Ex-Governor of Alabama Is Ordered Released - DONALD SIEGELMAN

THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 28, 2008
Ex-Governor of Alabama Is Ordered Released

By ADAM NOSSITER

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Donald Siegelman, former governor of Alabama, was ordered released from prison on Thursday by a federal appeals court, pending his appeal of a bribery conviction that Democrats say resulted from a politically driven prosecution.

In its order, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, said Mr. Siegelman had raised “substantial questions” in his appeal of the case and could be released on bond from the federal prison in Oakdale, La., where he has served nine months of a seven-year sentence. The order did not say what those questions were, but his lawyers have argued for months that the bribery charge on which he was mainly convicted revolved around a transaction that differed little, if at all, from a standard political contribution.

Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers maintained that — as is standard in many white-collar crime cases — the veteran Democratic politician never should have been imprisoned in the first place while he appealed his conviction.

“He should not have been manacled and taken off in the night,” said his lawyer, G. Robert Blakey, also a professor at the University of Notre Dame, citing the ex-governor’s immediate imprisonment after his conviction, a point of contention for his supporters.

The chief prosecutor in the case, Louis Franklin, told The Associated Press that he was “very disappointed” by the order but hoped to eventually prevail.

Mr. Siegelman’s case has been cited by Democrats here and in Washington as Exhibit A in their contention that politics has influenced decisions by the Justice Department, which prosecuted the former governor. In addition, Mr. Siegelman’s conviction in June 2006 here sharply polarized the political climate in this state, and suggestions by his supporters and others that the former Bush White House political director, Karl Rove, may have been involved have only increased the tensions.

Republicans have angrily denied the accusations of politics, but Mr. Siegelman has picked up some outside support for his claims of political prosecution. The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on his case, and 44 former state attorneys general, Democrats and some Republicans, signed a petition last summer urging Congress to look into the conviction.

The court’s order came on the same day that the Judiciary Committee made a request to the Justice Department that the former governor be freed temporarily to travel to Washington next month to testify about his assertions that he was prosecuted for political reasons. A committee spokeswoman cited difficulties in getting information from the department as a reason for wanting Mr. Siegelman’s testimony.

It was not immediately clear if the appeals court decision on Thursday to release Mr. Siegelman would limit his ability to travel outside Louisiana or his home state, Alabama, to travel to Washington to testify.

Democrats in Alabama were jubilant on Thursday, and Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers took the appeals court order as a rebuke to the government’s position that there was no basis for the ex-governor’s challenge to his conviction.

“It’s a huge step, but its not the final step,” said Vince Kilborn, one of the lawyers. “They specifically state his appeal raises substantial issues. It certainly throws cold water on the Justice Department position that there was nothing to his appeal.”

Joe Turnham, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said the decision showed that Mr. Siegelman might prevail on appeal.

“I think it’s a glimpse of his ability perhaps to be vindicated,” Mr. Turnham said. “I think it’s a crack in the armor.”

For years, Mr. Siegelman was a dominant political figure in this state, and one of its few broadly successful Democrats.

In June 2006, he was convicted by a federal jury here of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, ex-chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board.

The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman’s campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools. The government maintained Mr. Siegelman was liable for the debt, because he was a co-guarantor; his lawyers said he would never have been expected to pay back the loan personally.

Philip Shenon contributed reporting from Washington.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company