A key point: Bob Riley is not all that big a fish, especially now that he is a mere lobbyist and not a governor. So why all the effort to protect him? The answer, I suspect, is in Riley's political lineage. He has strong ties to Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Michael Scanlon, not to mention U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. A serious investigation of Riley surely would go down some interesting roads, including one that might lead to the top of the Bush crime family. Bingo lawyers were not trying to protect Bob Riley; they were trying to protect much bigger interests than him. They don't want regular citizens to know about the nastiest sleaze perpetrated by America's corporate elites, which tends to have ties to the Bush family.
* Judges and Jury Instructions Matter--The government got convictions in the Siegelman case, and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, for two reasons: (1) The cases were overseen by corrupt GOP-appointed judges--Mark Fuller and Henry Wingate, respectively; (2) Both Fuller and Wingate gave incorrect jury instructions, ensuring that the Siegelman and Minor defendants would be convicted for "crimes" that do not exist under the actual law.
Myron Thompson, the bingo-trial judge, was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980. Thompson is hardly a paragon of virtue--after all, we suspect he allowed unlawful deal-making to go on behind the scenes in the bingo case. But at least he made sure, if my suspicions are correct, that innocent people did not go to prison. And that makes him a far cry better than Fuller and Wingate.
Also, we suspect that the jury received a correct instruction in the bingo trial, that a bribery conviction in the political-campaign context requires an "explicit agreement." We have not seen the instruction in the bingo case, but Thompson's public comments indicate he knew about the actual legal requirement for bribery in the political arena. With correct jury instructions in the Siegelman and Minor cases, the verdicts probably would have been like those rendered yesterday in Montgomery.
* Don't Let the Feds Bully You Into Guilty Pleas--The big losers in the bingo case are the three individuals--Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey, and Jennifer Pouncy--who pleaded guilty in exchange for their testimony against the other defendants. They must be thinking twice about those pleas this morning. Again using my CT hat, I suspect certain lawyers worked with prosecutors to pressure the trio to plead guilty--ensuring that the government would not walk away in total disgrace. That means Gilley, Massey, and Pouncy almost certainly pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit--and their lives, as a result, are pretty much ruined. But do you think certain lawyers and prosecutors care about that? Hell, no.
Is there reason to believe the trio, in fact, was innocent? Yes, there is. Perhaps the key moment in the trial came when Pouncy admitted under cross-examination that she had no "explicit agreement" with defendant Jim Preuitt. That pretty much blew up the government's case against Preuitt, and jurors might have figured, "Why should we believe there was an explicit agreement with anyone else?" Evidence suggested that Gilley, Massey, and Pouncy came closer than anyone else to crossing over the boundary into criminal territory. But Pouncy's own words show she had no explicit deal with Preuitt. Given that Pouncy worked for Massey, and Massey worked for Gilley, there is reason to believe that all three of them would have been found not guilty--absent their guilty pleas.
What does the bingo trial teach us in a national sense? If you are a progressive wanting to see someone "primary" Obama--and I definitely am in that camp--this case provides plenty of ammunition. The administration, to Obama's eternal shame, has adopted Bush policies on a number of key justice issues. Would it be nice to have a progressive candidate who actually believes in the 14th Amendment, in the guarantees of "due process" and "equal protection"? It sure as heck would, especially since Obama has shown that he doesn't care one flip about those constitutional issues.
An Alabama jury yesterday sent a loud, clear message. If Obama fails to listen, and we suspect he won't listen, don't be surprised if he winds up being a one-term president.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
