What will we learn about next?

By By Bob Martin, The Alabama Scene
What else could possibly turn up in the Don Siegelman case? Would you believe a juror prosecutors nicknamed “Flipper” because she entertained jurors with her gymnastic acts and had the hots for a member of the prosecution team? How about the fact that “Flipper” tried to communicate with prosecutors during the trial by passing notes through U. S. Marshalls? It has also been revealed that “Flipper” was one of the jurors suspected of e-mailing other jurors during the trial of Siegelman and Richard Scrushy.
If these allegations, contained in inner-staff e-mails of the prosecution team aren’t enough to raise some potential problems, consider that Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, who said she recused herself from the case in May of 2002 after Siegelman’s legal team raised the issue of her husband’s ties to Republican politics, Gov. Bob Riley and Karl Rove, may not actually have stepped aside.
We know these things because a former member of the prosecution team, turned whistleblower, Tamarah T. Grimes, has provided a series of e-mails to the U. S. Justice Department and to Congress concerning these and other actions during the trial of the case. Grimes first submitted her documents to Justice in 2007, and now finds herself in an employment dispute that could result in her dismissal. Although Canary consistently stated she had set up a “firewall” between her and the prosecution team, in 2005, she forwarded the prosecution team e-mails Siegelman wrote to his supporters and made suggestions about the handling of the case.
In addition to providing the e-mails, Grimes has given a written statement to the Department of Justice that Canary had “kept up with every detail of the case.” If true, Conyers told Mukasey, this raises “serious concerns” because “it is difficult to imagine the reason for a recused prosecutor to remain so involved in the day-to-day progress of the matter under recusal.
Next month the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will hear oral arguments in Siegelman’s appeal. Whether these revelations can be included in the appeal hearing is unclear. Siegelman’s attorney Vince Kilborn commented that he was “appalled” by the new information, “particularly because juror conduct is a key issue in the appeal, adding that he felt it would seriously undermine the government’s credibility.
Judge tosses attempted ban on double-dipping
A Montgomery judge has tossed the State Board of Education’s attempt to place a ban on two-year college system employees from also serving as part-time legislators. The ruling didn’t surprise me since Alabama law clearly protects public employees by permitting them to participate in elections to the same degree as other citizens. The particular code section is Section 17-1-4(3), which states: “No person in the employment of the State of Alabama, whether classified or unclassified, shall be denied the right to participate in city, county, or state political activities to the same extent as any other citizen of the State of Alabama….” There are more important protections of this right in the Alabama Constitution. Two-year college Chancellor Bradley Byrne said the ruling would be appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. “We’ve known all along this case would end up in the Alabama Supreme Court. All we wanted was to get a final ruling from the judge so we could get it to the Supreme Court,” Byrne told the Associated Press.
While I agree with the need to clean up the corruption in the state’s two-year college system, it should not be done by eliminating the basic rights of state citizens as enumerated in our constitution and statutory law, including the rights of public workers. I believe the Alabama Supreme Court would have to ignore the laws of our state to reverse the Montgomery Circuit Court ruling. But sadly, that has been known to happen.
Bob Martin is editor and publisher of The Montgomery Independent. E=mail him at: bob@montgomeryindependent.com