FINAL UPDATE WED. 8:52 PM UPDATED: Day Two (Tuesday) UPDATE: Hubbard Hearing

Sandra Stokes Walden

Viewed: 2790

Posted by: Sandra Walden
Date: Oct 28 2015 11:11 AM

FINAL UPDATE: Day Two

Andrew Brasher continues to cross Sonny Reagan.

Brasher is discussing the 5^th Amendment with Judge Walker

Yesterday you said you did not engage Rob Riley until you received the subpoena.  Sonny answered that he believed he said Rob starting helping his family prior to all of this.  Brasher said so is it fair to say you engaged Mr. Riley to help  you in this matter?  Rob Riley helped in matter of squash subpoena?

December 2012 when a subpoena was issued by the prosecution to the Republican party did you discuss with Rob Riley?  OBJECTION

Did Rob represent you in 2012?  The birth of my daughter was in 2010 with medical  problems and we haired Rob to handle that, so 2012 was after that.

Brasher: So what discussion did you have with Rob pertaining to that?

Sonny: I honestly don’t know.  There were some news articles, I may or may not have discussed the news articles.

Brasher:  Gives Sonny a copy of a email that was Gov. Riley telling Hubbard that Sonny had discussed with Rob, Exhibit 2.  Mr. White objects that he has not identified the document.  Judge Walker says he can read it and see if he has recollection.

Brasher: Does that refresh your memory about whether you discussed with Rob Riley about this…OBJECTION  Brasher says he will move on.

Brasher:  You filed complaint with Charla in July, 2013.  The night before did you discuss the filing of complaint with Rob?  Sonny:  I don’t recall.

Brasher: The morning you filed the complaint did you discuss the complaint with Rob Riley?  I don’t recall.

Sonny:  He was working with me when Writ of Mandamus was filed.  His name was on it.  Brasher:  What were discussions about with Rob?  Sonny:  I explained it to him and explained the complaint.  Brasher:  Did you know at that time Rob was representing Hubbard?  I did not.  Do you know now?  Yes

Brasher:  Did you discuss with Mr. Blades going to work with Hubbard?  Sonny:  I had multiple discussions with Josh about handling gambling and what it was doing to me stress wise.  Brasher:  So if Josh Blades testified he discussed this with you….ATTORNEYS APPROACH THE BENCH

Brasher:  Did you have conversation with Blades about the grand jury?  Sonny:  I had discussions about information being leaked that I learned from press.  Brasher:  So you are saying you did not discuss with Blades about what you learned in office about the grand jury?  Sonny:  I had discussed with people in office.  Brasher:  Did you have discussions with Blades about information you learned from Hart about grand jury?  I honestly don’t recall.  I might have discussed what was in press.

Brasher:  Brasher gave Sonny a article to identify.  Bates Stamp on it.  What is this document?  Sonny:  It appears it is a printout of a email between Hubbard and Riley.  OBJECTION BY MR. BAXLEY

Brasher:  In this document Governor Riley is… OBJECTION OVERRULED

Brasher:  In this document when Mr. Hubbard is referring to a mutual friend that works in Attorney General’s office that also worked for Riley, he is talking about you?  Sonny:  There are several people in the AG’s office that worked in the governor’s office.  I have never seen this email.   I don’t know who the mutual friend is.  OBJECTION

DEFENSE ATT. WHITE:  This email was 7 or 8 months before the grand jury was impaneled. 

Brasher:  Did you have a conversation with Blade about grand jury?  Sonny:  Andrew I do not know how many ways I can answer.  I have never been in the grand jury room.

Brasher:  Your office was next to Matt’s office for three years…  Sonny:  I was not in grand jury room, I was not privilege to any documents or discussion.

Brasher:  Read this email.  Do you think this email…Do you think this email, do you think it was inappropriate to be subpoenaed for grand jury?  OBJECTION

Brasher:  You were Governor Riley’s driver while on his campaign?  No.  Brasher: You were his legal advisor.

Sonny:  Matt took Will’s office from him in retaliation.

