– OPINION –
As we await the three-judge panel’s decisions in Stewart and Michael Parnell’s habeas corpus motions, there is something to discuss.
In some comments during oral arguments on September 26, the panel of judges wondered aloud why the government had ever agreed not to enter into evidence the deaths linked to the multi-state Salmonella outbreak caused by the Parnells.
Nine people died and at least 713 people became ill in that outbreak.
Justice Department attorney Stuart E. Walker, who opposed Parnell’s motions in oral arguments, was not there when the government agreed to keep the death from evidence during the 2014 jury trial. He did say that DOJ attorneys were confident they had enough evidence about the Salmonella illnesses to make their case, which was not true.
But looking back at the moldy 2014 grand jury reports, it’s clear the DOJ fought hard to include the deaths. Shortly before the jury trial, Stewart Parnell’s attorneys asked the court in a Motion In Limine to exclude any evidence relating to illness or deaths.
The exclusion of any mention during the trial of the illnesses or deaths was accompanied by a request for the court to seal one “highly biased” email in which Parnell told a family member to lie about selling businesses if it would save money.
This is what DOJ Patrick Hearn wrote at the time:
“Defendant has asked the Court to prevent the United States Government from presenting appropriate proximate, intrinsic, and inseparable evidence in support of the allegations and facts alleged in the Complaint. The evidence directly corroborates the conduct charged in the indictment. Moreover, the evidence is inherent in the government’s case; it is inextricably intertwined evidence and part of the series of events the government intends to present to prove its case.”
The top prosecutor in the 2014 trial, Hearn, argued that the government has wide latitude in a criminal case “to prove its case by evidence of its own choosing, or, more precisely, that a criminal suspect may not choose his way out or allow. of the full weight of the evidence of the case as the government chooses to present.”
However, the government agreed not to mention the deaths and continued with its thick case files.
And about ten minutes after the 2014 jury trial concluded the conviction of the Parnell’s and the other executives of the Peanut Corporation of America, it was leaked that the deaths had been discussed by at least some of the deliberating jurors.
A motion to vacate Parnell’s convictions and sentences is currently before the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr., Judge Robert J. Luck and Senior Judge Edward Earl Carnes.
During oral arguments, the panel asked why the government ever agreed not to bring up the Salmonella deaths at trial. One judge said it was like charging just the underlying traffic violation of a vehicular homicide.
The panel on. On September 26, back-to-back oral arguments were heard on behalf of Michael and Stewart Parnell. The verdict could come at any time.
The brothers, who were involved in a deadly Salmonella outbreak blamed on the now-defunct Peanut Corporation of America, filed motions for the stay of their convictions and sentences under federal Habeas Corpus proceedings.
Savannah attorney Amy Lee Copeland, representing Stewart Parnell, and Virginia attorney Elliott M. Harding for Michael Parnell, tried to use their time to make all their arguments effectively.
The attorneys claim the Parnells’ constitutional rights were violated because of ineffective counsel during their 2014 jury trial.
They also claim that their trial attorneys should have sought a change of venue, moving the trial from Albany, GA. It is alleged that the jury behaved inappropriately because some jurors knew deaths were involved.
Stewart Parnell, 70, and Michael Parnell, 65, are inmates at the Butner, N.C., federal prison known as “Butner Low.” It is a low-security facility for fewer than 1,000 inmates.
At the time of the outbreak, Stewart was the president of PCA, while Michael was involved as a peanut broker. Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, selling misbranded food and introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce. Michael Parnell was also found guilty, but on fewer counts.
If they succeed with their Habeas Corpus motions, Stewart Parnell’s sentence could be shaved by fourteen years, and Michael Parnell’s sentence by the remaining seven years.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)