Scrushy Attorneys Ask 11th Circuit for Subpoenas - WSFA.com Montgomery Alabama news.

Original Story Filed 7/12 at 12:44 p.m.

Scrushy Attorneys Ask 11th Circuit for Subpoenas

  • More newsMore>>

  • House leaders abandon border bill

    House leaders abandon border bill

    Thursday, July 31 2014 3:33 PM EDT2014-07-31 19:33:23 GMT
    A divided House of Representatives is moving forward on a bill to address the immigration crisis on the southern border after GOP leaders made concessions to win conservative support.More >>
    Short on votes, House Republicans abruptly abandoned a bill Thursday to address the immigration crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border after last-minute maneuvering failed to lock down conservative support. An hour later, they...More >>
  • Aviation company departs, new business sought at South AL Regional Airport

    Aviation company departs, new business sought at South AL Regional Airport

    Thursday, July 31 2014 3:09 PM EDT2014-07-31 19:09:48 GMT
    An aviation company in Covington County that had hoped to bring high-paying jobs to the area has decided to pull out of South Alabama. Now, county and city officials in Opp and Andalusia are on the huntMore >>
    An aviation company in Covington County that had hoped to bring high-paying jobs to the area has decided to pull out of South Alabama. Now, county and city officials in Opp and Andalusia are on the hunt for a new prospect.More >>
  • Investigators reach Ukraine jet wreckage site

    Investigators reach Ukraine jet wreckage site

    Thursday, July 31 2014 3:04 PM EDT2014-07-31 19:04:37 GMT
    An international team of investigators in eastern Ukraine on Thursday reached the crash site of the Malaysia Airline Flight 17 for the first time.More >>
    Two weeks after a missile brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, an international team of investigators Thursday reached a wreckage site in eastern Ukraine that remains bitterly contested between government forces and...More >>

ATLANTA, June 12, 2007 -- Attorneys for businessman Richard Scrushy have filed a "time sensitive motion" with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for subpoenas to preserve evidence.

Laying out many of the same issues filed in various motions throughout the trial in Montgomery attorneys say in their motion they are filing the document for the issuance of subpoenas

"in order to preserve documentary evidence which may be lost or destroyed, which the district court has refused to preserve despite numerous requests.  The documentary evidence is necessary to determine if alleged e-mails between deliberating jurors in this case are either authentic or fraudulent." 

"As set out below, if authenticated, the content of the e-mails undeniably demonstrate that Defendant is entitled to a new trial because jurors accessed prejudicial extrinsic information concerning Defendant and his co-Defendant on the Internet and used that information during deliberations to convince other jurors of Defendants' guilt.  On the other hand, if the records have not been lost or destroyed and they show that the e-mails are fraudulent, then this Court will not be asked to determine this issue in Defendant's appeal. "

Assistant United States Attorney Steve Feaga says the government has "no comment" on Scrushy's motion but has been given until Wednesday, July 18, to respond.

Scrushy's attorneys further outline the reason the Court needs to step in at this juncture. 

"...Defendant is now incarcerated, without an appeal bond, and no court has even looked at the available evidence that could determine whether or not the verdict in this case was fatally tainted. Most significantly of all, as of this filing, no court has ever asked a single juror if these e-mails are real or fraudulent.  Defendant respectfully asks that this Court step in at this juncture and exercise its authority pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) and/or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to, at a very minimum, secure and obtain the evidence that is necessary for this Court to determine if the jury in this case was exposed to extrinsic evidence.

Furthermore attorneys argue it is necessary for the 11th Circuit to step in because the defendant

"is unable to legally obtain this evidence without intervention or permission of a court. Yet Defendant's every effort to seek the district court's permission or assistance in obtaining such evidence, or even to have it preserved for review by this Court on appeal, has been turned back, while the same court has failed to conduct a meaningful investigation to determine if these  e-mails really were sent by the jurors in question."

"At the same time, the court turned down Defendant's requests for a full and fair hearing or a new trial, based on that court's implicit decision, supported by no tangible evidence, that the e-mails are not authentic.  The district court precludes Defendant from any access to the means of proving authenticity, while simultaneously denying Defendant relief based on Defendant's failure to prove authenticity.  The evidence that Defendant seeks through this time-sensitive motion before this Court-if it still exists-is the only way to resolve this question definitively and fairly. "

Scrushy's motion asks the Court to issue an order:

"(a) permitting Defendant's Addendum to be filed under seal so that the identities of the jurors will remain confidential, as provided by the order of the district court;"

"(b) authorizing Defendant to issue and serve subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) containing the text set out in Attachments A, B, and C to Defendant's "Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas for November 17, 2006 Evidentiary Hearing" (Addendum at Tab UN-1);"

"(c) in the alternative, that this Court issue its own subpoena to obtain the same or comparable records, that this Court examine the records in camera, and, upon good cause, release relevant portions of those records under strict conditions to the parties for use in this litigation;"

"(d) in the alternative, that this Court appoint a Special Master and grant him/her authority to issue Rule 17(c) subpoenas and employ expert assistance to locate, obtain, and review all records pertinent to determination of the authenticity of the e-mails in question, and provide a report to this Court, which this Court, in its discretion and upon good cause, may release under strict conditions to the parties for use in this litigation;"

"(e) enter an Order to all identifiable ISPs (see Addendum at Tab UN-1), and all jurors to preserve any and all records and computers which pertain to or were used during the period of their jury service; and"

"(f) for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper in light of all of the circumstances in this case."

After reviewing the history of the e-mail issue, which I have segregated and can be found here (this includes descriptions of what was in the actual purported e-mails),  the filing goes on to argue "this is one of those rare cases where documentary evidence could readily, and conclusively, resolve an otherwise complicated, difficult legal issue."

Attorneys Art Leach and James Jenkins argue as they have previously in district court "if the purported e-mails are authentic, then it is apparent that the jury was exposed to extrinsic evidence that was prejudicial to Defendant and that he is entitled to a new trial before a jury that determines his case solely on the basis of evidence properly admitted in court. Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-473, 85 S.Ct. 546 (1965). "

On the other hand, "If the purported e-mails are fraudulent, then someone has perpetrated a fraud on the court. The perpetrator(s) should be identified and prosecuted. If any of these jurors have been wrongly accused of misconduct based on fraudulent evidence, these jurors have a vital and legitimate interest in having the cloud of suspicion lifted from them in regard to their lengthy jury service in a difficult, high-profile trial."

"If the evidence has not been lost or destroyed and it shows the e-mails are fraudulent, Defendant's appeal can proceed, with no need for this Court to grapple with the issue of whether or not the evidence of jury misconduct before it requires a new trial, or a remand for an evidentiary hearing. All of this turns on the question of authenticity of the e-mails."

The motion says although "subpoenas typically are issued by the district courts," nothing in the Rules "limits the ability of the courts of appeals to issue subpoenas...Thus, by the plain language of the Rules, this Court has the authority to issue subpoenas when the requirements of Rule 17 are otherwise met."

Attorneys also cite to the court the "All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.  Under that Act, "all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 

The motion further states the under the All Writs Act the court can extend the power of the Act "under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice."  New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 174 (internal citations omitted).  In this instance, the Court's authority properly extends to the ISPs, who have not taken any action to hinder justice, but who cannot disclose the necessary information without a court order."

In the filing attorneys claim the court should issue subpoenas for information

  • if the requested documents are evidentiary and relevant;
  • if they are not otherwise procurable by exercise of due diligence;
  • if Defendant cannot properly prepare for a hearing on whether there was juror misconduct without the documents; and
  • if this motion "is made in good faith and is not intended as a general 'fishing expedition.'"

"As the Supreme Court held in Turner, 379 U.S. at 472-73, "[t]he requirement that a jury's verdict ‘must be based upon the evidence developed at trial' goes to the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of trial by jury." This Court has repeatedly emphasized that it is "the court's duty to ensure that the jury verdict was in no way tainted by improper outside influences,..." United States v. Rowe, 906 F.2d 654, 656 (11th Cir. 1990.) When there is evidence of a jury's exposure to extrinsic evidence, the court has an unmistakable duty to ensure that "the entire picture ... [is] explored." Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377, 379, 76 S.Ct. 425 (1956.)"

"The Government also has an obligation here to determine whether the verdict in this case was tainted, instead of opposing each and every request for records that should answer the most important question in this case at this time.  See Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1962) (reversing a conviction and stating, "A United States Attorney ... must also remember that he is the representative of a government dedicated to fairness and equal justice to all and, in this respect, he owes a heavy obligation of fairness to the accused."). "

"Finally, Defendant should have a full and fair opportunity to prove to this Court that the verdict in his case was tainted by jury exposure to extrinsic evidence and other jury misconduct.  The only way that Defendant can have a meaningful opportunity to do this is to allow him access, under appropriate protections, to the evidence necessary to prove-or disprove-the authenticity of these e-mails."

"Based on the lengthy proceedings below, it is apparent that Defendant had no way of authenticating the e-mails that were provided in the multiple anonymous letters unless the district court authorized Defendant to obtain the necessary evidence, or obtained the evidence itself for its own in camera  review. "

"Defendant requested that authorization in every way possible. The district court denied each and every request, even the request that the court obtain the records itself and seal them for subsequent review. "

"Further, as Defendant demonstrated to that court by the affidavit of his forensic computer expert, such electronic evidence is time-sensitive, and subject to routine or other destruction. Defendant repeatedly reminded the district court of the need for timely action to preserve this evidence, beginning with his first filing on September 29, 2006. (Doc. 467.)"

Chief District Judge Mark Fuller, in denying Scrushy's motion for a new trial in December, rejected calls for further examination into the jury's conduct beyond the hearings that he held on the issue:

"Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court have repeatedly found that district courts did not abuse their discretion in denying motions for new trial or in rejecting defendants' demands for the examination of jurors predicated on arguments of a variety of types of juror misconduct not encompassing external influence on the jury."

"While some might be tempted to criticize these well established limitations on a defendant's ability to attack a jury verdict, important policy considerations support such limitations.  Indeed, it is well-settled that without such limitations our very system of justice would be jeopardized."

"...The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of shielding jury deliberations from public scrutiny...In so doing, the highest court in our land has repeatedly expressed concerns that defendants would launch inquiries into jury conduct in the hope of discovering something that might invalidate the verdicts against them; that jurors would be harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts which would establish misconduct sufficient to set aside the verdict; and that such events would result in the destruction of all frankness and freedom of discussion during jury deliberations...The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has echoed these important policy considerations..."

In his June 22, 2007 ruling on the defendant's motion to reconsider his prior denial of the motion for a new trial, Judge Fuller stated regarding further investigation:

"Moreover, neither Scrushy, nor Siegelman, appear to grapple with the fact that all of this investigating would not definitively establish anything other than whether the exhibits are actually unaltered copies of emails sent by machines to which jurors had access. Even if the computer records showed that email messages were exchanged between computers owned or used on occasion by jurors, that would not prove who actually authored the messages using these machines."

 On another note, the filing confirms that Scrushy has been designated for assignment to a prison camp in Texas:

"Defendant, a first offender convicted of public corruption crimes, was remanded to custody at sentencing, and is currently incarcerated at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.  The district court denied Defendant's request for voluntary surrender and denied his motion for appeal bond without any hearing or argument, and without making any findings. (Doc. 617.) On July 10, 2007, Defendant was designated to USP-SCP Beaumont, Texas, which is over 580 miles from his wife and five children (ages 2, 4, 7, 12 and 14). "

On Wednesday, attorneys for Scrushy filed the notice in the Middle District of Alabama that they would be appealing Scrushy's case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reported by:  Helen Hammons 

Powered by WorldNow