It took a few days of hearings before Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller finally sentenced former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman to prison for their convictions on conspiracy and corruption charges.  Although the government sought sentences of twenty-five and thirty years for the two, Scrushy received a sentence of nearly seven years (82 months), and Siegelman was sentenced to a bit more than seven years in prison (88 months).  Both men testified at the sentencing hearing, requesting mercy from the court. 

While the sentences were lower than the prosecutor’s recommendation, Judge Fuller ordered the defendants taken into custody immediately to begin serving their terms, denying requests for bail pending appeal.  In white collar crime cases, it is much more common for a defendant to be given a reporting date — usually a few weeks out — so that the Bureau of Prisons is ready to process the person to the facility where the sentence will be served.  By having them placed in custody immediately, Scrushy and Siegelman will likely be held in a facility temporarily until assigned to a prison, a process that can take weeks — or, as Jamie Olis learned the hard way, even months.  Defense counsel for each is likely to file a petition for bail pending appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, but even that process, while expedited, can take weeks and the prospects for success are cloudy at best.

Scrushy and Siegelman have vowed to appeal, and given how hard-fought the case has been, there’s a decent chance prosecutors will appeal the sentence, arguing that the court miscalculated the gain from the bribery that should result in a higher calculation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  A WTVYNews4.com story (here) discusses the sentencing. (ph)

The sentencing hearing for former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman for their conviction on corruption charges began in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama.  The government urged sentences of twenty-five years for Scrushy and thirty years for Siegelman, in both cases asking the district court to depart upward from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  For each defendant, the government argued for a higher Guidelines calculation than that offered in the presentence report, which had put the sentence for each at about seven to nine years.  Among other things, the government argued for a higher calculation of the gain from the bribery, an obstruction of justice enhancement for each, and special upward departures for pervasive government corruption.  Importantly, the argument in favor of the higher sentences is based in part on the judge including conduct for which the defendants were acquitted at trial, a position that has become quite controversial since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Blakely and Booker on the Sixth Amendment’s role in factual determinations.  A copy of the governments sentencing memorandum for each defendant is below.

According to a story on NBC13.com (here), Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller rejected the government’s argument that the Guidelines calculation include the imputed benefits to HealthSouth from the bribe, which likely will lead to a less-severe sentence.  That said, if Judge Fuller follows the recommendation in the PSR, each defendant will be spending significant time in jail, probably similar to the sentences received in recent corruption cases involving Jack Abramoff (six years) and Randy "Duke" Cunningham (eight+ years).  The sentencing hearing is likely to last three or four days, which is longer than many trials.  Once the court renders the sentence, then the case will move to the Eleventh Circuit, where Scrushy and Siegelman will pursue a variety of arguments to have their convictions overturned in an already contentious and convoluted case. (ph)

Download us_v_siegelman_government_sentencing_memorandum_scrushy_may_25_2007.pdf

Download us_v_siegelman_government_sentencing_memorandum_siegelman_may_25_2007.pdf

Former Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles received a ten-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to obstructing a Senate committee investigation of former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff’s activities.  Griles had requested a sentence of house arrest and community service, while the government recommended a double-nickel sentence: a ten-month term, divided into five months in prison and five months in a half-way house or home confinement.  But the judge sentenced Griles to the full ten months, expressing some displeasure at evasiveness by Griles and his attorneys about his conduct, according to an AP story (here).  Under federal Bureau of Prisons regulations, he will not receive the 15% good time reduction because the sentence is less than a year.  According to a Department of Justice press release (here) describing Griles’ criminal conduct:

Griles admitted that he knowingly and willfully made material false and misleading statements when he testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on Nov. 2, 2005. Specifically, he testified that “Mr. Abramoff is no different than any other lobbyist” and that, “there was no special relationship for Mr. Abramoff in my office. It never did exist.” Griles admitted that his false and misleading statements had the effect of influencing the committee’s findings. The committee concluded in a report that “given the paucity of evidence in the committee’s possession, the committee is unable to arrive at any definitive conclusions as to the veracity of Griles’ testimony on his relationship, and interaction, with Abramoff during all times relevant.”

The Abramoff investigation has resulted in twelve convictions, including one Congressman and a number of Capitol Hill staffers.  Griles is the highest-ranking member of the Executive Branch caught up in the investigation to this point. (ph)