Although it has not been confirmed by the Bureau of Prisons yet, Siegelman’s lawyers and supporters say that he was moved overnight to a facility in Texarkana, Texas. His supporters have also wondered aloud why he was moved so far, and why he was moved out of the region. The pool of available facilities is limited by rules that will not put a defendant in a prison that houses a cooperating witness.
Lanny Young is in Atlanta and Mike Martin is in Maxwell, which would rule out both facilities for Siegelman and Maxwell for Scrushy. I am not sure exactly where Nick Bailey is currently housed (the BOP website has him listed as “in transit”) but I believe he may end up in Talladega. Sonny Crumpler is also in Talladega. If this is true about Bailey, that he’ll be in Talladega, then this would eliminate both Alabama facilities for Siegelman and Scrushy. If the prisons consider Crumpler a co-conspirator with Scrushy in the HealthSouth fraud (either by a preponderance of evidence standard or the more likely because the-federal-government-always-said-so-regardless-of-Birmingham argument) then this would doubly eliminate both Alabama facilities for Scrushy.
Considering the federal government probably does not want to house both men together for the same reason they don’t want to house conspirators in the same gang in the same place, this would further limit the housing arrangements.
The only other prisons in the Southeast region that have minimum security prison camps are in Miami and South Carolina. The one in Miami is almost 600 miles away from Montgomery which would put it well beyond the targeted less than 500 mile range. But there are two facilities with prison camps that are markedly closer than the roughly 450 miles to Texarkana. One of them is less than 300 miles way, to the Edgefield, South Carolina facility; and the other is in the Mid Atlantic region, at the Memphis facility, also less than 300 miles away. Of course, the BOP is not obligated to do anything, but it appears that they are continuing to hurt Siegelman’s family, even at this late stage of the situation. (On a bright note, Forbes Magazine listed Texarkana as one of the 12 best facilities to do time in. Incidentally, Maxwell was also on the list.)
If the prisons do not find a conflict with Lanny Young, who testified against Siegelman but not Scrushy, then Scrushy may stay in Atlanta. (I am not in the Scrushy email loop–do to past transgressions I suppose– so I have less information about his current situation) Either way, Young will soon be able to walk away from the whole thing as he is scheduled to be released in about five months.
______________________________________________________________________
The Libby Motion
President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence may have the unintended consequence of sending a ripple effect across sentencing guidelines for both righteous and questionable prosecutions everywhere. One of the questions that it brings up are the unique circumstances of white collar crime. Should the bankrupting effect of spending millions of dollars to mount a defense in a high profile case, and the loss of a law license which will essentially have the devastating effect of losing a career be taken into consideration when sentencing an older, white collar first-time offender? President Bush thought so. And in the interest of fairness, although it is still a debatable topic, there is something to be said for the notion that adding a lengthy jail term on top of these other life-debilitating consequences tips the sentence to be grossly unequal when measured agains the sentences of other offenders.
Some people have likened the Libby commutation with the Clinton pardons, and partisans have said that it is hypocritical to not see these as the same types of actions. I will not argue that what Clinton did wasn’t a dumb thing to do, because it was, but there is a fundamental difference between Clinton exercising presidential prerogative (as other lame duck presidents have done) and Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. Besides the fact that the offender served no time in prison, in this instance, the White House cited a legal reason for commuting the sentence, namely that it was excessive, in light of the points I mentioned above.
My legal sources have told me that there is no instance of the Judicial Branch of our government using proclamations of the Executive Branch (even when reaching legal conclusions) as any kind of guiding precedence. But it will have two effects. The obvious one, and the one closest to the hearts of Siegelman supporters, is that it underscores the gross unfairness of investigations and convictions being treated differently, in accordance with the offender’s party affiliation. The second effect is that attorneys will use the White House’s observation about the excessiveness of white collar sentences to bolster a movement to change sentencing guidelines, or to urge judges to consider these factors when imposing sentences. In the coming weeks and months, there will likely be a spate of Libby Motions filed in various white collar cases, including this one.