Brasher:  Having looked at that email is it your position it was inappropriate for you to be subpoenaed? Sonny:  A motion to quash the subpoena was filed by me.  But 18 people thought I shout appear so I showed up.

Brasher:  Moving on..You said Matt talked about Hubbard.. Sonny: I did.  Prosecutorial standards are different than those in private practice.  Prosecutor seeks justice for victim,  Defense zealously defends their client.

Brasher:  Said Mr. Hart criticized Defense team?  Sonny:  He threatened the defense team.  Brasher:  You litigated a case where Mr. White defended Milton McGregor on a gambling case.  Sonny:  You and I prosecuted cases where Mr. White was defending McGregor.

Brasher:  You’ve been critical of defense attorneys in a case you were litigating?  Sonny:  I have been critical of their filings in certain cases when they filed over and over.

Brasher keeps hammering the questions… White tells the judge he reserves the right to call Brasher as a witness, he had just opened the door.

Sonny:  I remember when Stephanie and Andrew Arrington told me that she held Baxley in high regard.

Brasher:  How many grand juries have you handled?  Several, a couple of times we had to call special grand juries.  I recall one time with Mr. Valeska.

Brasher:  Did you know Mr. Hart has handled 1000’s? Sonny: Not aware  Brasher:  He has taught others how to handle grand juries?  Sonny: No

Brasher:  Have you ever set next to Mr. Hart at a table in a grand jury?  Sonny:  Mr. Hart has never assisted me.  I have been with Mr. Hart in a grand jury, yes.  Matt made a case out of grand jury and it was about a area of law that I was handling….gambling.  BAXLEY OBJECTS – OVERRULED

Brasher:  You are a attorney for state?  Sonny:  was.  Brasher:  You were to keep state’s secrets?  Sonny:  I never turned those memos over to anyone other than my lawyer.  Brasher:  So did you ask him not to disclose?  Sonny:  The only letter that I recall said you were representing me.  Brasher:  So you recall seeing a letter where the state was asking your lawyers not to divulge information of memos?  Sonny:  I do not recall.

Brasher:  Have you ever had a conversation with Davis where he said he was going after the attorneys or Hubbard?  Sonny:  No  Brasher:  conversation with MR. Duffy where he said he was going after Hubbard for political reasons?  I don’t recall exact.

Brasher:  What were the circumstances you left the AG’s office?  Sonny: When I left under Troy King I was a assistant AG, covered under personnel guidelines.  When I returned I became a deputy AG, At Will employment.  If you ever leave as deputy AG and returned you came back as a assistant AG.

Sonny: I received a email at lunch in mid September that I was on leave, not to come back.  Dan Davis, Matt Hart and ???? held a press conference the next day announcing that I had been placed on leave.  I talked to Luther and told him if he did not want me I would leave and he did not have to fire me.   And I walked out.

Brasher:  Showing document.  Is this email you sent to Gene Sisson?  Sonny: I sent to you too Andrew, both you and Gene responded in a way that you thought I was joking.  Representative Moore (Baxley) gave 44 reasons for indictment to be dismissed, some of the reasons seemed redundant and could have been reduced.

Brasher:  You heard on clip that Hart disputes you on issues?  Sonny:  I did.  Brasher:  So you are asking Judge to believe you?   OBJECTION  Brasher:  You were fired not MR. Hart?  Sonny:  I resigned.  Brasher:   Mr. Hart did not give privileged information to defendant?  Sonny:  I don’t know.

Brasher:  You have had Baxley and Riley represent you about employment issues since 2012? 

Sonny:  I tried to talk to Luther and several others.  It was suggested that I talk to Mr. Baxley about what I should do ethically.  Brasher:  You had the right to  appeal firings?  Sonny:  IF I was fired.

BREAK 

Brasher keeps asking Sonny if he gave information to the media or to Hubbard’s team.  Sonny says no.

Prosecution passed witness.  Mr. White begins redirect.

MR. White:  MR. Reagan tell me when Rob Riley start representing you as a lawyer.  Sonny:  Right after the birth of our second child in 2010.  He appeared as representative on filling on all this subpoena stuff.  White:  Was

there a time he did or didn’t represent you?  Sonny:  We always had a client attorney relationship.  Rob Riley was Jefferson County Sheriff’s attorney and we used the deputies in Bingo situations and I was in contact with Rob about this. 

