If attaching an “apologist” label on SLABBED was the only error, I’d be getting ready for this weekend’s big family gathering and cooking, not typing. However, brief though this post will be, it is important to clarify the distinctions between Paul Minor’s appeal and Zach Scruggs’ motion to vacate his conviction.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman’s case is the shortcut to that clarification as political contributions central issues in both Siegelman and Minor. Immediately following the USSC decision in Skilling, the Supreme Court ordered a new review of the Siegelman’s conviction:
The court’s brief order vacated the decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had upheld their convictions, and ordered it to review their appeals in light of a ruling that went against what is known as the “honest services fraud” law…
Siegelman attorney Sam Heldman, who handled the former governor’s case before the Supreme Court, called the court’s decision Tuesday “a massive victory”…Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted of swapping $500,000 in campaign donations for a spot on the state health board that decides if hospitals can add beds or new services. Lawyers for the men have argued that what happened was normal politics and not criminal…
Lawyers for both men contend there was no deal to swap donations for an appointment and say prosecutors failed to prove an explicit “quid pro quo” agreement, which is required in federal bribery cases. The defense also argued that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller of Montgomery did not adequately instruct jurors that such an agreement was necessary.
These defenses are common to both the Siegelman and Minor cases but are not mentioned in nor relevant to Zach Scruggs’ motion to vacate. Therefore, despite the claims of some otherwise, the Supreme Court’s decision on Minor’s case cannot be seriously considered as one that would significantly impact Zach’s significantly different case.