United States v. Richard Scrushy
721 F.3d 1288
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted in 2006 of federal funds bribery, honest services mail fraud, and conspiracy; Scrushy’s appeals challenged juror-impact rulings and the trial judge’s conduct.
- On remand after Skilling, the Eleventh Circuit largely affirmed Siegelman I but remanded Scrushy’s two counts; Scrushy was resentenced in 2012.
- Scrushy moved for a new trial on June 26, 2009, alleging newly discovered evidence, juror misconduct, and ex parte judge contact, among other grounds.
- Judge Fuller conducted an extensive inquiry into juror affidavits and extrinsic information, ultimately denying the new-trial motion and Scrushy’s recusal request.
- The district court’s decisions were reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the appellate panel ultimately affirming the district court’s rulings.
- The court addressed five grounds for the new-trial motion, including selective prosecution, juror-deliberation concerns, ex parte meetings, prosecutorial recusal, and juror information disclosure; it found no abuse of discretion in the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scrushy’s Rule 33(b)(1) motion for a new trial was properly denied. | Scrushy argues newly discovered evidence and misconduct justify a new trial. | Fuller acted within discretion; evidence was either not new or not material. | Denied; no abuse of discretion; grounds lacking under Rule 33. |
| Whether Judge Fuller should have recused under § 455(a) or (b). | Ex parte meeting with Marshals and knowledge from that meeting cast doubt on impartiality. | Judge Hinkle properly found no objective basis for recusal; no personal knowledge or witness role. | Denied; no abuse of discretion; recusal not warranted. |
| Whether ex parte communications with the Marshals violated due process or counsel rights. | Ex parte communications taint the proceedings and the trial outcomes. | Judge Fuller adequately addressed concerns; no prejudice shown; authenticity resolved in Scrushy’s favor. | Denied; no reversible error; proceedings proper. |
| Whether Canary’s recusal and prosecutorial conduct deprived Scrushy of a disinterested prosecutor. | Canary’s involvement after recusal compromised prosecutorial neutrality. | Franklin oversaw the case; Canary’s limited involvement did not remove disinterested prosecution. | Denied; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the juror-related misconduct allegations regarding emails could sustain a new trial. | Emails suggested premature/unduly influenced deliberations. | Authencity and impact uncertain; law of the case precludes new findings. | Denied; not sufficient to warrant a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Siegelman (Siegelman I), 561 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirmed most convictions and addressed juror evidence (pre-Skilling))
- United States v. Siegelman (Siegelman II), 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011) (reversed two honest-services counts; juror issues unchanged)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (limited honest-services to bribery/kickbacks rationale)
- United States v. Jones, 52 F.3d 924 (11th Cir. 1995) (selective-prosecution defense timing and waiver principles)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (binding pre-SCOOT decisions of Fifth Circuit adopted)