March 6, 2009 3:13 PM

Bribery Charges Stick To Ex-Ala. Governor

(CBS/AP)  A federal appeals court on Friday upheld most of the bribery and corruption charges against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and all of the charges against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down two of the seven charges that Siegelman was convicted of and ordered a new sentencing hearing. That means Siegelman's seven-year sentence could be reduced.

But he won't get off entirely: The court upheld key bribery, conspiracy and obstruction counts against him in what prosecutors described as a scheme that put Scrushy on a state hospital regulatory board when he was at the helm of HealthSouth. The court upheld all six counts against Scrushy and his sentence of almost seven years.

Siegelman, 63, and Scrushy, 56, were convicted in 2006 by a federal court jury in Montgomery, where Siegelman was a prominent Democrat with a political career dating back three decades.

Siegelman has claimed his prosecution was pushed by Republicans, including former White House adviser Karl Rove, a claim career federal prosecutors who handled the case have emphatically denied. Rove, a Texas strategist, was once heavily involved in Alabama politics.

Prosecutors argued that Siegelman appointed Scrushy to the influential board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to the governor's campaign for a state lottery in 1999.

Siegelman also was convicted on a single obstruction of justice count linked to the purchase of a motorcycle with the help of a lobbyist.

The former governor was released from prison last year, six weeks after a 60 Minutes story cast doubt about the prosecution's evidence and motives.

Watch the full 60 Minutes piece, which originally aired in February, 2008.




But the courts ruled the wealthy Scrushy, who turned Birmingham-based HealthSouth into one of the nation's biggest rehabilitation chains, was a flight risk.

The appeals court judges, in a unanimous decision, rejected a key defense argument that prosecutors failed to prove there was an explicit "quid pro quo" agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy, which is required in federal bribery cases. The defense also argued that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller did not adequately instruct jurors that such an agreement was necessary.

In a 68-page opinion, the panel said that the instructions Fuller gave jurors was sufficient. The judges also rejected defense arguments of juror misconduct involving a claim that some jurors exchanged e-mails and were subjected to outside influences during jury deliberations.

The judges ruled that Fuller adequately investigated the juror misconduct charges.

"We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that there was nor reasonable possibility of prejudice to the defendants arising out of the exposure of the jury to this extrinsic evidence," the judges wrote.

The judges also threw out defense arguments that the indictments against Siegelman and Scrushy came after the five-year statute of limitations in bribery cases had expired. The judges said they waived their right to make that claim by not raising the argument until after the trial.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 17 Comments
by tonyatq March 7, 2009 6:05 PM EST
Dirty politics as usual Karl Rove will soon have his day.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 March 7, 2009 8:53 AM EST
"... what is the difference between these two groups?" Posted by ericdrexil

Simple.

As a matter of politics, the Republicans have become the advocates of social intolerance, and are elected because their constituencies believe they are sympathetic to their agendas, while the Democrats represent the same for progressives.

In actuality they are all no more than common pimps, pandering to the advocacies of their backers' agendas, but a side effect is that their followers are emboldened by their pimps to act in furtherance of their cause, thus any real action in either direction is catalyzed by the poltitcians.
Reply to this comment
by ericdrexil March 7, 2009 7:26 AM EST
To a republican.....you can't be guilty of anything illegal.... if, you are republican. To a democrat the same ALWAYS holds true. Now help me out here.....what is the difference between these two groups?
Reply to this comment
by sockpuppet4 March 7, 2009 4:13 AM EST
It looks like SkrewCBS got a republican induced wedgie and dont know where its coming from. Sad.
Reply to this comment
by alanrobisch March 6, 2009 8:48 PM EST
Someone needs to put a stop to these republicans who are in league with Karl Rove and his ilk.
Posted by vincan-2009 at 5:29 PM :

Lets get this straight you know the case against him know it to be false and that even U S appeals court justices are complicit in it and are going along. What a bunch of idiocy.
Reply to this comment
by vincan-2009 March 6, 2009 8:29 PM EST
This really makes me mad. Alabama is the state where the most corrupt and evilly partisan republicans are in legal positions and are doing their best to keep Democrats in hot water and finally in jail. Someone needs to put a stop to these republicans who are in league with Karl Rove and his ilk.
Reply to this comment
by cmc1227 March 6, 2009 8:08 PM EST
You guys always forget to put the (D) after their names, but rarely ever do you forget the (R). Hmmmmmm
Posted by ken1dall

I just read it in the article. It list him as a democrat. 4th paragraph down. Posted by rightaboutit

That's the way CBS always does it, if the person is a Repub they mention it in the headline or first paragraph, if the person is a Dem it's typically 4th paragraph or further-if mentioned at all. So, save yourself some time, if it's not in the 1st paragraph, they're a Dem
Reply to this comment
by burtwoody March 6, 2009 7:31 PM EST
At least for a change it wasn?t a Republican! Now, that?s a new twist! If you commit a crime then you should pay, Republican or Democrat.

There have been so many Republicans arrested for corruption and sex crimes that I?ve lost count. At least this dude wasn?t having sex in an airport bathroom like your typical Republican.
Reply to this comment
by platteman March 6, 2009 7:24 PM EST
I see a cabnet post for them in the future in the Obama adminstration. They are good at what they do, they just got caught.

How about head of the FBI, NSA, or some other agency where they can get all the money they can in a short time.
Reply to this comment
by nolalou March 6, 2009 5:01 PM EST
ou guys always forget to put the (D) after their names, but rarely ever do you forget the (R). Hmmmmmm
Posted by ken1dal

Give me a f-ing break! What about Gov Spitzer(D) who resigned amid a sex scandal involving prostitutes, but not Sentator Vitter (R) for a similar scandal ! Sounds like your another f-ing moron.. hmmmmmmmm!
Reply to this comment
See all 17 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook