United States v. Don Eugene Siegelman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9503
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Don Siegelman, former Governor of Alabama, and Richard Scrushy, HealthSouth CEO, were convicted of federal funds bribery and multiple honest services counts, with Siegelman also convicted of obstruction of justice.
- The bribery convictions rested on a pay-to-play scheme involving Scrushy’s $500,000 donation in exchange for Scrushy’s appointment to Alabama’s CON Board, which controlled certificates of need for healthcare facilities.
- The HealthSouth donations were funneled through the Alabama Education Lottery Foundation and other intermediaries, including a $250,000 donation linked to a HealthSouth check and an IHS-UBS arrangement.
- Evidence showed subsequent CON Board actions favored HealthSouth, including Scrushy’s appointment as vice-chair and later board decisions approving HealthSouth projects.
- After a 2005 trial, the jury acquitted on many counts but convicted on several related charges; post-Skilling remand prompted reconsideration of several theories and instructions.
- The court ultimately affirmed Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, and 17, reversed Counts 8 and 9 for Siegelman and for Scrushy, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quid pro quo requirement in bribery instructions | Siegelman/Scrushy argued McCormick required explicit quid pro quo. | Court held explicit not required; instruction adequate. | Quid pro quo sufficient under given instruction; no reversible error. |
| Scope of honest services after Skilling | Skilling narrows honest services to bribery/kickback schemes. | Broader theories should be permissible; due process notice lacking if not. | Counts 5–7 upheld; Counts 6–7 upheld;Skilling narrows but does not reverse these counts here. |
| Self-dealing counts 8–9 and Siegelman’s knowledge | Counts 8–9 alleged broader self-dealing participation by Siegelman. | Evidence insufficient to show Siegelman knowingly participated in broader self-dealing. | Reversal of Counts 8–9 for Siegelman; Scrushy’s Counts 8–9 also reversed. |
| Juror misconduct and extrinsic information | Extraneous information or deliberation issues could undermine verdict. | District court properly conducted hearings; no prejudicial impact. | District court did not abuse discretion; no new trial required. |
| Upward departure for public confidence in government | Prosecution urged departure for pervasive corruption affecting public trust. | Upward departure affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1991) (requires explicit quid pro quo in some campaign-contribution contexts to convict for bribery/extortion)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1992) (instruction valid if it requires a specific official action in exchange for payment)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942) (jury verdict must be respected absent substantial evidence to the contrary)
- United States v. Dozier, 672 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982) (early articulation of quid pro quo concepts in bribery/extortion)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1992) (See above (redundant entry kept for emphasis))
- United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433 (11th Cir. 1996) (circumstantial evidence allowed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Blandford, 33 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1994) (interpretation of explicit vs. express in quid pro quo)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (postverdict juror immunity principles; limits on juror testimony)
- United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461 (11th Cir. 1996) (juror exposure and Remmer-related harmless-error considerations)
- United States v. Barshov, 733 F.2d 842 (11th Cir. 1984) (juror-related evidentiary procedures and postverdict considerations)
- United States v. De La Vega, 913 F.2d 861 (11th Cir. 1990) (preference for limiting extrinsic information to harmlessness analysis)