U.S. v. SIEGELMAN, 2009 WL 564659 (March 6, 2009)
The Court found that he should not have been convicted of honest services mail fraud based on Richard Scrushy’s self dealing once Scrushy became a member of the Board of Health Review. Siegelman had a lack of involvement in Scrushy’s self dealing and there was no agreement between the two at this point.
Denial of defense jury instruction upheld.
Siegelman wanted a jury instruction for the bribery charge stating that a quid pro quo agreement must be express. The Court noted that the case law merely requires an “explicit” agreement which can be achieved through winks and nods, if not express words. Furthermore, an agreement can be implied from words and actions
Denial of statute of limitations challenge upheld.
The Court rejected Siegelman’s statute of limitations challenge, noting that he failed to raise it until the filing of the motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c), post verdict. If a defendant fails to raise the statute of limitations defense at trial, the defense is waived.
Sentencing upward departure upheld.
The Court affirmed an upward sentencing departure based on the fact that the Governor’s conduct had seriously undermined public confidence in the executive branch of the Alabama government.
Tags: bribery, explicit agreement, jury instruction, mail fraud, motion for judgment of acquittal, statute of limitations, upward departure
