Today's Mobile Press-Register Siegelman sleight

Barry Lyman, of the Mobile Press-Register's Capital Bureau, reports Siegelman treatment standard?: Yes, say experts; but some surprised judge didn't allow voluntary surrender. Like their sister publication, The B'ham News, did with "there's precious little reason to believe justice wasn't served", the actual text of your work doesn't support the claim. "Yes" is hardly applicable when the body of the reporting has the following:

... Still, it (the shackling of Don Siegelman as he was immediately taken into custody) was "stunning" to one well-regarded Washington lawyer that the situation involved a white-collar criminal. "I've only heard it happening on one other occasion," said Michele Roberts, who practices at Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld. ...

... "Unless the court is convinced there was a real risk of flight, it sounds more like a situation where the court wanted to start the punishment," William Lawler, one of (former Representative Bob) Ney's (who got a voluntary surrender date after his guilty plea) attorneys, said of the Siegelman/Scrushy case. ...

"Stunning" and "... only ... one other occasion" seems like rather strong language from a "well-regarded Washington lawyer ". Or did the mysterious "they" who claim "the treatment of Siegelman and Scrushy was no different from many others who are ordered into custody" cancel out those blockbuster claims? C'mon MP-R, do you think all your readers just read the headlines or are unable to read below the first couple of paragraphs?

Although you stacked what you wanted folks to read up top, there's some of meat here. For instance, I like how the following from Ms. Roberts made it into the piece:

Fuller has said in court filings that Siegelman's defense team has not "raised a substantial question" that would lead to a reversal or a new trial. Roberts (a well-regarded Washington lawyer) said a problem with the "substantial question" standard (applicable to a release pending the running of the appeal) is the trial judge essentially must admit fault. "The judge has to say, 'Yeah, I screwed up,'" she said. "'I ruled against you, and it's likely you'll prevail on appeal.' It's a ridiculously high standard."

Reckon you might point something like this out the next time you obviously try to justify the way Don Siegelman's case has been and is being handled? Given that the 11th Circuit had to outright force Judge Mark Fuller to provide his reasoning for the denial of bond pending appeal, plus all the many other questions about this case, I'd think you could do much better in your coverage. I know it would be hard to give balance to a matter that your paper helped bring about (and then serve as a conduit for leaks and the like) but both justice and journalism requires it to be done. John Gunn