Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, May 18, 2015

U.S. Magistrate Charles S. Coody screwed up both the facts and law on Canary "recusal" in Siegelman case


Don Siegelman
A U.S. magistrate in Alabama clearly lied in a public ruling about his "review" of documents related to prosecutor Leura Canary's supposed recusal in the Don Siegelman case. Now we can show that the same magistrate butchered the applicable law on whether Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were entitled to discovery on the Canary issue.

The bottom line? U.S. Magistrate Charles S. Coody screwed up both the facts (and lied about doing it) and the law on an issue that is central in the Siegelman case--that the defendants apparently were denied their constitutional right to an impartial prosecutor. In fact, Coody laid the foundation for U.S. District Judge Clay Land's refusal last December to release Siegelman from prison, pending oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit in January. A ruling on that appeal has yet to be issued.

We already have shown how Coody failed to review Canary-related documents because he did not even order them. We also have shown that Coody proceeded to lie about what he had done. While Coody clearly cannot be trusted on matters of fact, he also has problems with matters of law.

For example, Coody denied Siegelman's discovery request largely because the former Alabama governor had "pointed to no prejudice he had suffered as a result of Canary's involvement"--even though Siegelman presented actual evidence, thanks to whistleblower Tamarah Grimes, that Canary failed to abide by her recusal.

What's the problem with Coody's finding? Well, under the law, "no prejudice" is not the proper issue. Coody used the wrong legal standard.

Let's take a brief trip through key legal documents to show where the judge went wrong. This is from Coody's order, dated June 27, 2012:

Siegelman points to no prejudice he suffered as a result of Canary's communications. He provides the court with no credible evidence that the United States Attorney directed, managed, influenced or controlled any aspect of the prosecution of the case.

In this instance, however, Siegelman is seeking discovery regarding Canary's communications--and he does not have to show actual prejudice. The real standard, on a discovery matter, is governed by a case styled Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). It is a U.S. Supreme Court case that has been cited in many lower-court rulings, including Arthur v. Allen 459 F. 3d 1310 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006). It is grounded in a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case styled Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969).

This is from Bracy, citing the actual standard that governs Siegelman's discovery request:

In Harris, we stated that "where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry."

As Siegelman's lawyers showed in an appellate brief, the defendant more than met the standard of providing "specific allegations." That meant Coody had a "duty" to "provide . . . for an adequate inquiry." But he did not do it; in fact, he lied about what he had done.

What does all of this mean for Siegelman's appeal? It shows how easy it would be to get at the truth--assuming the court wants to get at the truth. From the appellate brief:

Here, Siegelman not only provided specific allegations, but also actual evidence, which the Magistrate Judge and Judge (Mark) Fuller ignored, that discovery would have yielded facts supporting his new-trial claim. In addition to the emails showing Canary’s ongoing involvement, Siegelman’s discovery request was supported by Grimes’s letter to the Attorney General, in which she wrote that Canary “directed some action” in the case, made “suggestions” to Franklin, and wrote “all the press releases” issued under Franklin’s signature. . . . The district court could have sought testimony or evidence from Grimes—but did not. Siegelman also pointed to the FOIA suit, which turned up more than 500 pages of responsive documents relating to Canary’s disqualification. . . . The district court could have ordered the government to turn over these documents—but did not.

Most importantly, the district court could have ordered the government to disclose post-disqualification communications between Canary and the prosecution team regarding the Siegelman case—but did not. . . . A simple, targeted email search using terms such as “Leura” and “Canary” with “Siegelman” and “the Big Case” would have quickly answered whether Canary’s ongoing involvement was as extensive as Grimes claimed; if necessary, any responsive emails could have been reviewed in camera. Instead, the Magistrate Judge ordered no Canary-related discovery, based on his conclusion that Siegelman had “pointed to no prejudice he suffered as a result of Canary’s” involvement. . . . But a showing of prejudice is not required for a discovery request, which is proper if the defendant can provide “reason to believe” that his new-trial claim would be substantiated “if the facts are fully developed.” Arthur, 452 F.3d at 1247 (emphasis added). This error alone requires reversal, so that Siegelman’s discovery request can be evaluated under the proper standard. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.”)

Until now, Charles S. Coody has been a relatively unknown player in the Siegelman drama. But we've shown that Coody's errors of fact and law require reversal--and a legitimate inquiry into Leura Canary's recusal.

Will the Eleventh Circuit ensure that Coody's errors are corrected? Or will the appellate court simply try to cover up for him?

10 comments:

Clint Brown said...

Good article, Roger. It covers the bases of Don's lawyers' arguments before the 11th Circuit and, I believe, were advanced before Judge Clay on Governor Siegelman's motion for bond pending appeal.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks, Clint. I don't know why Clay Land did what he did other than, like so many others, he felt the need to cover up judicial wrongdoing. His finding was based largely on Coody's ruling, which he had to know was fraudulent.

Anonymous said...

Every American, Republican and Democrat, should be outraged by this case. Thanks for continuing to report on it, when others have forgotten or never really tried to get at the truth.

Herm said...

What this judge did, it has to be a crime, doesn't it?

legalschnauzer said...

I certainly think it is, Herm. Obstruction of justice would be a good place to start. Conspiracy would be another.

e.a.f. said...

good article. this is why bloggers are important in this day and age.

So much for American justice. they used to say, justice was blind. Now its just plain dumb.

Artie said...

What must be in those Leura Canary recusal documents to make the judiciary and the DOJ strive so hard to keep them secret? One can only imagine.

legalschnauzer said...

Great point, Artie, and here's what is really troubling: Those documents were produced with taxpayer-funded equipment, by people whose positions were funded by taxpayers. By most any definition, they are public documents--and we the people have a right to see them, not to mention that Siegelman, Scrushy and their legal teams have a right to see them.

The whole Siegelman case--and the secretive, duplicitous way its been handled--essentially means the U.S. is not a real democracy anymore.

Anonymous said...

A very sad, but true fact is that people here in the USA are getting railroaded all the time. We seem not to care until or unless the railroading comes close to our home/hearts. The ones doing the railroading know and understand this very well. It's by dividing us into smaller groups, pitting us against each other that has made this railroading so easy, so common. They have made the words union, liberal, democrat party. tree hugging left wing communists on the same level as child molesters. No one has the balls to stand up to injustices anymore so each day more and more are loaded on to the railroad express. Greed and control has destroy what was at one time the best of the best. However the good news which is also bad news is that we will soon get a do over. One only has to read the daily news to understand that this world is coming apart. A failed state is almost here where the rule of law will come from the business end of a AK47.

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for a profound statement, @3:38. I think you absolutely nailed it. I can think of a whole bunch of people I would like to see on the "business end" of an AK-47. If the system is determined to screw you forever, perhaps that kind of thing becomes your only option for justice. The Second Amendment seems to be the only one Americans care about anymore. They certainly don't care about the First, Fourth, Fifth, or 14th.