## Facts

- Don Eugene Siegelman, Alabama’s former Governor, sought funding for a state education lottery initiative through the Alabama Education Lottery Foundation.
- Richard Scrushy, founder and former CEO of HealthSouth Corporation, arranged $500,000 in payments to the Foundation.
- The government alleged a corrupt agreement: Scrushy’s payments were made in exchange for Siegelman appointing Scrushy to Alabama’s Certificate of Need Review Board (CON Board), a body that affected the competitive environment for healthcare providers.
- Part of the funding was routed through a third party: Integrated Health Services contributed $250,000, allegedly to reduce scrutiny, in connection with a debt-related transaction involving HealthSouth.
- Shortly after a major payment to the Foundation, Siegelman appointed Scrushy to the CON Board, despite Scrushy’s earlier support for Siegelman’s political opponent.
- Siegelman also faced obstruction allegations based on “sham transactions” with others after the investigation began, allegedly designed to conceal the nature and source of payments.
- A jury convicted both defendants of federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud/conspiracy; Siegelman was also convicted of obstruction of justice.
- After the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Skilling v. United States (limiting honest-services fraud to bribes and kickbacks), the Eleventh Circuit reconsidered the convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported federal-funds bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666, including proof of a corrupt quid pro quo tied to the CON Board appointment.
2. Whether the district court’s jury instructions on § 666 bribery required reversal.
3. Whether honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346, and 1349 remained valid after Skilling’s limitation to bribery and kickback schemes, and whether any instructional error was harmless.
4. Whether two honest-services counts premised on broader “self-dealing” conduct could stand post-Skilling, including whether evidence showed Siegelman knowingly joined a broader scheme.
5. Whether sufficient evidence supported Siegelman’s obstruction conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and whether evidentiary rulings admitting certain statements were an abuse of discretion.
6. Whether juror exposure to extrinsic media information or alleged misconduct required a new trial, and whether recusal, jury-selection, and sentencing challenges warranted relief.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the § 666 bribery convictions, finding sufficient evidence of a corrupt agreement exchanging $500,000 for the CON Board appointment and no reversible instructional error.
- The court affirmed honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy convictions on Counts 5–7, holding that the case presented a bribery-based honest-services theory within Skilling and that any instructional deficiency was harmless because the jury necessarily found bribery.
- The court reversed honest-services convictions on Counts 8–9, holding the evidence was insufficient to show Siegelman knowingly agreed to or participated in a broader scheme involving Scrushy’s alleged subsequent self-dealing.
- The court affirmed Siegelman’s obstruction of justice conviction, finding adequate evidentiary support and no abuse of discretion in admitting the challenged statement under circuit evidentiary standards.
- The court rejected challenges based on juror exposure and alleged deliberation irregularities, finding any exposure limited and non-prejudicial in light of the evidence.
- The court held Scrushy’s recusal motion untimely and meritless, denied jury-selection claims, and affirmed Siegelman’s above-Guidelines sentence as within the district court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 requires proof of a corrupt agreement involving a specific quid pro quo, but not a formal, fully articulated contract.
- Post-Skilling, honest-services fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 is limited to schemes involving bribes or kickbacks; theories resting on undisclosed self-dealing or generalized fiduciary breach are insufficient without proof fitting within bribery/kickback categories.
- An instructional error on honest-services fraud may be harmless where the record and verdict demonstrate the jury necessarily found a bribe-based scheme that satisfies Skilling.
- Honest-services counts alleging a broader scheme require evidence that the defendant knowingly agreed to or participated in that broader scheme; guilt cannot rest on speculation or attenuated connections.
- Limited, incidental juror exposure to extrinsic media information does not require a new trial absent a showing of prejudice.
- Trial court evidentiary and sentencing determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be upheld when supported by the record and applicable standards.

## Conclusion

On remand after Skilling, the Eleventh Circuit sustained the core bribery-based convictions and related honest-services counts, but vacated two honest-services “self-dealing” convictions for lack of evidence that Siegelman knowingly joined a broader scheme; it otherwise affirmed the obstruction conviction, denied new-trial and recusal/jury-selection challenges, and upheld the sentence.


United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2011)