Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to rule on ethics commissioner rewriting ethics law
When faced with a single goal, in this case, embarrass Donald Trump’s administration; there is little doubt that one would choose the path of least resistance. That’s exactly what Cynthia Propst Raulston did when she pursued charges against Trump’s southeast regional director for the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately for her, her weapon of choice, the Alabama Ethics Law, is clear – there’s a straight line from Point A (a complaint) to Point B (a resolution). By her actions, skipping the legally declared path for resolving a complaint, Raulston unilaterally declared herself and her office as powerful as that of Attorney General Steve Marshall. Let me explain how. The Alabama Ethics law is written without much room for interpretation. The “shall’” versus the “may” doesn’t leave room for guessing. Any first-year law student can tell you that. The process as described by the Ethics office requires a commission vote prior to going to a grand jury. Don’t believe me? Here are the exact words from the Ethics Commission website and I quote: Upon investigation a complaint may be: Closed because the Ethics Commission does not have jurisdiction regarding the alleged wrongdoing or the Statute of Limitations has expired. Dismissed due to lack of evidence to support the complaint. >Presented to Commission for Determination of Probable Cause. “Presented to the commission for determination of probable cause.” Nope, no ambiguity there. I don’t even need a law degree to understand the process. Going to the commission is an important step of due process of those facing complaints given the commission is not controlled by any one individual and the commission itself is charged with enforcing the ethics law. The makeup of the commission’s members is 2 appointees by the governor, 2 by the speaker of the house and 1 by the lieutenant governor. Each of which after being appointed has to be confirmed by the state senate. The current commissioners are: It was these five members Raulston circumvented by going straight to the grand jury. Read Anderton’s declaration, as filed, below: While her gumption and creativity could be lauded the effects of letting it stand presents a potentially chilling reality for the state of Alabama. Every time a new precedent is made chipping away at the structure of the law it weakens the law itself. This weakened foundation means that rouge prosecutors can go after just about anyone at any time in any manner they decide but more so the constant ambiguity also lends to the defense of those in the future who may seek an out when they do in fact break the law. Don’t for a moment think anyone is immune to the consequences of the decision before the court now. Due process is as important to the rule-followers as the rule-breakers because without it the process to determine which is which gets very fuzzy. The law § 36-25-4 says so very clearly, “In all matters that come before the commission concerning a complaint on an individual, the laws of due process shall apply.” The biggest problem in all of this is that either Propst Raulston unilaterally decided the rules didn’t apply to her or she did so with the support of the commissioners who have been silent to date. Right now the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has in front of them a motion to right the wrong made by Propst Raulston and the Alabama Ethics Commission. Will they choose to take it?
Alabama court denies rehearing request for ex house speaker
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday said it will not reverse its decision upholding the ethics conviction of former Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard. The court without comment denied Hubbard’s request for a rehearing of its decision upholding 11 of the 12 convictions. The court also rejected the state attorney general’s request to revisit the one count it overturned. Rehearing requests are seldom granted. However, appellate rules in criminal cases require a person to seek a rehearing before appealing upward to the Alabama Supreme Court. Defense lawyer Bill Baxley could not immediately be reached for comment. The attorney general’s office declined to comment. Hubbard is free on bond as he appeals his conviction. The court last month upheld the convictions that Hubbard used the power of his office to assist his businesses, including that he improperly asked lobbyists and company executives for work and investments in his printing business. The court rejected defense arguments that the transactions were aboveboard business dealings in which investors and companies were getting a getting a fair value for their money. Hubbard, from Auburn, was for years one of the state’s most influential Republicans. He served as chairman of the Alabama Republican Party and was a key architect of the GOP strategy that led to Republicans in 2010 taking control of the Alabama Legislature for the first time in more than a century. Hubbard was automatically removed from office in 2016 when he was convicted on the felony charges. He is free on bond as he appeals his conviction. Despite upholding the convictions, appeals court judges in the August decision also urged lawmakers to address ambiguities in the state ethics law. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Mike Hubbard continues to appeal ethics conviction
