s ability to file something with them as well.

This isn’t a one-stop shop on potential sanctions.

Thanks for responding, Christy.

Is it District Judge Fuller whom we are talking about? Just to be clear?

If so, are there not allegations that he, himself, had secret dealings with the US Marshalls regarding juror e-mails, about which the judge did not inform the defense?

Should these allegations be correct, and should this is considered to be prejudiced, then who shall judge the judge?

As a former elected prosecutor and long time defense attorney I am appalled and disgusted by the behavior of the government in this case. I understand that Obama wants to reach out to the right wing (keep your friends close and your enemies closer,) but one thing must be above compromise as a matter of baseline integrity for the next administration: An absolutely impartial and apolitical Justice Department. This cannot be accomplished without clearing up the toxic stench coming out of Alabama. Until January 20 2009, a member of the Alabama Bar should report the Ast US Attorneys involved to the State Bar of Alabama and demand discipline. If the trial judge was involved, he should be reported to the State Judicial Commission.When Obama appoints his own US Attorney in Alabama in this District,the first order of business should be a Grand Jury convened with subpoenas to all involved from Rove on down. This cannot be forgotten as “mere politics” if his administration is to have moral authority.

I don’t thgink that the jurors had the Prosecutors email. The notes were carried by the Marshalls to the Prosecutors…who then discussed them with each other by email.

Which raises an entirely different issue. What the hell are the Federal Marshalls doing carrying notes from a sequestered jury to ANYONE but the judge???There are at least three violators of ethgics and law here…the juror, the Marshalls (who are to isolate the jury from external influences and report violations), and the Prosecutors (who should have rejected the communications and told the judge).

This Siegilman case has been an interest of mine for some time, as I am very familiar with Alabama,and the Gulf Coast,in particular. There is a fascinating piece done by Sam Stein at Huff Po,back in Feb.08,when 60 Minutes did an interview with Sieligman,and his contention he was railroaded by Rove and the GOP. What was NOT mentioned was the role of Abramoff,and the Indian Casinos.Here’s an excerpt: McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email
February 25, 2008

——————————————————————————–

In the 2006 Senate report concerning Abramoff’s activities, which McCain spearheaded, the Arizona Republican conspicuously left out information detailing how Alabama Gov. Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff’s influence peddling scheme. Riley, a Republican, won election in November 2002, and was reelected in 2006.

In a December 2002 email obtained by the Huffington Post — which McCain and his staff had access to prior to the issuance of his report — Abramoff explains to an aide what he would like to see Riley do in return for the “help” he received from Abramoff’s tribal clients.

An official with the Mississippi Choctaws “definitely wants Riley to shut down the Poarch Creek operation,” Abramoff wrote, “including his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can’t qualify for a state contract or something like that.”

The note showed not only the reach of Abramoff, but raised questions about Riley’s victory in what was the closest gubernatorial election in Alabama history.

And yet, despite the implications of the information, McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee sat on the controversial portion of the email. According to an official familiar with the investigation, McCain also subsequently refused to make the email public after the report was released.————————–The actual email is shown in this insightful article .It is well worth a trip to HuffPo to read in its entirety.

It’s beyond my ability to convey to the non-lawyers among us how egregious this violation is — and how basic the rule on ex parte communications being verbotten is as well. It’s Law School 101 — no ex parte communications. Period.

That this would occur is bad enough. But the failure to disclose, not just during trial which is a heinous breach in and of itself, but also afterward the DOJ itself failed to notify the judge and defense counsel in an abundance of caution even if they found no wrongdoing. Mind-bogglingly stupid — beyond any allegations of intentional misconduct in hiding this, it’s just so incredibly stupid.

The good news is that this is now with the 10th Circuit, reducing District Judge Fuller’s unfettered discretion. As it did before these revelations, this case puts the Circuit’s system of criminal justice on trial in a public, national way.

A new president is also about to come on board, an African American and first-rate legal scholar, who ought to take a personal interest in this case because of its ramifications for his DOJ and for the reputation of his criminal justice in America, especially in a heavily-black region of the country.

One hopes that the 10th Circuit doesn’t need such external political considerations to focus its attention. Perhaps this will be enough to toss this case, quash the conviction and make the prosecution start over with a real case or apologize for a miscarriage of justice and give up. Out of curiosity, who is on Obama’s legal/DOJ transition team and what interest are they likely to take?

That’s right. That Asst. USA’s, federal marshals, jurors, etc., were involved in blatant, repeated, inappropriate communications is astounding. It suggests how fundamental and widespread was the corruption in this case. Like the proverbial rotten apple, such corruption tends to spread quickly to others in the barrel, which is one aspect of this case the 10th Circuit should keep in mind as it ponders how to respond to this information.

McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff EmailFeb 25, 2008 … John McCain often cites his work tackling the excesses of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as evidence of his sturdy ethical compass. …
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02.....88304.html

McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff EmailOn June 22, McCain issued his Senate report without mentioning Riley’s name. And one week later, Siegelman was convicted without the Abramoff email ever …
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02.....d=11653448

In regards to corruption: “Fish rots from the head.” Old Italian proverb.

You may also be interested in or familiar with the series Scott Horton at Harper’s has done on this case. The link for one story is in comment #118. For impassioned comment from a journalist’s, rather than a lawyer’s, perspective, I recommend legalschnauzer.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/

Jeez. I remember how the environmental lawyers who worked for the Justice Department looked down their noses at their colleagues at the EPA, and certainly at all of us DFHs in the plaintiffs’ bar. You see there actually used to be some cachet in working for a prestigious outfit like the U.S. Justice Department.

Kiss that one goodbye.

christy,

if you’re still around, can the judge sanction leura canary for her actions or is this the decision of D.C. DOJ?

p.s. 2nd paragraph should be “Laura Leura Canary”

Fixed and thanks

What evidence do we have (other than supposition) that this is the first the judge knew about it? If you’re going to posit some kind of concerted action to violate court rules, you get a much smaller group by just including the judge (who would have received such notes as a matter of course) and maybe his personal clerk than you do by including some unknown number of US Marshals.

Thanks a million for the link. I have already entered it into my favorites file. It will be a regular stop on my blogsite rounds.What synchronicity-I have a schnauzer!

The above thank you was for Earl of Huntington.