Courtroom Chronicles

Scrushy Attorney Disappointed but Says It's Time to Move On

Scrushy lead attorney Art Leach says he knew sitting in the courtroom that "it was not good" when the jury returned a "guilty" verdict on former Governor Don Siegelman on count three of the second superseding indictment.

It's been a week of roller coaster emotions for Leach.  On the weekend prior to the verdict being announced he traveled home to New York where he surprised his parents with a party celebrating their 55th wedding anniversary.  Leach says the party came as a "complete surprise" to his parents but the "party was wonderful.  Dad cried and mom stood in silence."  It was an "incredibly difficult" weekend in regards to travel and in another way as he had to take his daughter Jessica, who spent two weeks with him here in Montgomery, back to Atlanta and drop her off.   Then came the verdict.

Jim Parkman, who helped defend Richard Scrushy in the HealthSouth case in Birmingham, says he was "shocked and stunned" when he first heard the verdict.  Parkman said earlier in the day, after learning a verdict was on the way, that he thought the defendants would all be acquitted.  "I guess I have to eat my words," says Parkman.

However, Leach says what happened Thursday is all part of the process.  "Look, we're part of the judicial system and we understand that the jury returned a verdict.  We disagree with it and we're very disappointed by it.  But, we understand how the process works and we've got to move on from here."  Leach says, "We are going to fight another day."

Moving on will include slowing down a bit and doing some evaluation of things. 

"We've got to let the dust settle. We've got to evaluate the convictions, what was and was not passed upon by the jury and then we'll go to sentencing and after sentencing we'll move on to an appellate process with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised throughout the course of this case which we will take up with the 11th Circuit and we will take up with the judge in motions.  We believe that we will get a new trial and that upon a new trial Richard Scrushy will be vindicated.  We are satisfied that Richard Scrushy is innocent of the charges that were returned by the jury today.

But in light of the various problems that we had in this case...We believe we will get it overturned and when it is reversed, we'll have a new trial and Richard Scrushy will be found not guilty."

Leach, who used to love trying RICO cases as a prosecutor, believes Scrushy should never have been in "this RICO case."  Leach says the jury didn't return any verdicts with regard to the RICO or the RICO conspiracy, "that material is highly prejudicial to Richard Scrushy.  We should have been tried separately."  He believes the government has got a "real legal problem" on its hands with regards to not severing out Scrushy from this trial.

"He was tried in a case with all these other RICO charges when the only thing he was charged with had to do with the CON Board.  It is prejudicial under the law to have him in a situation where he has to be tried with all these other counts.  Now, on top of that, you have a jury that did not return any verdict with regard to the RICO or the RICO conspiracy and you have all this additional evidence that was put in that had no relationship to Richard Scrushy."

Leach contends there is also a legal standard that has to be considered.

"The government has got to make a connection between all of these charges and Richard Scrushy and they admitted during the course of these hearings that there was no connection.  He should have never been in this trial."

As for Mr. Scrushy, he says he is very disappointed.  "Many people don't know this.  I took a lie detector test and passed it with flying colors.  It's not right what happened here.  We're very hurt for our family...there was no evidence to tie me to any of these charges... I intend to continue the legal process until we are fully vindicated."

According to Leach, there will be formal documents filed that have to do with all the appellate issues.  He says the severance issue is the "most serious issue right now."  There is also the issue of the jury challenge which is yet to be ruled on by the court.  A similar challenge put forward in the Carmichael case was denied Thursday. 

Judge Fuller is also yet to rule on the Rule 29 motions and the judge said in a late afternoon hearing that he would issue a written order concerning those motions and advising attorneys how to proceed with those matters.  He also said actions would not be required prior to 30 days from today's date.

Leach and Siegelman RICO specialist Robert Blakey both asked the judge to stagger and give time to the Rule 29 motions, having to do with dismissal, and the Rule 33 motions, having to do with asking for a new trial.  The government wants all the motions done at the same time but the defense lawyers say whether or not to do Rule 33 motions is a strategic decision. 

Leach told Judge Fuller he also needed time to "talk to the client and the other lawyers as to what we're going to do."  Mr. Leach requested the Rule 29 motions be done first and then a two-three week period be granted prior to doing the Rule 33 motion.

Friday Judge Fuller issued an order giving defendants until August 4, 2006 to file supplemental briefs on their Rule 29 motions.  He is giving the United States until August 18th to file responses to the motions and then defendants have until August 25 to reply to the U.S. response to the defense's supplemental motions.  "The Court will consider the briefs and then decide whether further oral argument will be necessary."

The Rule 33 motions for a new trial must be filed by the defense before September 29, 2006 with the government response due on or before October 13.  Defendants must file their replies to the government responses by October 20, 2006.

During the same hearing Judge Fuller ordered the bail tickets for the defendants to be placed under seal until further order from the court.  The judge also sealed the modified conditions of release.  Mr. Leach asked if a letter of credit could be substituted at some point in the future.  Fuller told Mr. Leach he had "no problem" with that and wanted to do whatever was "least costly to the client."

Reports indicate Scrushy may have been released on a $1 million bond and Siegelman on a $25,000 bond.

Another thing that will happen is the probation office has to conduct a pre-sentencing investigation and prepare a pre-sentencing report that is presented to the court.  The report

• identifies applicable guidelines and policy statements,
• calculates the defendant's offense level and criminal history category,
• states the resulting sentencing range and kinds of sentences available,
• identifies factors relevant to the appropriate kind of sentence or the appropriate sentence within the applicable sentencing range and
• identifies any basis from departing from the applicable sentencing range.

Sentencing normally occurs about 90 days from the verdict.  The report has to be submitted at least 35 days before sentencing unless the defendant waives the minimum period.

Acting U.S. attorney Louis Franklin advises, "We can't tell you what sentence we will be asking for until we see a pre-sentencing investigation report.  We have to let that process work.  We'll wait for the report to come out and then we'll make our decision according to what's in the report."

Franklin says after the initial report is issued there is an opportunity for objection to the report.  He says then a final report comes out and is given to the judge.  Following this, there is a sentencing date when the prosecution gets to argue what the sentence should be.

Your Turn

It's over for two of the defendants, Paul Hamrick and Mack Roberts, but for Richard Scrushy and Don Siegelman a long process is just getting started.

The Chronicles will be shutting down shortly, but I just want to say again to those who helped make this first effort a great learning experience for me, THANK YOU!  A lot of people gave unselfishly of themselves to help me better understand the legal process.  People put up with incessant questions, phone calls, and cornering in and outside the courthouse.  You all gave freely of your time even when you didn't really have the time to give.  Most importantly, I had the opportunity to spend time with a lot of great human beings.  Wherever you path leads, I wish you all the best.

A special shout out to all the CSOs and marshals who put up with all the media craziness around the courthouse.  You folks usually passed the patience test I gave you on most days and I enjoyed getting to know you.  I'm sure we'lI see each other again, and I must confess you probably will have to get on me again about chit-chatting in the hallway.

To regular readers of the Chronicles, you've seen or heard what has happened during the trial, now it's your turn to chime in.  Free-for-all Friday is here and it's time for your take on the verdict or anything else you want to say about the trial.  Just post your comments and others can respond.

Verdict Shortly

The verdict will be in shortly.  Attorneys have been told to be here at 1:45 p.m.

Everyone is coming in and we will be getting started shortly.  We are going to move to verdict forms in a moment.

Another Day

It's a beautiful day outside and inside the building the jury is ready to get to work after breakfast.  They didn't stop at mid-afternoon yesterday like they thought they would; so, for now,  we just wait on word from them.

The jury should be returning from lunch sometime between now, 12:35 p.m. and 1 p.m.

More Instructions

.Judge Fuller will meet with the lawyers at 8:30 a.m. to go over his proposed instructions to the jury.  The jury is scheduled to come in at 9 a.m. 

The lawyers are in place for the most part.  Richard Scrushy arrived with more members of his family today.

Well we're past our start time so we know the jury will probably not be in by 9 a.m.

The judge is on the bench and has given the supplemental instructions.  The prosecution is not pleased with the court's instructions.

Mr. Perrine is arguing the judge needs to inquire of the jury to determine whether or not the jury was engaged in the process.  The U.S. position is that there should be an inquiry of each juror to find out if they each are participating in the process before instructions.

Judge Fuller asks Mr. Perrine about how he should reach the decisoin.  Mr. Perrine says the meeting should happen without lawyers with the jury to see where the jurors are at.  Perrine says this would enable the court to proceed "more wiseley."

Without the jury being engaged in the process the instructions will not matter says Perrine again.  Perrine says the inquiry should be on the record to determine if the jurors are engaging in the political process.

Mr. Blakey says they support the instructions except for one part of the instructions.

The judge says the court has no presumption the defendants are guilty or not guilty.

The judge says he will make a change requested by Blakey.  Blakey says the government's argument should not apply to this case.

Blakey says again the note indicates that some of the jurors had developed a "blanket reasonable doubt."

Blakey says the jury is not refusing to deliberate.  Blakey says there is reasonable doubt as to each count against the defendants.  Blakey says the instructions as now modified are perfectly adequate.  He says the judge should not intrude in the deliberations and push the jury in any direction.  Blakey says the government wants a mistrial.

Mr. Deen is now speaking for Mr. Hamrick.  Deen says the judge mentions the Magna Carta in the insturctions.  Deen says the jury sent back one note to the foreman a few days agao saying they were conscientious.  "It doesn't look like a total shutdown."  Deen says he is against questioning the jurors at this point by the judge.  Deen says he is satisfied with the instruction.

Mr. McKnight has a problem with page three of the instructions.  He says the judge in the first Allen charge mentioned the presumption of innocence, but it is not given in this charge.  McKnight says fairness requires this.  He requests the presumption of innocence be included along with the burden of proof expecially since it was given the first time.

Mr. McKnight says he objects to the government's suggestion of individual inquiry of the jury.

Mr. Leach is arguing that judges must be careful about the possibilty about dismissing any of the jurors.  First off I would say that the government's request has not been provided for us.  He is asking that the government provide him a copy right now.

The judge says he will get him a copy but that it will not impact the court's ruling.

The important part here is that in your response to the jury...what I would ask is that you redact the foreperson's name and ...make it part of the public record...

He asks the note go back to the jury.  He says the jury does not always know what's in the note.

Mr. Leach says there is a case where the court could inquire of a single juror. He says he doesn't believe it should happen at this point.

Mr. Leach is questioning the bottom of page four and the top of five.  He suggest to the court that the entire sentence be removed.  He says it will highlight disension in the jury.  "It's obvious the jury is deliberating and has a difference of opinion."

Leach says he doesn't believe in the 11th circuit there is a discussion of inapproriate considerations.  Leach says the rest of the charge is balanced and will assist them.  Leach says the "inappropriate considerations" remarks will not help.

Leach suggest the judge insert "your evaluation of the evidence."  Leach says if the jurors have evaluated the evidence and have reasonable doubt the insertion of the statement would help them.

The judge asks if this is not clarified on the bottom of page two.  Leach says the jury will be focused on these instructions.

Mr. McKnight says the jury may be trying to swallow the elephent as a whole.  He would like the jury instructed to consider each count for each defendant.

Mr. Perrine says remarks in the instructions about the possibility of selecting a new foreperson should be stricken from the instructions.

Perrine says the language as it is currently would "intimidate" the foreperson.  Perrine says he does not want anything added to the burden of proof instructions.  He says the jury has been "beat to death about reasonable doubt.  He says he objects to the note being released to the press, he believes this would have a chilling effect on deliberations. Perrine says the government does not want a mistrial.

Perrine is still insisting on an inquiry as to the jury as to whether the jurors are following the courts instructions and deliberating.  He says any further instructions are not needed.

Judge Fuller says the supplemental instructions will be written so the jury can be notified about one or more jurors not participating in the deliberative process.  He will give the instructions with Blakey's amendment and with McKnight's presumption of innocence.

He is waiting on copies of the instructions for the jury.

Judge Fuller says the notes from the jury will remain under seal until the trial is over.  They will be made available to the jury if requested.

The judge is reading the instructions.  The judge says this is an important case but no more important.  So far this is the same type of modified "Allen" charge as before.

He is advising the jury again about reasonable doubt and asking the jury to examine their positions.  No juror is expected to give up an honest belief.  He advises the jury it is their duty to agree upon a verdict if they can do so.  He says the jury may be as leisurely in their deliberations as are requred.  He reminds the jury each defendant is presumed innocent.  He says the government has the burden of proof.

He is going back through the definition of reasonable doubt as he did last week.  He tells them the verdict must be unanimous.  He tells them it is up to them to reach agreement if they can do so.  He goes back through asking them to reexamine their opinions.  He advises them not to give up their beliefs and to "seek the truth through the evidence of this case."

He is asking each individual to make an individual determination of continuing to deliberate as their first act upon return to the jury room.

He tells the jury they may elect a new foreperson. He says this is not a reflection on the foreperson.

The judge says they may contact him without going through the foreperson if necessary as individuals.

He asks them to report back to him about continuing deliberations.  He says they are not to indicate to him the numerical divisions.  He says he wants to know if further deliberations will be benificial or would be "hopeless."

He reminds them to look at each count against each defendant seperately.  He says the notes will be available to them if they feel they need them.

The postion I hold is a lifetime appointment, says Judge Fuller.  He says he will be here with them as long as they need him to be there to guide them through the process.

We are now waiting on the jury to return with the answer about whether or not they can continue deliberations.

The lawyers have been called back in to court.  This happened less than five minutes ago around 11:25 or so.

The note simply says the jury wants to continue to try to deliberate and see if they can work things out. Judge Fuller says he assumes the jury will go to lunch shortly.  The note indicated the jury would like to keep trying until at least mid-afternoon.  Everyone has left for lunch again for try #2.

The note from the jury signed by juror #7.  The note will be under seal.  "We do wish to continue for now some deliberations...We would ask for time through at least mid-afternoon to try this.  Thank you"

I had to leave some of the note out.

Judge Fuller responds the court is encouraged by your commitment.  Fuller says for them to continue their deliberations in his written reply.

We never heard from the jury for the rest of the day. The jury left between 4:30 - 4:45 p.m.

Attorneys I talked to saw this as a hopeful sign that discussions among the jury were moving forward and they were trying to come to some kind of agreement to at least continue deliberations.

Problems with the Jury

First, to those upset we could not update the blog during the hearing let me explain.  Our first responsibility is to our on air product.  When there is this much verbiage the on air machine has to be fed first.  Unfortunately, both cannot be done at the same time. The fact most of this action took place close to and during newscasts made this action more imperative.

Now on to the events of late this afternoon.

We got word the judge was calling the lawyers back to the courtroom.  There was a note from the jury.  The lawyers were advised to bring in the clients.

The lawyers entered the courtroom and met up with the judge.  We could not hear this.

Judge Fuller says upon beginning that counsel from both sides had the note and he was not going to read it.  He says the court had reviewed its options and there is a "potential" conflict with the jury.

The judge says he does not know if a juror has problems continuing to deliberate and he asks for comments from the attorneys.

Blakey speaks for Siegelman.  He says the foreman says in the note the jury is lackadaisical.  He seems to indicate there may be problems with three people.  Blakey says for the foreman to assume because people don't talk to him in his language they are not participating is a sign of the foreman's arrogance.  Blakey says the judge needs to find out the mind of the jury and not just what the foreman thinks.

Blakey says there needs to more communication through the jury and not with just the foreman

The judge says to talk about a mistrial is premature at this point.  Blakey says they like this jury and want another Allen charge

Mr. Deen, speaking for Mr. Hamrick, says he is concerned about the note from the foreman.  Deen says the jury can elect a new spokesperson or foreman.  Deen says the foreman is being coercive.

For Mr. Roberts, Mr. McKnight says he does not want interference with the jury except for instruction from the bench.  He says an inquiry is not needed and the judge says he is not going to conduct an inquiry. 

McKnight says some of the jurors agree with the defense.  "Obviously we didn't persuade the foreman, who has a different opinion it seems."

Fred Gray is speaking for Richard Scrushy.  The judge has asked juror #7, the foreman not be discussed by name.

Mr. Gray says if you take the note in its entirety it is the opinion of one person and not that of the jurors as a whole  Gray says he thinks it might be the writer's personal opinion. 

Judge Fuller asks if Gray wants him to inquire of the foreperson whether the opinion is that of the majority or the minority.  Gray says the foreperson is not adequately interpreting some of the other jurors' positions.

The judge says he doesn't take the letter as if there is one person against the rest of the jurors.  It doesn't indicate a verdict cannot be reached says Fuller

Now Mr. Butts speaks for Mr. Scrushy.  Butts says as a possible solution to tell the jury that other members may also send the court notes if they so chose.  Butts says if the court reporter would make available to the prosecution and defense the instructions given before and the modified Allen charge, it would give time for everyone to tweak the instructions before coming back in the morning.

Mr. Feaga says the U.S. believes that part of the problem relates back to the previous question and the instructions given by the court previously.  Feaga says the note infers a few jurors will not deliberate.  Feaga wants the judge to inquire of the foreperson.

Feaga says there is a danger with the note that if the court instructs them to go back again he believes the majority might feel like the court is telling them to give up on their position.

Feaga says the government is opposed to another Allen charge especially with an emphasis on the burden of proof.  He says that message is to give it up.  Feaga says the note says there are some jurors who won't deliberate.

The judge says if the jurors aren't participating because they've made their minds up that's participation in the court's mind.

The judge says if they have not made up their mind he is leaning toward another Allen charge and will instruct the foreperson to talk to the jury.  The judge says declaring a mistrial will be his last resort.

Fuller says he wants to find out why they are not deliberating.  He is going to bring the jury back in and have a discussion with the foreperson.  He is going to remind them of their oath and give them another Allen charge or repeat the one he has already given and to find out today or tomorrow if the jury is hopelessly deadlocked.

The judge says it is presumptuous to say the jury can't reach a verdict.

The government says it does not oppose an Allen charge that is only an "Allen" charge, but Feaga does not want additional material added.  Feaga believes the foreperson and others are in the majority.  Feaga says he believes the personal benefit question may be causing the problem.

Mr. Feaga says he does not want the judge to discuss the burden of proof again.

Blakey says it would be more effective to instruct the jury in the morning. Blakey says he does not believe the judge needs to talk to the foreperson or the jury.  The judge is allowing the lawyers to speak from their table and we now can't hear them.

Art Leach says he does not want any discussion with the foreperson in open court.  Leach says he is worried it would become too free wheeling.  He says reasonable doubt is not a problem.

The judge says there is no particular problem identified in the note about a juror that would say the jury can't move forward.

Leach says to give two instructions with the "Allen" charge.  Leach says again he does not want the foreperson to come in and speak to the court.

The judge says the jury may need to have the modified "Allen" charge back with them.

The judge says the ability to refer to it in writing may be of some benefit.

Leach says the judge could give a written response and that that would be in order.  He says the judge could prepare it tonight and give it to them in the morning.

Feaga says the note says people will not deliberate.  Judge Fuller is quoting from the note "and thus have shown no interest in continuing much discussion."

Fuller says this does not indicate they will not discuss it further.

Feaga says some people will not engage others on the facts.  Feaga wants an inquiry with the foreman.  Feaga says once the foreman is talked to the judge could then talk to the rest of the jury.
Feaga says Leach may be right about a reasonable doubt but he doesn't feel the judge should tell the jury to adopt the position of those who won't deliberate.  Feaga again says bring the foreman in.

Feaga says if the court finds the jurors have a reasonable doubt that is fine, but he does not want another instruction.  Feaga says the note says there are people who will not discuss things.

Blakey says the note says people from the beginning developed a blanket reasonable doubt.

Mr. Leach says making the inquiry will be clear reversible error.  Leach says the government needs to present authority as to this.  Leach says by making the inquiry it would tell those with reasonable doubt they are doing something wrong.

Leach again says he does not want inquiry of the foreman. 

Feaga is citing his authority to Mr. Leach and the judge.  The judge asks Feaga to make his argument.  We can't hear Feaga well.  Feaga says he has confidence in the court.

The jury is coming in.  When the jury came in they were seated as follows:  whites on row one,  blacks on the middle row, and the back row was mixed.

The judge says he appreciates the effort of the jury.  He tells them he has received a note and he characterizes it as there is frustration among some about the participation of some members of the jury.

Judge Fuller says this is not unusual.  He reminds them of their obligations as a jury.  He is reminding them of their oath.  He says he is going to work on further written instructions to accompany them into the jury room to supplement instructions given earlier.

These will include the instructions from last week as well.  He is going to give this to them in the morning and instruct them further then. He is going to release them for the day.

Fuller says if any one has made up their honest assessment about whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty they are participating.  Fuller tells jurors whether people agree or disagree with them shouldn't matter.

However, Fuller says if they are not deliberating due to obstinance then the jury should follow the written instructions and continue deliberations.  The instructions will be given at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.

The judge says he wants them to make an "honest individual assessment" of whether or not they can reach a verdict and then the foreperson will report back to the court whether or not further deliberations would be beneficial.  The judge again reminds them again of their oath.  Fuller says to the jury if their individual assessment leads to a conclusion of not guilty - say so, or if the evidence leads to guilty - say so, and if there is a hopeless deadlock say so.

The attorneys have to be in the courtroom at 8:30 a.m.  The note is going to be placed under seal to preserve the identity of the foreman.

The U.S. is responding to the judge's instructions but we can't hear Mr. Franklin.  Kilborn is satisfied.  Deen is satisfied.  Leach says one phrase troubles him. That was when Fuller talked about obstinance with regard to a difference of opinion.  He says he is not sure Fuller said what he, Leach, thought he said.

Leach is asking for the charge on partial verdicts, the Allen charge, and the new charge.  Leach wants all this to go back to the jury.

Judge Fuller says he does not know if there will be time to take this up.  Fuller says give him a chance to formulate something tonight.  Judge Fuller says he will put what he said today in writing.

Leach tells Judge Fuller Feaga was holding a book in his hand and he wants the judge to read a certain part of the book. 

At one point in this discussion the prosecution asked about the possibility of using alternate jurors.

Judge Fuller says he is not looking to get rid of anybody on the jury.  Fuller says there would have to be more cause.

Mr. Feaga is arguing something but we can't hear.  I believe he is arguing inquiry.

The judge says we will be better informed tomorrow. 

Outside the courthouse prosecutors said they were ready to let events unfold.  As to the note, "I think out of deference to the court I am not going to comment on that right now," says Steve Feaga for the government.  "I think the court has indicated to us he is going to come up with some instructions tomorrow.  I don't want to do anything that would pre-suppose or pre-guess what the court is going to do.  I think commenting on that note right now probably would not be a good thing to do.  We said what we had to say about it up there in the courthouse and I think we should leave it there."

In response to further questions, Mr. Feaga says, "I think where we are right now is the court has indicated that he's going to formulate some instructions...and I think the best thing for the United States to do is to wait and hear what the court proposes to do and react to that tomorrow.  But we have confidence in the court and confidence in the process."

"We asked the court to make inquiry and he has asked us and the defendants to wait and give him a chance to formulate something for tomorrow and so that's what we are going to do," says Feaga.

Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin says,"It's not a surprise right now.  It was a note that the juror's sent to the judge and we really need to wait until tomorrow morning to hear what the judge proposes as to the appropriate way to handle it...I think they are reaching out to the court for some help and some instruction on how to handle things.  We need to wait until tomorrow morning.  We need to give the court a chance to come up with something that is legally appropriate to tell this jury as to how to handle this problem."

As to bringing in alternate jurors, Feaga says,"It's not so much we want to do that.  What we're saying is we think that, what we urged the court to do was to make inquiry based on the note to help the jury in essence and then if it's determined that something like that is necessary by the court then that's certainly something the court can do.  We're not urging the court to do anything other than to get to the bottom of the question to help the jury, that's all.  And the court's asked us to wait until tomorrow and we're going to do that."

After prosecutors finished it was time for the Vince Kilborn show.  He says he did not agree that it was time for a mistrial or time to replace jurors.  He says the Siegelman team was "120% satisfied with exactly what Judge Fuller is doing."  Kilborn says,"This jury is deliberating the way they are supposed to be deliberating.  He's reminded them of their oath.  He's going to come back and give some additional instructions in the morning and I predict this jury will follow those instructions and we will have a verdict."

Kilborn says he loved hearing about "reasonable doubt" from the note.  "We spent half of our closing argument talking about reasonable doubt.  Whether the government likes it or not that's the law of the United States of America.  If there's reasonable doubt, they ought to acquit and the government should stop whining about the existence of reasonable doubt and instructions about reasonable doubt.  It makes me mad that the judge talks about the key legal issues in the case and they get up and start whining.  They ought to whine to the Congress if they want the law changed."

Kilborn says the jury will be able to reach an agreement "because the judge is going to give them instructions that he thinks will urge them into doing their duty and I am fully confident that they will do it.  And he's going to remind them as he did today and as he did the other day that it is very important in the case of the government and the defendants it's been a long case, an important case, a trying case,  an emotional case but there is no better jury in America that can decide this case other than this jury."

Kilborn says, "As the judge told them if they have made up their minds that there's reasonable doubt, it is not, not participating if they hold to that opinion and if there's reasonable doubt the law of the land says they must acquit and the law of the land also says that the jury must be unanimous."

As to the suggestion by the government that alternate jurors might be appropriate, Kilborn responds,"Yeah, I'll suggest that baloney!  They helped choose this jury, now they don't like the jury.  Well that's too bad. They chose the regular jury of 12 people that are deliberating.  The alternates are only to be substituted in extreme situations, which is not the case here. "

If the alternates come aboard they have to start brand new says Kilborn.  "This jury of 12 good people is perfectly capable of making a decision in this case."

After being told he appeared to be getting "worked up" in the courtroom, Art Leach told WSFA's Eileen Jones, "Well my first response is when do I not get worked up?"  This brought a laugh from reporters.  As to the points he was trying to make, Leach says, "All we were talking about was the propriety of having communications with the jury.  That is the most important thing here."

Regarding any inquiry directed at the foreman, the lawyer says, "The reason why I object to any inquiry is that the only basis on which there has been any communication is because some jurors believe that there is reasonable doubt in this case and that is not a basis on which there should be an inquiry.  That is our position."

As for all the uproar, Mack Roberts' attorney David McKnight says, (It's)"just the jury going through the process they all go through.  People have differences of opinions and they're working it out.  I just think the lawyers should stay out of it and let the jury come to their conclusions."

McKnight says he doesn't believe it will be over on Wednesday.  "I think the judge is going to let it play out like it should and I don't think it will be over tomorrow.  But, I'm hoping we'll get a verdict this week."

He says disagreements within a jury are not unusual.  "No, it happens a lot especially in a highly emotional case like this with deep-seeded feelings on each side and that's what makes the jury process great.  People get to keep their opinions and hold on to their opinions and talk about different issues and that's why we have the greatest judicial system in the world."

Some observers believe the fact the prosecution was asking for the use of alternates may be because the prosecution feels the jury is weighted towards their side and believes the alternates would help bring back a guilty verdict.  Judge Fuller has said he is not ready to discuss replacing anyone on the jury.  Fuller said there is no basis to consider that based on what is known at this time.

Another Meeting

There is another meeting in chambers with Judge Fuller to take place shortly.  We do not know what it is about at this time.  Just a guess the meeting is at around 2 p.m.

The lawyers have gone into the meeting.  The clients do not have to be present.

The jury has gone home for the day.

Apparently a juror became ill and wanted to go home.  The judge talked to the lawyers and the lawyers talked to the juror.  The jury went home home early and will resume deliberations Tuesday morning at their normal time. 

They are all singing from the same hymnal, both prosecution and defense agree the sick juror is what the conference was about and no one is saying anything else.

Can you believe this took an hour?

Wisdom from Unexpected Places

It is around 7 a.m., the sidewalk is already beginning to heat up and the humidity is on the rise as "Jeannie May" shuffles slowly up the sidewalk pushing here grocery cart and pauses to closely examine the ground near the post office close to the federal courthouse.

Covered in heavy clothing, even in the steam of a summer's morning, the short, black woman with cheeks like those of a chipmunk and a toothless smile, bends over slowly and picks some grass gently and places the blades into her plastic trash bag.

I walk up slowly to this lady that few people talk to or notice, and say,"Good morning."  She is surprised that someone stops and talks to her but quickly says,"Good morning," in return as I ask if she would mind talking to me for a minute.  She is amused that someone is interested in what she has to say but nonetheless asks me what my name is and wants to know if I am a social worker. Calmly she tells me she calls herself "Jeannie May."  She opines that some folks just call her the "bag lady."

For the record, I have no idea what her real name is and I am not sure that she is sure herself at times.  She quickly asks me if my mother is still living.  I say,"Yes," and she tells me,"You are blessed to have your mother."

By now she has started pushing her cart with the wobbly wheel up the sidewalk.  I offer to help, but it is quickly apparent she wants no one touching her cart loaded with grass clippings and trash among other things.  She struggles with the weight of the cart but still does not want any help as the wheel sticks in one of those tiny sidewalk cracks which turns a buggy wheel into a doorstop.

We finally cross the street headed toward the federal courthouse and she stops to tell me her mother passed in 1985 and again that she misses her mother.   She pauses and relates to me,"I didn't know much about my mother, who she calls "Betty Jane."

"Jeannie May" says her head is hurting, "it's a bad day," she says referring to the pain in her head and just as quickly she says she thinks a woman and a man are going to bring her another cart - without a bad wheel.  She thinks she has been through two or three carts.

She pauses at the side of the church and tells me of an operation she had in 1971.  Again, I have no way of knowing how true this is, but it is true for her.  She stops again and bends slowly to pick up some trash.  "I do my job in the morning...they throw things down for me to pick up."  She does say the church needs to do a better job getting the bird poop off the sidewalk.  But, she is happy about her work and I wonder where her joy comes from.

"Jeannie May" engages me in conversation about the state of the world, "The world changes, peoples changes, the clock changes," she says with a smile.  "I thank God for everything he does for me.  It doesn't matter how bad our problem is, he still loves us."

"Whoa," I say to myself.  Did I just hear a woman who most of the world looks on with scorn give me the Bible lesson of the day?  I was not in a very good mood when I decided to take the plunge and walked down the street to introduce myself and talk to this woman, and now the countenance on her face and the joy in her voice give me a peaceful calm.

I related to someone later in the courthouse how her words had stopped me in my tracks.  I may never know all her story, how much is fact and how much is fiction.  But, in reality, does it matter?

She says people give her clothing and she says she would like "a dark blue Catholic skirt" like one she used to have.  She says she worked for 30 years and has a son in a North Carolina foster home.  Her sense of time is definitely not in proportion to my time line as she shifts back and forth between now and yesterday.  Are these memories or demons she wrestles with?  Only God knows.

She says there is something wrong with her son's brain.  Then she recalls she hasn't seen her social worker because the worker's sister had to have an operation, again this is all real in her world.  "Jeannie May" says she used to be married at one time.  She talks to me about thinking about getting a lawyer, but then says,"I don't trust them, I might lose."

Is that feeling from a past experience?

Again, she delivers her sermon,"It's a blessing.  I got a lot to be thankful for.  I thank God for everything he does for me." 

One of the court security officers told me he believes people look out after her.  She has been around for years.  He says he can't remember any harm ever having come to her.  She tells me she moves between the homes of three cousins.  I know when this trial is over I have more to find out about "Jeannie May."

She decides she's had enough and goes to the dumpster near which she sometimes takes a nap and I return to the courthouse for another day of trial.

Think about it for a minute.  We have a courthouse building that according to the GAO has ended up costing about $73,293,497.  Imported marble was used and the building could have been a palace for an ancient king.  And in its shawdow, a kind soul rests next to a dumpster and is filled with peace.

Inside this building, in this one trial, millions have been spent on both sides.  The government in bringing its case and paying its lawyers has spent millions.  At least two of the defendants in defending their individual cases have spent countless millions on attorneys and in at least one case a lot of money on multiple experts to deal with a jury challenge and a jury consultant.

We've heard about one witness getting $35,000 a month for something that has yet to be fully explained.  We've heard about the cesspool that is politics in Alabama and one witness in particular boasted about throwing his money around as a standard way of doing business.

We've heard about how rough life is for a lot of people in this trial, and no doubt, it has been a strain on everyone.  But for some, not as rough as they'd have you believe when compared to the struggles many people go through on a daily basis.

You would think with all this money floating around, the wisdom would be overflowing since many people in our society equate power, money, and/or status with wisdom.

I've spent a lot of my time talking to a lot of people involved in this trial.  For most, the spin rarely stops.  That's their job.  And while I've enjoyed most of these conversations and learned many things about the legal system, none has taught me more that I needed to know than my conversation with "Jeannie May."

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" - Micah 6:8, KJV

People like "Jeannie May" are looked upon as fools.  People like her don't belong to what famed lawyer Gerry Spence calls the Church of Uniformity.  To most, she is not a "winner." 

A lot has been said and done in this trial to get the "win."  We will likely never know about all the shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes on all sides both before, during, and probably after this trial.

True, the freedom of the defendants is at stake and lawyers on both side are entitled to vigorously present their best case.  The jury or the judge will have to decide things in one fashion or another.

But on a deeper level, no matter how much people in or close to this trial may talk about God, I bet "Jeannie May" gets her calls to God returned first.

Another Meeting with Judge

Ther lawyers have been called for a meeting with Judge Fuller at 10:30 a.m.  Don't know what it is about.

Okay, we can now talk about what happened at the courthouse today.  Apparently, there was someone someplace who thought they heard someone say they were going to go to a courthouse, not any specific courthouse and not necessarily one in Montgomery, and shoot people.

This came up in the meeting between Judge Fuller and the attorneys.  Judge Fuller gave the attorneys the option of going out the front or side door.  Most attorneys came out the front door as usual, but the Siegelman band and Louis Franklin went out the side door.

The jury is gone for the weekend.  More to come.

Dynamite

Judge Fuller threw a little dynamite on the jury on Thursday as he issued a modified "Allen" charge and urged the jury to continue their deliberations.

An "Allen" charge, also known as the Dynamite Charge, is used in one way to get each jury to careflyy examine their positions and to dislodge people entrenched in one position or another.  It urges the jury to exercise reasonableness in the deliberation process and not to give up on the deliberation process.

The prosecution didn't want an "Allen" charge given without the court changing its ruling on a sealed motion filed by the government in response to instructions issued by the judge after a question from the jury on Friday dealing with whether or not Don Siegelman personally benefitted from a contribution to the lottery foundation.  Judge Fuller reminded prosecutors the ruling, "Is what it is."

For his part Richard Scrushy told the media outside the courthouse on Thursday he's seen it all before.  "You know, I've done this before and I've been through the "Allen" charge before and it seems to be pretty effective... I believe in my heart that the majority of the jury is with us.  I just believe that in my heart...I hope that's true.  I believe that and maybe if there's one or two hanging it up, myabe the judge's instruction will work favorably for us...We were for the "Allen" charge...we thought it was appropriate.  We agree with what the judge did.  We think it was the right thing."

As to what's happening with the jury, Terry Butts says, "I really think it's 11-to-1 or 10-to-2.  I don't know which way, but I really believe the majority of that jury has made up their mind and they've got one, maybe two, holdouts."

People inside the main courtroom yesterday noticed the jurors never made eye contact with the   defendants but focused their attention mostly on the judge.

As to whether the jury will return a verdict anytime soon.  The smart people are not guessing.   One attorney told me "How the heck could anyone predict what is going to happen with a jury."