Former Alabama Speaker Mike Hubbard is asking an appellate court to reverse its decision upholding his 2016 ethics conviction. The rehearing request was filed Monday with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Under Alabama appellate rules a person must seek a rehearing before appealing upward to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Court of Criminal Appeals court last month affirmed 11 of the 12 counts against Hubbard. The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to convict Hubbard on the counts, including that he improperly asked lobbyists and company executives for work and investments in his printing business. However, judges’ ruling also chided legislators over what they described as ambiguities in the law and urged them to make clarifications. Hubbard is free on bond as he appeals his conviction. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Court upholds former Alabama House speaker Mike Hubbard’s ethics convictions
An appellate court on Monday upheld the ethics conviction of former Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, whose rising political career came to a crashing halt in 2016 when he was found guilty of using his office to benefit his businesses. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 11 of the 12 counts against Hubbard. In its 154-page decision, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence to convict Hubbard on those counts, including that he improperly asked lobbyists and company executives for both consulting work and investments in his debt-ridden printing business. The heavily anticipated decision was a blow for the Hubbard defense, which had argued that prosecutors acted improperly and stretched the intent of the state’s ethics statute, and a victory for state prosecutors who had argued Hubbard behaved corruptly. “I’m in shock,” Hubbard defense attorney Bill Baxley said Monday afternoon. Baxley said he was just beginning to review the decision, but would recommend that Hubbard appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. Mike Lewis, a spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, said the office was reviewing the decision and did not have an immediate comment. Hubbard, from Auburn, was for years one of the state’s most influential Republicans. He served as chairman of the Alabama Republican Party and was a key architect of the GOP strategy that led to Republicans in 2010 taking control of the Alabama Legislature for the first time in more than a century. He was indicted, and later convicted on ethics charges that he used the mantle of his office to help his businesses. He was automatically removed from office when he was convicted on the felony charges. Several of the counts against Hubbard accuse him of violating a ban on public officials soliciting things of “value” from company “principals.” A principal under state law is a person or business who employs a lobbyist to influence the Alabama Legislature. The court rejected Hubbard’s arguments that the transactions were aboveboard business dealings in which investors and companies that employed him were getting a getting a fair value for their money. “The language of the statute here is clear and unambiguous. Hubbard, as a public official, was prohibited from soliciting or receiving a thing of value from a principal,” the court wrote. The court also rejected arguments by the former speaker that the prosecution was tainted by prosecutorial and juror misconduct. While upholding 11 of the 12 counts against Hubbard, the court scolded legislators for what it described as ambiguities in the state ethics law. “We strongly encourage the legislature to consider amending the law to better circumscribe the class of persons defined as principals, and to more clearly explain several of the other 34 definitions embodied in (the ethics law). … The language of Alabama’s ethics law should be clear as to which persons, businesses, and acts fall within its reach,” judges wrote. The court reversed one count: that Hubbard should have known he had a conflict of interest when he voted on a budget bill containing language that could have possibly benefited one of his clients. A judge sentenced Hubbard to four years in prison, but he is free on bond as he appeals. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Riggs Walker qualifies to run for Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
Riggs Walker has formally qualified as a candidate for Place 1 on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in the June primary elections. Walker hopes to replace Judge Samuel Welch who has maintained the position for the past 11 years and will not be seeking re-election this year. Riggs has spent the last 19 years living and working in the Birmingham, Ala. area prosecuting thousands of criminal cases including murders, burglaries, assaults and theft cases. He graduated from Jones School of Law, at Faulkner University in 1998 and from there went to work for Circuit Judge William A. Shashy in the 15th Judicial Circuit. He later moved to Birmingham to work as a deputy district attorney in the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. According to a press release announcing his candidacy, Walker is a committed conservative who believes in personal responsibility, individual liberty and a constitutionally limited government. He thinks that these values, coupled with strong communities built by strong families are critical to meeting the criminal justice challenges facing our state today. Walker believes these principles will allow him to deliver just verdicts fairly while maintaining the rule of law. “There are profound challenges in our society today. However, justice rightfully administered should provide hope and a guiding light for future generations.” said Walker. Walker is an active member in several Republican organizations, and serves as a committee member on the Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee. He is engaged in his community, volunteering for Homewood city schools and attending Covenant Presbyterian Church with his wife Cheryl, and their two daughters.
