Governor petitions high Court, claims political prosecution
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has spent the last decade of his life on trial, in jail or out on bond. He was convicted of obstruction of justice and “honest services” fraud in 2006. The governor recently petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient. Siegelman says his prosecution was politically motivated, and statistical evidence suggests he may be right.
The Democratic governor’s conviction was based on accusations that he agreed to seat an executive on a state board in exchange for a $500,000 contribution to a lottery campaign that Siegelman supported. After the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “honest services” fraud to “bribes and kickbacks,” the Eleventh Circuit upheld Siegelman’s conviction and rejected the argument that bribery requires an express quid pro quo. The Eleventh Circuit conceded that the Supreme Court requires an“explicit” agreement but concluded that “explicit” does not mean “express.” (Webster’s defines “explicit” as “fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity.”) Siegelman complained that the court’s broad definition results in “confusion . . . as to where the line lies between politics and crime.” He warned that political speech could be chilled: “[M]oney is the lifeblood of modern politics, and most . . . officials are responsive in at least some degree to those who contribute [to campaigns].” Read more