White:  The Writ of Mandamus was filed under seal by Baxley.  Do you know when motion to quash was sealed?  It was unsealed during Victoryland.

White:  There were a number of issues your attorney had about disbanding the grand jury.  Did you counsel raise the question whether MR. Davis appointment did not satisfy requirement for grand jury?  Are you aware in your case that the decision is pending and if he ruled he was not legally appointed the grand jury would not be legal? 

White: Exhibit 4, May 1, 4:23 am..  Did you say you sent this document to MR. Sisson and Andrew, is his answer on the document?  No.  Do you have a copy somewhere?

Sonny:  Andrew and I had a lot of discussion about what Matt was doing and his procedure.  White:  Were you involved in the strategy of Lee County Grand Jury?  No

OBJECTION

White:  Did you have conversation with Andrew Brasher while you were  employed  with AG office about Matt and threats he was making? Sonny:  Yes

White:  Was MR. Brasher a member of the team involved in Lee co Grand Jury at that time?  Sonny:   Andrew and I had worked together for years.  I had great respect for him.  Matt and Mike have no idea what they are doing.  White:  Discuss in presence of Kevin Turner?  Yes.  OBJECTION  sustained

White: How many times did you talk to Brasher about Mr. Hart ‘s conduct?  Sonny: We had lunch once a week and other times we talked and I am sure the topic came up.  Kevin Turner and I had numerous conversations.  White:  At what point in time did Kevin Turner say he would not talk to you about this?  Sonny: Late Feb 2014

White handed Sonny Press release from Dan Davis about Sonny and letter from AG to Mr. Davis that was released from subpoena.  After leave did you have conversation with Strange?  Yes.  Attorney General Strange and Shawn Misseldine and me.  Letter dated: September 17, 2014, in accordance with court orders and my position as acting AG I informed AG of Mr. Reagans activities.

White hand Ex 3, email 1-18-13  Hubbard to Gov Riley.  Subject Snowing night.  Sonny:  I do not recall seeing before Lee Co grand jury impaneld in August 2013.  I was aware of it through the press. 

Ex 2, Dec 2012, Do you recall seeing this?  Sonny, Eight months prior to grand jury.

Administration?  Sonny:  Represented Blades and staff during administration.  It was obvious to me from reading certain press stories somebody was getting information from grand jury.

OBJECTION over ruled

White: Brasher  -  Will deal, locations of office? Assistant AG who I’ve known since I was in AG’s office, violent crimes division.  Removed from his offices and position, moved to appellate division.  Matt removed from his office.  OBJECTION sustained..

White:  Did threats have anything  to do with anything other than grand jury?  Sonny: yes.  OBJECTION Sustained

Did it involve…Objection Sustained..

Hart stands up and ask do they get benefit of the Judges rulings….Judge Walker says move on.

White:  Did you consider conversations with Mr Hart about Hubbard’s lawyers, Hubbard,  Legislature,  to be a threat?  Yes

Witness excused…oops one more question, approach bench, excused but on call…

Gene Sisson next witness.

UPDATE ONE:

Lance Bell is questioning Sisson for the defense.  Mr. Sisson lives in  Montgomery and works with Jackson Hospital.  Prior to Jackson Hospital he worked with the AG’s office from October 2007 until he was placed on leave April 2015.  His yearly performance evaluation exceeded standards. 

Appointed to Chief Investigator and agent of the year in 2012 or 2013.  Retired Montgomery Police Dept in Sept 2007. 

Bell:  Have you ever been involved in Lee County Grand Jury?  Sisson: No

Later part of time with AG was spent exclusively working as case agent on gambling cases.

Bell:  Have you testified in front of grand jury?  Sisson:  1997-2005, every month, 10-20 cases per month.