Get to know: Richard Minor, candidate for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
Three seats on the five-seat court of Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals are up for election this year. Today’s candidate spotlight features St. Clair County District Attorney Richard Minor. Minor has served as the top prosecutor in St. Clair County since he was first elected in 2004. He’s running for Place 1 on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. With a little over four months until voters head to the ballots, AlabamaToday.com is inviting all candidates running for office in Alabama this year, to complete a questionnaire we believe offers an interesting, albeit, thumbnail sketch of who they are and why they are running. If you are a candidate and would like to complete the questionnaire, email Elizabeth@ALToday.com. Here Minor is in his own words: Significant other? How long married? Kids? I am married to Angela Callahan Minor of Pell City. We married in 2006. I have two daughters, Olivia (19) and Adyson (10), and one stepson Bailey (17). My wife and I also have have custody of our nephew Brad (18). Education background? Professional background? I am a 1993 graduate of the Cumberland School of Law, Samford University. While at Cumberland School of Law, I was a member of the American Journal of Trial Advocacy, a Cordell Hull Teaching Fellow and served as a Samford Senator. I graduated summa cum laude from Auburn University in 1990 with a B.A. in Criminal Justice.In 2004, I was elected District Attorney for St. Clair County. Prior to my election, I served as the Chief Trial Attorney in the St. Clair County District Attorney’s Office. I am currently in my thirteenth year as District Attorney and twenty-fourth year as a career prosecutor. Prior to serving as Chief Trial Attorney, I served as an Assistant District Attorney in Tuscaloosa County and Jefferson County as well as serving as an Assistant Attorney General in the Violent Crimes Division of the Office of the Attorney General under both Jeff Sessions, current US Attorney General, and Bill Pryor, Jr., a current judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.During my tenure as District Attorney from 2006-2011, I served as the Acting Attorney General and Special Prosecutor for the State of Alabama overseeing the State of Alabama’s interest in a joint federal and state investigation of public corruption in the Post Secondary System of Alabama. This investigation led to the conviction of the former Chancellor of Post Secondary, state legislators, and a multitude of others. I have had the honor to serve as President, Vice-President, and Secretary/Treasurer of the Alabama District Attorneys Association. Currently, I am appointed by the Chief Justice as a member of the State of Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee. In addition, I currently serve on the Alabama Sentencing Commission Standards Committee, the Governor’s Advisory Council on Juvenile Justice & Delinquincy Prevention, the Governor’s Juvenile Crime Enforcement Coalition, the Board of Directors of VOCAL, and the United States Attorney’s Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee for the Northern District of Alabama. In the past, I served on the State of Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal) Committee, the Review Committee for Alabama’s Protocol for the Examination and Treatment of Sexual Assault, and the Pell City Housing Authority. What was your first job before college/adulthood and after? My first job before college was serving ice cream at Baskin Robbins. In addition, I spent the summer before college working for my hometown painting fire hydrants and checking the nuts and bolts on all street signs. During law school, I served as a law clerk for then US Attorney Jeff Sessions in the Southern District of Alabama. During law school, I served as a paid law clerk in the United States Attorneys Office in Birmingham assigned to the Criminal Division and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.Upon graduation of Cumberland School of Law, I became an Assistant District Attorney for Tuscaloosa County where I was assigned to the District Court. After a short period of time, I was assigned to the West Alabama Narcotics Squad (WANS) where I prosecuted all felony drug offenses committed in Tuscaloosa County. In 25 words or less, why are you running for office? To offer the citizens an opportunity to have someone on the court who has 24 years of specializing in criminal law and who has followed the rule of law. That is, I am offering myself as a judge that will apply the law as it is written, not what it should be. In doing so, the people will have the opportunity to elect someone who has a proven conservative record and someone who will uphold the United States Constitution and founding principles of our Founding Fathers. Did you speak with anybody in your political party before deciding on running? Receive any encouragement? From whom? Before making my final decisions to run for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, I spoke to my family, close friends, and Judge Bill Pryor, Jr., Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pryor is a former boss and someone whose opinion I deeply value. As someone with firsthand knowledge of running a statewide campaign and serving as an appellate judge, he provided valuable insight. Once I made my decision in late May 2017, I did call Chairwoman Terry Lathan of the Alabama Republican Party to tell her of my intentions. During the summer of 2017, I also spoke with members of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Who do you count on for advice besides significant other or clergy? Other than my wife and pastor, the two people I count on most for advice are my father and my twin brother. Who is your political consultant? Campaign manager? My campaign consultant is Angi Horn Stalnaker. Who was the first person to contribute to your campaign? Why did they donate? My first contributor was my primary physician, Dr. Bill McClanahan. He understand the need that our elected officials have the utmost integrity and ethical standards. Furthermore, he understands the need for conservative judges who will follow the rule of law. That is, say what the law
Luther Strange moves to have death penalty ruling vacated
On Thursday, Attorney General Luther Strange said the state has filed a petition with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to order a Jefferson County trial court to vacate an earlier ruling on the state’s death penalty. Last week, the court ruled that the state’s “capital sentencing scheme” is unconstitutional. The petition filed Thursday notes that the lower court has “no power to prevent the state from seeking the death penalty in capital murder cases,” according to a news release from the Attorney General’s office. Portions of the petition read as follows: The trial court’s order ignores on-point precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Alabama. The trial court does not have the power to prevent the State of Alabama from seeking the death penalty when and if the defendant is convicted of capital murder. Although recent legal developments may call into question the imposition of the death penalty under certain circumstances, the trial court’s order is indefensible. It eliminates the State’s ability to seek the death penalty for four offenders. And it does so as a facial matter before they have even been found guilty. To ensure that these and other prosecutions can move forward in an orderly and equitable manner, the Court should grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its order declaring Alabama’s ‘capital sentencing scheme’ to be facially unconstitutional. The petition further notes that Alabama’s death penalty is constitutional under the Sixth Amendment and that the trial court has no other findings to support its assertion that the death penalty is unconstitutional. “The trial court’s order is nothing less than a declaration that it will not follow Alabama law or the precedents of the Supreme Court of Alabama,” the petition reads in part. “The State has a clear legal right to seek the death penalty.”
