New York Times – “Laws against bribery must be used carefully”

Yes, “Laws against bribery must be used carefully” in every case, including that of former Alabama Governor Siegelman – the subject of a Sunday editorial. h/t legalsnauzer

Mr. Siegelman was the Democrats’ strongest candidate to retake the Alabama governorship, and Congress has uncovered evidence that the United States attorney’s office in Montgomery — with possible White House input — may have decided to prosecute him to undermine his campaign…

While Congress examines those allegations, Mr. Siegelman is asking the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, to reverse his case on the law…Siegelman was convicted of bribery and related crimes and sentenced to more than seven years, and served nine months before being freed on appeal.

Laws against bribery must be used carefully...there needs to be an express quid pro quo — something the prosecutors did not prove in Mr. Siegelman’s case…(emphasis added)

Congress…should keep investigating this prosecution and what role crass politics may have played. While it does, the 11th Circuit should cast a skeptical eye on this case, based on the law and the facts.

While stopping by the Times for this story, I happened on one about another case I’ve been following – chiefly because so many of the stories about the plea agreement and sentencing of Mel Weiss also mention Dick Scruggs.

Mr. Weiss will plead that he conspired to pay off plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporations on behalf of shareholders who contended corporate misconduct had occurred. The scheme, hidden from the courts, was intended to ensure that his firm was best placed to control the
litigation and collect the largest share of legal fees, according to prosecutors. Under the plea agreement, he faces up to 33 months in prison and would pay back $9.75 million in “ill-gotten gains” along with a fine of $250,000.

I suppose the continued mention of Scruggs in articles about Weiss is because both are prominent attorneys who have entered guilty pleas; however, the Scruggs case is distinctly different in many ways.

Chiefly, instead of “ill-gotten gains” from the conspiracy to corruptly influence Judge Lackey, it was far more likely there would be no financial benefit to Scruggs at all. Attorney Frank Trapp made a reasoned and compelling argument for that conclusion in the Objections filed on behalf of Sid Backstrom.

A related and equally distinct difference is in the recommended sentencing for each – 36 months for Weiss with almost $10 million in “ill gotten gain” and up to 60 for Scruggs who stood to gain nothing at all.

Mel Weiss was sentenced to 30 months; Scruggs will be sentenced next week. Meanwhile Governor Siegelman continues to gain support for his appeal as evidence of selective prosecution mounts.