Bell:  While in AG office did you become aware of facts and concerns and did you file  a complaint with the ethics office? OBJECTION, Approach

Bell gives Sisson a exhibit..Bell:  it is a unsigned copy of complaint that I filed with Ethics on August 27, 2014.  Who did you give it to?  Mr. Sumner’s Secretary, personally delivered. 

Bell:  Why did you fell it was necessary to write letter?  Sisson:  I believed I had knowledge that felonies had been committed in the AG’s office and my chain of command was not doing anything so I felt that ethically I had to do something. 

Bell:  Did you relate any concerns you had to people in office before this letter?  OBJECTION  Bell:  Did you have a hearing?  Sisson:  Yes Sir

Bell:  Did you receive subpoena to testify before Lee Co Grand Jury?  Sisson:  Yes sir.

Lawyers approach bench.  Bell to Judge Walker:  We have to research for law, reserve right to recall witness.

Cross Examination:  No questions.. Sisson subject to recall. 

Next: James L. Sumner JR.  Birmingham.  Mostly retired, part-time University of Alabama.  Also LLC Ethics Consulting for a number of corporations, no public sector. 

White :  You were subpoenaed by our office for documents.  I have no documents, when I left the Ethics Commission I only left with personal documents.

White for Defense and Hart for State

White:  We have know each other a number of years, had a number of conversations.  At some point in time did you make a decision not to discuss this case with lawyers for the defense or state.  I  did, I felt this case should be tried in court.  Since I retired I have not had any conversation with anybody about this case, only about logistics.  I spent 17 ½ years as director of the Ethics Commission.

Exhibit 185 – Sumner said he had posted on the Ethics Commission website when seeking new director to replace him.  Pretty accurate job description.  When  Sumner was hired a law degree was required. 

Alabama Ethics Commission a independent authority.  Commission appointed by Governor, Lt Governor and AG  then approved by legislature.  Commission has authority over the Gove, Lt. Gov and AG.   Sumner reports to commission and commission does not report to anyone.

Educational mission of commission is through seminars. 

Decisions guided by black letter of law, prior rulings by our commission.  Could not create new law.  Investigative area – currently 5 investigators.

Published articles related to Al Ethics law.  Looked a t 2 articles Sumner published before ethics law revision. 

Sumner has testified as expert on ethics law in State of Alabama; if first gambling trial in Montgomery he was rejected as expert because they did not qualify me.:  State doesn’t object to using Mr. Sumner as expert on ethics law; Original law 1973 and has been amended on occasion.

1995 was a major revision and 2010 a major revision. 

1975 act did not apply to Political Party Chairs or Vice Chairs?  No  put in effective 1995.  1995 revision was top to bottom and every section revised.

White: Did you ever have occasion to give opinion on effect of ethics law on party chair or vice chair?  Very rarely

Statement of Economic Interest is main relationship between ethics commission and party chairs, co-chairs and candidates.  We approached the law by information standpoint, pro-active on law.

White:  Party chairs and vice-chairs are not elected the same way as most elected officials are elected?  No sir.  They are not elected by public?  NO sir.  The political parties are private organizations?  Yes sir.  The code leaves those kind of things to the party code as to how those kind of things are done.  White: Political parties are private organizations? Yes sir.

Are some officials excluded from ethics act?  City engineers, city attorneys…

Statement of Economic Interest:  All public officials have to file, employee must earn $75.000+ to file,  all candidates, members of commission, etc have to file and people who have to file because of position.

Political parties are protected under the 1^st amendment.  Political Parties have broad authority over elections due to Alabama law.  The Ethic Commission in 1995 had concerns that party chair and co-chair needed to come under Ethics law.

White:  Do all provisions of the Ethics Act apply to the Chair and Co-Chair, Section 8?

Sumner:  I’ve never discussed with anyone until this day.  White:  No training provided to party chair or co-chair?  Sumner:  It never came up.

White:  Section 5C  OBJECTION over ruled.

 My view is that this section was to prevent office holders and candidates from using people and equipment, to prevent them from using the things available to them to help them be re-elected.

Ex director interprets the act, was it ever applied using common sense, has it ever been used, common sense to interpret the ethics law…

DISCUSSION BETWEEN JUDGE WALKER AND LAWYERS. 

White:  Has that term been used in Ethics Commission opinions?  Sumner:  I don’t think that is a term we are trying to meet, you want your opinion to be clear to the public.  OBJECTION SUSTAINED

White:  Is there statements in your opinions where the statement is made using common sense?  Sumner:  Yes sir. 

Is the commission required to have at least one lawyer?  OBJECTION RELEVANCE  - OVERRULED .

HART OBJECTS AGAIN….HART OBJECTS AGAIN….OVERRULED.

White:  Approximately how many people subject to Al ethics law?  Sumner: 300,000 when I left.

Sumner:  Ethics Commission meets 6 times a year; consulted about 25 times a day; nothing unusual about you having conversations about act.  White:  Have you changed your cell number since you retired?  Sumner: NO, I had given out to a controlled group.  OBJECTION overruled

White:  You based answers on the black letter of the law, opinions of commission cases rendered and the letter of the law.  You understand people would rely on what you told them? I did.  We would educate people on what they could or could not do and try to keep them from crossing the line.  OBJECTION.  WHITE SAID HE CAN REPHRASE. 

Has the AG office generally left interpreting ethics law to the Ethics Commission? Yes.

Mr. White: Mr. Sumner are you comfortable with me trying to do this collectively? Yes…Published annual reports of Ethics Commission defense wants admitted into evidence.

Mr. White?  Has the commission given inconsistent  opinions on the act? Yes, We tried to live by the rule the answer was the same and the same no matter who asked.

OBJECTION TO MOVE AMENDMENTS IN BY RELEVANCY…MR. WHITE ARGUING RELAVANCY, HART OBJECTS

Break for lunch: 

1:00 Tuesday:  Mr White continuing with Mr. Sumner. 

Mr. White to Judge Walker: Two boxes were delivered to you from the Ethics Commisssion?  Judge Walker said two big boxes, one says state and one defense, in camera review.. OBJECTION BY STATE

Mr. White asks about Citizen Legislature?  Sumner:  Alabama like many states does not have full time legislature and many legislators have full time jobs outside of the legislature.  The Ethics Commission provides for that.

Mr. White:  2010 Revision, Were you and other members of the Ethics Commission involved in changes presented to 2010 special session?  Sumner:  We had a wish list of what we would like to see worked into revision.  When special session called Riley presented his own list that was greatly changed by the legislature. 

Subpoena power was on wish list. 

Authors of governor’s bill were governor’s legal team and Brian Taylor.  It was entered in Governor’s package.  There amendments made and finally approved.  Five bills passed, I do not remember if they originate in the House or Senate. 

White gave Sumner a copy of hand-out material that Sumner’s office had.  Sumner: Our office would have a hand-out explaining bill to give to people , this also was placed on the website. 

White:  After 2010 amendment did you approach Speaker and Pro-tem  about problems?  Sumner:  Basically the way it was written it would cause anything given to become a crime.  Our office and AG office though we had a unenforceable act.  Section 7 was vulnerable to attack.  We worked to get before Pro-tem  and Speaker so that they could amend the act.  Leadership wanted it done quickly.  Modification made in 2011.   OBJECTION  OVER RULED.

White:  Was severability clause added? OBJECTION  REPHRASe

White:  Did 2011 resolve the underlying problem .  Sumner: It had been fixed.

White:  Who do you consider to be the author and principle presenter? Sumner: Brian Taylor

White:  Did the commission in 2011 raise at public meeting about 2010 amendment?  Sumner: It is in same time frame as discussion about this amendment. 

OBJECTION  LEADING

White present Sumner another paper to refresh his recollection.  Sumner:  It did refresh my recollection.

White:  Did concerns extend beyond Section 7?  Sumner:  Don’t recall.  They were obviously concerned but I think we worked through it.  OBJECTION TO LEADING  -  OVER RULED.

White:  Training had to be done within so many days.  It said should there be any changes subsequent to that people would have to be trained again. How:  Sumner: Training video and seminars.  White:  What efforts were done by ethics commission to see training provided?  OBJECTION – OVER RULED White:  Speaker of House does not need to be put on notice about training on bill passed by legislature?  OBJECTION over ruled.

Mr. Sumnar explains training on changes in ethics law.  OBJECTION OVER RULED.

Mr. White:  We would like to run two clips?  OBJECTION – OVER RULED; OBJECTION – OVERRULED; OBJECTION OVER RULED.

Exhibit 198 Training video:  Still on website, last training video done that you are aware of?  Yes  OBJECTION – MOVE ON

White:  Specific questions about even in August 2014.  Sumner: I was in final weeks.   White:  August 27 or  28,  2014, did you receive information about something being delivered to commission from Mr. Gene Sisson?  Sumner:  It was for my eyes only and only to be opened by me.  The next morning I looked for envelope, I took envelope and was in the process of opening that envelope  OBJECTION

White: Did you receive phone call regarding envelope  Sumner:  Yes sir from Matt Hart  OBJECTION – OBJECTION-OBJECTION SUSTAINED

Sumner:  I told Mr. Hart I would be happy to turn information over to his office.  They were there in about 10 minutes.  I made a copy and looked at it after giving original to AG office.  I looked at I and called Hugh Evans.

White:  Were you presented with any form of subpoena or process when you gave them the paper?  Letter received.  Subpoena received approximately 10 days.  Letter kept and maintained in files at Ethics office.

Did you receive anything that it was connected to Lee Co Grand Jury?  Sumner:  Not specifically but I was told it was being considered for grand jury.

White:  Did you ever have conversation with Sisson about the document?  NO

Did you give to anyone else at Ethics Commission?  Gave copy to Hugh Evans and he looked over and it was filed.  Did you have any other conversation with MR. Hart?  No I didn’t question or have any other thoughts about it.

How many occasions did you turn over a complaint to the person complaint was against?  What we received that day not a form of a complaint and a number of memorandums of things done in AG office.  OBJECTION – OVERR RULED

Does ethics commission advise a person who files a complaint if complaint is not in correct form?  Rare, not a standard form.  We felt not a complaint, determined by myself and Hugh.

ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANOTHER OBJECTION.

Cross by Hart.

Hart:  Political parties don’t spend any public funds but are supported by private funds.  #4 in ethics code:  if someone came to a public official and said do something for me and I will give you some of this pot of money.  Mr. Sumner: violation

Hart:  Confidential information, a little flaw in regard to definition and disclosing it? Sumner:  Definition is section does not match up with prohibitions in Section 8.  To be a violation it had to use definition in Section 8>

Hart:  Training with party chairs?  Sumner:  No one ever asked me.  It was not a issue, never felt the need to call in chairs of parties to instruct about ethics.

Hart:  Difference in formal opinion and informal opinion?  Sumner:  A formal opinion is set forth in code and it has a legal effect, it protects that individual.  Informal opinions  do not provide protection.   The facts have to be correct and the person who gets opinion has to follow it.

Hart:  Do courts also interpret ethics act?  Sumner:  Yes, court trumps Attorney General and Ethics Commission.

Hart:  The communication from former Agent Sisson.  It did not appear to be a complaint?  Sumner: It did not meet conditions of ethics violation. It did not mention filling a complaint or ethics violation.

Hart: If Sisson’s document is not a complaint then the letter did not meet provision of confidentiality?  Sumner:  This letter from Mr. Sisson was not a complaint so the confidentiality does not apply under ethics act. 

White:  So Mr. Hart and conversation you had with him….OBJECTION making a proffer.  White:  Not offering for proof but for Mr. Hart’s state of mind.  HART:  Your Honor.. Judge Walker:  I sustained.  White: Are you sustaining on these grounds?  Judge Walker:  Yes

Sumner:  We did not evaluate for anything.  It was taken over by AG’s office.  We were just looking at it.  It was position of counsel Hugh Evans and myself from looking at it.

Hart:  Mr. Sumnar at ethics commission better part of 17 years.  If you knew it was already under investigation by District Attorney, Attorney General or Feds, you would not even open a case on it?   Sumner:  That is right.

BREAK

Attorneys approach bench

Augusta Dowd for defense.  Matt Hart for the state.  Tom Albritton, Executive Director of the Alabama Ethics Commission for seven months.  Private attorney in Andalusia represent public sector clients.  Applied for the job, interviews, offered employment and approved by the legislature. 

Dowd:  Who do you report to? Albritton: Ethics Commission.  They are appointed and a independent commission.  Dowd:  Mr. Albritton you are here because of subpoena?  Albritton:  Yes.  Dowd:  Not in compacity as custodian of records?  Albritton: N

Dowd:  Can you tell me why you told your staff to “write in camera”?  I did

Dowd:  Are you familiar with the contents of records?  Albritten: To an extent.  It contains certain things that are considered public and some not public.  Minutes are public, letters from House or Senate requesting guidance on employment issues are non-public.  Training videos are public. 

Dowd shows Albritten defense exhibits 263, 264, 265 and 266.  Can you identify those documents?  Albritten: Yes I recognize.   This is my first experience with this type case.  I will do what ever the judge says. 

Dowd:  Were you involved in producing documents?  Albritton:  Only to extent that I told them to get documents requested.  I had a call from Mr. Hart Friday asking when the documents would be delivered?  Albritton: I said Monday. 

Dowd:  How many conversations have you had with any member of AG’s prosecutorial team concerning Mr. Hubbard?  Albritton: Two with Mr. Hart.

Dowd:  Mr. Albritton have you refused to speak to Mr. White? I have not refused to talk to Mr. White.  Albritton: Once I did not take his call, I was walking out the door. 

Have you ever been instructed by anyone on prosecution team not to talk to defense team?  OBJECTION  OVER RULED.  Was it ever suggested or communicated to talk with defense tea,?  Albritton:  WE have discussed that Mr. Hart did not approve of us talking with defense.  We said we would continue to talk with the defense.  Mr. White called as I was walking out the door.  WE can meet when it works into schedule. 

State has no questions. 

Attorneys approach the bench at the request of Mr. Hart.

FINAL UPDATE DAY 2 AND DAY 3:

Tuesday Afternoon  Next Witness:

Hugh Evans, General Counsel Ethics Commission, 20 years, Custodian of Records for Ethics Commission. 

Mrs. Dowd shows Evans exhibits 263, 264, 265, 266 which are subpoenas.  Are these the subpoenas under which you were operating to collect documents for this proceeding?  Evans: They are yes.  Dowd:  Did you spearhead effort to collect the documents?  Most of our office was involved.  Dowd:  Those documents were produced for in camera.  Did you discuss these documents with Mr. Hart or anyone in prosecutor’s office?  Evans: No

Mr. Evans are you familiar with a submission by Gene Sisson to the Ethics Commission?  Evans: Yes.  Dowd:  In what context have you seen it?  OBJECTION TO RELEVANCE – OVERRULED

Mr. Evans:  The day after dated Jim Sumner brought it into my office and he said AG’s office had subpoenaed it.  I looked at it and I did not see any issues. 

Dowd:  Do you know if the copy was kept in the records in the office?  Evans:  I am not sure.  This copy is not signed but my recollection is it was signed.

Dowd:  Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Sumner about the document?  Evans: Where located, Sumner had taken it with him.  It was returned. 

Dowd:  Did MR. Sumner receive a letter in lewd of a subpoena relative to that letter? Evans: I did not see a letter. 

Dowd:  Did you ever see a letter relevant to that letter? Evans: No

Did you ever see a subpoena relevant to that letter? No.

Dowd:  When MR. Sumner brought back  OBJECTION  Rephrase.  Did Mr. Sumner ever bring back documents back to the office.  Evans:  He brought back to Acting Director.

Dowd:  Do you know of any other documents were brought back by Mr. Sumner?  Evans:  I do not know.  Dowd:  Do you know whether or not copies of that complaint were made before or after AG’s office picked it up?  Evans:  Jim showed it to me as AG’s office was waiting for document.  I assume it was the original.

Dowd:  No further questions

Hart:  No cross.

Mark Colson is next witness.  Hannah Thompson for defense. 

Colson is current Business Council of Alabama Assistant to Bill Canary.  2006 to present.  Hired by Bill Canary.

Promoted to Executive Director of Progress Pac in 2010.  2015 he was placed over the Advocacy Team of the Governmental Affairs Committee and works with the legislative and executive branch. 

Thompson:  Have you worked with Mr. Hubbard?  Colson:  I have, as Speaker, when he was campaigning and as Chairman of the Republican Party.  Are you here to testify due to subpoena you received? Colson: Yes

Thompson:  Do you know Jessica Garrison? Yes, former Chief Counsel  in AG’s office.  OBJECTION – overruled

Colson: I do.  Thompson:  How long?  Colson: 2006-2007, since I’ve worked at BCA.  She served on our Board of Directors.  She chaired one of our regular advisory committees.  She works for a law firm we work with. 

Thompson:  Do you know Luther Strange?  Colson:  Mostly professionally but both since I’ve worked with BCA.

Exhibit 202  Thompson:  MR. Colton do you recognize this document?  Colton:  Yes.  Thompson:  Do you recall having received this document?  Colton: Yes. 

Thompson:  Do you know Melissa Strange? Colson: Yes., wife of Luther Strange.  Thompson:  Did you know her at the time of this email? Colson:  Yes  OBJECTION AS TO RELEVANCE.

Thompson:  Could you identify document?  Colson:  Email from Jessica Garrison to myself.  Thompson:  Subject?  Colson:  Credit Cards.  Thompson:  In response to this email did you take any action?  Colson:  Melissa Strange and I met.  Thompson:  Did Melissa Strange ever work for her brother’s company?   Did you ever use Melissa Strange’s brother’s company for credit card processing?  To my knowledge we did not.  Document Admitted

Exec 203 Thompson: could you identify document? Colson:  Email from myself back to Jessica Garrison.  Thompson subject:  Colson: Melissa 2-10-2011.  Thompson: Substance of email?  OBJECTION – OVERRULED

Thompson:  What did you understand from document?  That I would meet with Melissa Strange.

No Cross, Witness excused.

Lawyers approach bench at the request of Mr. White. 

No more witnesses today.  9 AM in the morning.  Because witnesses testifying in the morning will be testifying about grand jury, public will not be allowed until 1:30. 

BREAK

Qualification of expert witness.  State filed objection to defense expert, Mr. Gershwin not admissible under 702.  Judge Walker: It appears he has been expert on several cases on issues as this case.

Wednesday Day 3:

Court was closed to the public until 3:05 pm.  The testimony of the witnesses earlier was about the Lee County Grand Jury. 

Mr. White said that what is left is largely housekeeping and documents.  Several of the subpoenas were satisfied by affidavit. 

     Stacey Johnson, Court Reporter , Lee County Special Grand Jury admitted under seal due to objection by state. 

     Subpoenaed Al.com John Archibald.  Motion filed on his behalf, reached resolution on Friday with Archibold attorney.  Subpoena satisfied.  State OBJECT

Mr. White moved in open court for signed Sisson Letter.  State has provided certain documents.  Defense received unsigned copy of Sisson letter.  Signed copy was given to Hart by Sumner.  We move for state to provide signed copy of letter that they took from Sumner.  OBJECTION RELEVANCE.  Also letter delivered to Ethics by AG.   DAVIS:  No one disputes letter. 

White: We have had two people from the Ethics Commission sworn to tell the truth and they gave different testimony. State will look for and provide to court.

White listed the names of several witnesses that they would like to take depositions from.  PENDING OBJECTIONS TO RELEVANCE.   Two of the witnesses were Hart and Davis of AG’s office.  There was a discussion about disqualification from case if they were called to testify.  State argued that Your Honor has heard evidence and had plenty of testimony of how AG office operates and office space.

Attorney Blake Oliver for defense:  We had a civil case where this issue came up.  Tony McLain of the Alabama Bar gave  opinion that the disqualification issue only applies at trial not at pre-trial stage.  State arguing against Davis and Hart giving depositions.

Court was dismissed.

 

<- back