Some excellent reporting comes out today on the Don Siegelman story--both of the breaking and big-picture variety.
Plus, we have an interesting effort to hold a federal prosecutor accountable for her handling of the Siegelman case.
On the breaking front, Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that the U.S. Justice Department has reopened an investigation into possible juror misconduct in the Siegelman case. Wilson also provides an overview of issues that are likely be at the heart of oral argument in the Siegelman appeal, which is set for December 9 in Atlanta.
On the big-picture front, David Fiderer, of Huffington Post, presents "Nothing About the Prosecution of Don Siegelman Escapes the Taint of Corruption." It's a powerful piece, focusing heavily on prosecutor Louis Franklin and his tortured relationship with the truth.
Fiderer also presents fascinating details about a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by 54 former state attorneys general as part of Siegelman's appeal. The verdict of the former state AGs? The prosecution's allegations, taken on their face, do not constitute a crime.
Finally, Fiderer focuses on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Siegelman case. Fiderer says the U.S. House Judiciary Committee should pursue evidence that could lead to Fuller's impeachment.
The HuffPo piece concludes with a list of 16 dubious rulings Fuller made in the Siegelman case. In their totality, Fiderer writes, they show an "unmistakable pattern of corruption."
Also powerful is an e-mail from the author of The Grievance Project, stating reasons why the Alabama State Bar should investigate U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for unethical conduct related to the Siegelman prosecution.
The e-mail is addressed to Tony McLain, general counsel of the Alabama State Bar, and serves as prima facie evidence upon which McLain could initiate an investigation of Canary.
The Grievance Project is written by an attorney named E.M., and he/she probably has to remain anonymous out of fear of being blackballed for trying to shine light on unethical activities in the legal community.
I am impressed with E.M.'s efforts, and I look forward to seeing what kind of reply comes from Tony McLain. I've had recent interactions with Mr. McLain, and to say that I am unimpressed with him and his Office of Legal Counsel, would be a massive understatement.
In my view, Mr. McLain is more interested in protecting corrupt lawyers than in holding them accountable. I will be providing details on my experiences with his office.