Did SCOTUS help 'Free Don Siegelman'? Pardon likelier than conviction being overturned: Experts

[elleng]

'In an 8-0 decision, the court vacated McDonnell's conviction because they said while his actions were unseemly, they weren't illegal.

"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court."

While both McDonnell and Siegelman were both found to have exchanged gifts for preferential treatment, Joseph Siegelman noted that the Virginia governor personally benefited to the tune of $175,000 while his father did not receive any personal benefits from ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy donating $500,000 to a Siegelman-backed fund that aimed to use proceeds from a potential state lottery toward education . Scrushy was appointed to Alabama's Certificate of Need Review Board, which had oversight over HealthSouth, but Siegelman maintained that there was no quid pro quo. Putting Scrushy on the COR board constituted an official act.'>>>

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/did_scotus_help_free_don_siege.html