MONTGOMERY, Ala. Oct. 20, 2006 -- Attorneys for Richard Scrushy have filed a reply to the governments response to the joint Siegelman/Scrushy Motion for New Trial previously filed.
In the filing the attorneys say the government wants the defense to prove prejudice before there is a determination as to whether or not the jury was exposed to extrinsic evidence and how many jurors were involved.
"The Government asks this Court to leap to a conclusion on the ultimate merits of these allegations and deny Defendant's motion on the basis of Defendant's failure to prove prejudice before this Court finds out whether the jury received extrinsic evidence, where it came from, who brought it in, what the precise extrinsic evidence is, and how many jurors were exposed."
The filing goes on to say the court would make reversible error without further investigation:
As to Federal Rule 606(b) which the government cited in its reply, the filing says the following:
Addressing questions raised by the government attorneys for Scrushy deny they had anything to do with obtaining the affidavits related to Juror A:
In a footnote the filing questions the knowledge of the government as to how fax machines function:
The filing goes on to state that an inquiry, "not the outright dismissal of Defendant's motion without further inquiry" is the way to resolve the questions about the many issues involved.
As to the government's question as to why the juror, who lives in Ozark, would file an affidavit in Jefferson County, the reply states:
The filing again says defendant Scrushy would welcome an investigation:
Scrushy's attorney fire back hard at allegations made in the government filing concerning Richard Scrushy: