Just the mere mention of Paul Minor and Appeal in the same sentence has been known to send folks into a major fit – so let’s start this off with a reminder that regardless of how liberal his daddy is, which political party he contributed to; or what he said after too many drinks, he’s still has a right to a fair trial and that’s all he’s asking.
Anita Lee now has two stories on-line about Paul Minor’s appeal for justice – the first included the 146-page brief filed with the 5th Circuit requesting a third trial before a different judge.
Biloxi attorney Paul Minor has filed an appeal of his judicial bribery conviction with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Minor, who is serving 11 years in federal prison, asks that the case be sent back to U.S. District Court for a new trial with a different judge…
“Much had changed from the 2005 trial that resulted in acquittals and a mistrial to the 2007 trial that resulted in a hasty conviction and a significant sentence,” his attorneys write. “This appeal addresses these changes – a series of constitutional, evidentiary, legal and sentencing errors by the district court that ultimately resulted in an unlawful conviction and sentence that cannot stand.”
The second story, although already on-line, will appear in the July 1 print edition of the paper. Lee provides more detail here about the nature of the Appeal.
Minor’s attorneys argue prosecutors won bribery convictions against Minor and two Coast judges without proving their transactions were bribes – money offered to buy favorable decisions from the judges.
Minor argued at both trials he was just helping friends with judicial campaigns in 1998 when he loaned former Circuit Judge John Whitfield $140,000 and former Chancery Judge Wes Teel $25,000.
Prosecutors showed Minor eventually repaid the loans and Whitfield used most of the money he received for personal expenses. At the time Minor secured the loans, state law did not limit campaign contributions to judges.
A h/t to the good folks at Phunk & Wagnalls for the heads up and another to NMC for this summary of key points.
The big theme of the brief is that Minor was given a first trial in which he was acquitted on some charges and the jury hung on others, that in the second trial the judge made very critical unexplained changes in rulings, and there was a conviction. Among the unexplained changes in rulings:
- a decision to refuse to instruct the jury that, to prove bribery, there had to be proof of a quid pro quo– some sort of exchange for the payment. This exact issue is a major one in the Siegelman case.
- a decision to refuse to allow proof that Minor had done these sorts of guaranties before in other contexts, proof that had been allowed in the first trial.
- a decision to refuse to allow proof (also allowed in the first trial) that the result in the two cases was a reasonable and proper result, and that the Minor firm had done hard work for the result and had major expertise in these areas.
If Minor’s case is of particular interest, the background information on legalsnauzer will be likewise. Even those with only passing interest in the case will likely enjoy the latest entry on the Gulf Coast Realist – the blog of Minor’s co-defendant Wes Teel. I’m not exactly certain who is keeping the lights on there while he’s in prison; but, I enjoyed her recent post so much that I recommend a read for anyone needing a pick-me-up today.
I am always prepared for serial killers. My spouse does not like for me to fire the gun randomly into the bedroom every time a serial killer wakes me up, so I keep a bar-b-que fork for defense. My plan is to stab the serial killer in the balls and yell, “Snake! Snake!” This is to throw him off guard.