Attorney Files to Unseal Two Motions; Judge Denies Extension of Travel Boundaries for Scrushy - Montgomery Alabama news.

Attorney Files to Unseal Two Motions; Judge Denies Extension of Travel Boundaries for Scrushy

MONTGOMERY, Ala., April 24, 2007 -- The second recent motion in the case involving Richard Scrushy in the federal court in Montgomery may soon be unsealed.  The motion which we know from the court docket and public filings concerns a question of jurisdiction was filed last week, also under seal is a reply to the government's bond revocation appeal of Judge Coody's ruling.  Attorney Jim Parkman filed a motion Monday as ordered by Judge Mark Fuller on Friday saying

 "1.  The sealing of the above referenced documents were not intended by defendant Scrushy's counsels and inclusion of the documents to be filed under seal in the Certificate of Service was a typographical error.

2. Undersigned counsels have no grounds for sealing the above referenced documents and will leave the unsealing of the said documents to the Court's discretion."

Judge Fuller indicated in his order on Friday that he saw no reason for the two documents to be under seal.  Prosecutor Louis Franklin told me he had no objection to those two documents being unsealed.

The documents related to the matter of the judge's recusal for now remain under seal. The government will reply as ordered by Judge Fuller to the defense recusal motion.

Judge Charles Coody on Monday issued an order denying Scrushy's request to extend the boundaries of Scrushy's travels without GPS monitoring to the Southern District of Alabama.  Judge Coody's order says the following:

"Immediately on the heels of the court's oral order, on April 11, 2007, the defendant filed a motion (doc. # 543) for an extension of the boundaries for travel in which he requests to be allowed to travel without GPS monitoring to tracts of land in Wilcox and Dallas County, Alabama. The defendant recites that frequent visits to these properties are required because "a result of the death of the defendant's father, Gerald Scrushy, Defendant has been placed in charge of the maintenance and care of . . . [these] tract[s] of land . . . "

The evidence presented during the hearing on the prior motion to revoke the defendant's release shows that the dispute arose because the defendant sought to and did increase the extent of his permission to travel by incremental requests which had the effect of extending the boundaries of his permission to travel. The court is not disposed to permit incremental expansions of the travel boundaries. The court established the restrictions on the defendant's travel after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing and the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The defendant has not shown that his responsibility to care for the property is inconsistent with the GPS monitoring equipment. Other than reasons of convenience, the defendant has disclosed no reason why the court should modify the previously imposed conditions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for extension of travel boundaries (doc. # 543) be and is hereby DENIED."

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin says, "We're pleased with the judge's ruling, our motion speaks for itself." 

Powered by Frankly