MONTGOMERY, Ala., Oct. 20, 2006 -- Attorneys for Governor Don Siegelman have filed their reply to the government response to the earlier filed Joint Motion for New Trial.
Right off the bat, the filing hits back hard at the government filing:
Acting U.S. attorney Louis Franklin told wsfa.com, "We did not attack them, we attacked the evidence they put in front of this court and we attacked the lack of authenticity, reliability, and believability.. It was an attack on the whole idea that (a juror) needed to go to a lawyer in Birmingham...it creates a cloud of suspicioun they still have not addressed...Them getting defensive leads us to believe it is more suspicious than we thought it was...They should have explained what they did with their evidence and they did not and we're pointing out to the court they still didn't explain it."
In the filing, Siegelman's attorneys state contrary to government allegations that they did not violate local rule 47.1 having to do with contact with jurors.
"Governor Siegelman welcomes an evidentiary hearing concerning the affidavits submitted to the Court in support of the Joint Motion for New Trial...The Government's rank speculation as to how these affidavits came to be is pure fiction. The Court must focus on the facts before it, not the fantasies of a Government blinded by power, ambition, and a misplaced sense of justice."
The filing says Siegelman's attorneys were contacted by phone by another lawyer, one for named Juror A and that is what led to the acquisition of the said affidavits in which Juror A says he felt uneasy about his verdict and alleging outside information was brought into the jury room, among other allegations.
The reply goes on to question why the government has such a strong objection to an inquiry into the situation:
Furthermore, concerning extrinsic evidence that may have possibly entered jury deliberations the pleading says this:
David McDonald goes on to write that an investigation into the e-mails and possible extrinsic evidence being brought into the jury deliberation is necessary to "preserve the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system."