Alabama: Judge's instruction draws comparisons to Siegelman case

As Ala. gambling trial nears an end, judge's instruction draws comparisons to Siegelman case
BOB JOHNSON Associated Press

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The federal gambling corruption trial of Alabama casino owner Milton McGregor and eight others neared its end when defense attorneys made a surprise decision Friday to rest their cases after calling just one witness and the trial judge gave jurors stern instructions that some say may have been inspired by another high profile Alabama trial.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson scheduled closing arguments to begin Wednesday. Defense attorneys said resting their cases was a gamble, but said they thought the government did not prove its cases and one attorney expressed concerns that jurors were ready for the case to wrap up.

The defendants include McGregor, four current or former state senators, two lobbyists, a legislative employee and a former spokesman for the Country Crossing casino. They are accused of buying and selling votes on a proposed constitutional amendment in the Alabama Legislature in 2010 to legalize electronic bingo games at some locations in Alabama.

Before sending jurors home Friday for what would be a long break before returning on Wednesday, Thompson told them they would be sequestered in a hotel for the remainder or the trial, beginning Wednesday, and would have no contact with the public. He told the jurors not to discuss the case with each other and to avoid websites or blogs.

Several attorneys felt that instruction was at least partly inspired by the 2006 federal trial of former Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth chief executive Richard Scrushy, who were convicted of bribery. In that case, Siegelman was accused of appointing Scrushy to an important hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman's campaign for a lottery.

Siegelman and Scrushy partly based their appeals on claims that jurors discussed the case through emails and did research on the Internet.

Attorney Susan James, who represents indicted former Country Crossing casino spokesman Jay Walker, said she believes the Siegelman case "could have influenced" the judge's warning to jurors. James, who represented Siegelman in the sentencing phase of his trial, said instructions about using email and the Internet have become common since the Siegelman trial.

Attorney Joe Espy, representing McGregor, said he thought the Internet instructions were a reminder of the Siegelman case, but that the decision to sequester jurors during closing arguments and deliberations was something judges have to consider "in any big case."

Lewis Gillis, the attorney for indicted Democratic Sen. Quinton Ross of Montgomery, answered "yes," when asked if the Siegelman case influenced the judge's instructions to jurors.

"I'm sure it had something to do with it," he said.

Jim Parkman, attorney for indicted independent Sen. Harri Anne Smith of Dothan said the Siegelman trial was a learning experience on dealing with juries in the age of the Internet.

"We learned a lesson about texting and things like that," said Parkman.

Parkman said he had been looking forward to putting on a defense and that Smith had been anxious to testify. But he said he thought there was no evidence that his client had done anything wrong and he said he feared jurors were getting tired as the trial approaches its third month. He cited an incident on Monday when testimony ended at about 3 p.m. and some jurors cheered when Thompson told them they would be going home early.

"When I saw that reaction it told me they have had enough," Parkman said.

Prosecutors have declined to talk to reporters during the trial.

Espy said he met with McGregor and members of McGregor's family before deciding to rest.

McGregor's defense team felt that government had not proven that there were bribes offered and "we could not see going any further," Espy said.

Much of the case was based on telephone wiretaps and recordings of conversations defendants had with three legislators who wore taping equipment.

Attorneys said they expect closing arguments to last as long as two days. The judge will then give the jurors instructions on law — which could be lengthy because of the complex case that involves a 39-count indictment. Attorneys indicated jurors could begin deliberations sometime Friday.