A Surprise Recusal and Promising Result in Paul Minor Appeal Hearing

A Quick Update Following Paul Minor's Appeal Hearing (see here for background)

Paul Minor's appeal hearing in front of the 5th Circuit court Wednesday morning started off with an unexpected surprise. Shortly before the proceedings began, Priscilla Owen, one of the three judges hearing the appeal, announced her recusal.

Owen, whom the New York Times has described as "guided by the hand of Karl Rove," apparently took to heart Minor attorney Hiram Eastland's letter [PDF] asking Owen to recuse herself since Rove is being investigated by Congress and the Justice Department for his possible role in targeting Minor for indictment. Owen was replaced immediately by Judge Fortunato Benavides, a Clinton appointee, adding a measure of balance to the panel, which would've been an all-Republican panel with Owen present.

The appeal hearing lasted just 30 minutes but produced several key indicators that appeared to favor Paul Minor's appeal.

Led by Judge Will Garwood, a Reagan appointee, the panel asked very thoughtful questions and seemed very receptive to the arguments raised by Minor's attorneys and asked repeated, tough questions of the Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Collery. (Given the last minute recusal announcement, Benavides had little time to review the details of the case, but still managed to pose tough questions of the DOJ attorney and seemed to grasp the important 1st Amendment implications of Paul Minor's alleged bribery of judges through campaign contributions.)

The toughest questions came from Catharina Haynes, President Bush's sixth and final nominee to the Fifth Circuit who was confirmed by the Senate last April.

Haynes repeatedly asked Collery, the government attorney, to specifically explain "what is the deal" that the government alleges Paul Minor had with the judges whom he was accused of bribing. Haynes pointed out that, in order to qualify as an explicit quid pro quo bribe, there had to be an agreement between Minor and the judges on a specific result, and also observed that Judge Teel wasn't even a judge yet, he was simply running for the judgeship at the time Minor contributed to his campaign. So how could there be a specific official action offered by Teel to Minor in return when Minor couldn't possibly have had any cases pending before Teel?

Asked again and again to supply a concrete example of what that crucial quid pro quo was, the DOJ attorney seemed to waffle badly, arguing (again, with "vague" charges as the New York Times described this case originally) that Minor's campaign contributions must have been meant as bribes for some "future decisions" in his favor from the Judges. Haynes - clearly understanding the requirement that there must be a specific official act in return for the contribution in order to constitute bribery - asked the DOJ attorney, "Don't you have to be able to articulate the deal?"

Judge Garwood asked excellent questions as well, probing the government's understanding of the Supreme Court decision in McCormick v. United States pertaining to the required quid pro quo for charges involving bribery. The government's case against Minor teeters on the assertion that Minor received a specific, favorable result from the judges which both parties must have agreed upon prior to such a ruling to constitute bribery under federal law.

By all indications, the DOJ failed to prove that today. The tough questioning and apparently skeptical reactions from Judges Garwood and Haynes seemed to indicate that they were not persuaded by the government's arguments.

Minor's attorney Abbe Lowell ended his argument by asking the panel to consider releasing Paul Minor while they deliberate the appeal, a request which Minor's legal team has repeatedly argued is required by law, and which Owen had denied. Aside from the strong legal reasoning for the court to release him pending their decision, it would be morally spot on, allowing Paul the chance to spend time with his wife Sylvia before her imminent death from cancer.

It all rests in the hands of this panel.

Stay tuned for more details in a forthcoming post.

Comments

[Cult Legend]

Great news!

[David Morgan]

What a relief that the pall draped by the Bush administration over the rights of Americans is being lifted to reveal the realities of corruption by the Rove/Cheney/Bush cronies. I'm looking forward to the next update, and hopefully a conclusion that reflects the values of the constitution, and not the values of a select few who have displayed blatant disregard for the rights of everyday, hardworking Americans.

[Florentine]

Obama's DOJ needs to answer for their twisted logic. There was no quid pro quo jury instruction for Paul Minor's case but have been exactly quid pro quo jury instructions for others? This is blatantly inconsistent and the result has been nothing less than a disaster for this innocent man's life.

These Judges must seize this opportunity to correct a reprehensible injustice. Obama's DOJ released Paul Stevens, and now they must free Paul Minor! I hope for the sake of his family that they act in time for him to have a few final moments with his wife before she passes.

[bmmorgan]

Stories like this need the light of day, or the breath of the HuffPo! Every injustice perpetrated by the Rove-Bush despots needs to be revealed, especially politicall­y-motivate­d dirty tricks like what has happened to Mr. Minor. I hope this case turns out to be an opportunity for full revelations of truth so that a fuller picture of Rove-Bush attacks on democracy will be outed. Thanks for tracking this important story.

[legalgirl]

When you have a real DOJ, with real attorneys reviewing your actions (even though recusal is always voluntary), you can have real come-to-jesus moments, like the one we saw happen here. YEAAAAH!!!

[dan1davis]

Sounds like the judges did their job. However, it's ridiculous to suggest that Owen is anything other than impartial or that justices appointed by Republicans are given to to some unethical bias. Simple question; was there quid pro quo? If there is, show it, if not apologise to the man and prepare to get hit for some restitution. I've come to the conclusion that there is no difference between a DOJ run by Democrats and one run by the GOP. They are both equally the enemy of freedom. They both equally have to be watched 24 hours a day or they will damage the nation.