Siegelman, Scrushy Prosecutor Refutes Rumors

Statement from:

Acting United States Attorney Louis V. Franklin, Sr.
United States Attorney's Office, Middle District of Alabama

Recently, a number of articles, editorials, and postings on blogs have been authored by out-of-state reporters, columnists, and bloggers about the investigation and prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy.  Though these media reports appear to be part of an orchestrated disinformation campaign about the case, they have generated questions that I want to address once and for all on the record because I believe the public has a right to know the truth.

Leura Canary was not involved, in any way, in any of the decisions about who would and would not be prosecuted. Her recusal was scrupulously honored by me. As the Acting United States Attorney in the case, I made all decisions about the case after consultation with other career prosecutors.  Any assertion or insinuation to the contrary is an outright falsehood and a lie.

All viable federal felony offenses discovered during the investigation were appropriately and properly addressed. Political party affiliation played no role in my decision making. Our entire investigative file was turned over to the dozens of extremely able lawyers hired to represent the accused and all information discovered during the investigation was available to them to use in their defense in any way cognizable under the Constitution of the United States.  Common sense suggests that if a viable motion for selective prosecution existed, it would have been filed.  Simply put, no motion alleging selective prosecution was filed because there were no facts to support it.  The comments of a few Monday morning quarterback writers, editors, and bloggers to the contrary are either a deliberate effort to deceive or are occurring because they do not have all the facts available to them.  For a variety of reasons, these media members are unwilling to accept the inevitable result of facts being laid bare in the crucible of the federal criminal courtroom.

This case was fully litigated in an open forum where everyone was compelled by law to speak the truth.  In this context, Siegelman's and Scrushy's peers convicted them because they are guilty of public corruption offenses.

Any unbiased review of the evidence discovered during this investigation and the manner in which the investigation was conducted will reveal the incredible commitment to the public interest and dedication to duty of the federal and state agents working under my supervision. I am proud of them and the work they did.  The taxpayers should be as well.