Jackson Free Press

The Sun Herald is reporting that attorney Paul Minor, who is serving a 12-year prison term on bribery charges Congress is investigating as a possible political persecution by Republicans, has filed an appeal:

The 120-page appellate brief points out that Minor was acquitted of some charges, with a hung jury on others, when federal prosecutors tried him in 2005. His conviction came after a second trial in 2007. "Much had changed from the 2005 trial that resulted in acquittals and a mistrial to the 2007 trial that resulted in a hasty conviction and a significant sentence," his attorneys write. "This appeal addresses these changes - a series of constitutional, evidentiary, legal and sentencing errors by the district court that ultimately resulted in an unlawful conviction and sentence that cannot stand." [...]

[Washington attorney Abbe Lowell] argues the loans Minor extended and then repaid for the judges were not bribes as defined under the law because prosecutors failed to show he expected or received specific favors in exchange. Wingate, the brief says, failed to accurately define bribery in instructions given to the jury that returned the guilty verdicts in 2007. The brief also details charges of selective prosecution, currently under investigation by Congress, that Wingate rejected.

Previous Commentsshow

It seems that the JFP is cited in the Minor appeal, although we haven't had time to read it, yet! We learned this from has a Folo posting that also includes a link to the mammoth appeal document, as well as very interesting discussion by lawyers and legal wannabes about Minor's likely case for appeal. The smartest money there seems to be on the jury instructions being bad because the prosecution wasn't forced to prove a quid pro quo between Minor and the judges he guaranteed loans for (and they point out that Diaz didn't even hear his cases then). Of course, this is the same point Adam has been hammering for months now: You can be disturbed by the fact that a lawyer can guarantee a loan for judges (or that the U.S. Chamber funds their campaigns, but I digress), and question his motives in doing so. But it still doesn't mean that the prosecution shouldn't have to prove that he did it as a bribe. Minor is in for 12 (or 11, depending on the report; will check) years for what looks disturbing without evidence, and Scruggs just got sentenced to five years for something much more obvious and egregious. And it took the feds years, and major heat, before they indicted Scruggs. This one ain't over, folks. And, by the way, remember what Mississippi media dared to call this spade a spade first.

DonnaLadd

Jul 1 2008