Jackson Free Press

Just in from Jerry Mitchell at The Clarion-Ledger; unclear who "Mills" is supposed to be, though:

Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter e-mailed a proposed order involving attorney Dickie Scruggs to one-time District Attorney Ed Peters, who in turn shared it with Scruggs' lawyers, according to federal court documents.

Scruggs is facing a federal indictment in a separate case involving alleged judicial bribery.

Booneville lawyers Joey Langston and Timothy Balducci — who have both pleaded guilty to giving bribes — were representing Scruggs in 2006 in a Hinds County lawsuit in which one of Scruggs' former law partners was seeking about $15 million in attorney fees he said he was owed.

"In at least one instance, Judge DeLaughter e-mailed a rough draft of an opinion he planned to enter to Peters so that Langston and Balducci would be able to see it before any final version was filed," Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Dawson told Mills.

Contacted for comment, DeLaughter would not comment. He previously has denied any wrongdoing, saying he never took a bribe.

Previous Commentsshow

Uh, how about Michael Mills, the judge in Oxford?

lady

Jan 17 2008

The point, lady, is that first name is not in the article (when I quoted from it; it seems to have been added now). Thanks for helping fill it in for those in the dark, however. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

yes'm I see that now too!

lady

Jan 17 2008

Wacky stuff here, huh? It's really horrifying to think just how compromised our criminal-justice system here might have been here for a long time. It's simply mind-boggling.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

I don't really think this has a whole lot of bearing on criminal justice. Maybe for rich white-collar criminals, they could have bought their way out. However, it is absolutely frightening on the civil side. If a universally-respected judge like DeLaughter could be purchased (and I am just conjecturing here ladd, please don't throw a fit) then every civil verdict involving these parties comes under scrutiny.

QB

Jan 17 2008

How could it NOT have a bearing on criminal justice IF it proves to be true that a long-time D.A. might have taken a million-dollar bribe?!? This is where the rubber meets the road. I think the white-collar, civil stuff is bad—but the idea that criminal justice might have been bought and sold in a city where crime is considered the "no. 1 issue," with real lives on the line, is the worst thing put on this table since the Scruggs indictment was first announced.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

This boils down to money. You are the first one to jump on me for assessing guilt before a trial, and now you are saying that just because an EX district attorney took a MILLION DOLLAR bribe (possibly), criminal cases could have been compromised? First, it doesn't prove that at all. Second, what's in it for the DA? You think he bribed a judge or something? A million bucks will make people do strange things. I know what you are getting at -- that because he might have taken this bribe, then he was probably corrupt and withheld exculpatory evidence, wrongfully convicted some poor person who is now in Parchman, etc. I'm not buying it just yet.

QB

Jan 17 2008

No, Fat Harry. I am commenting generally on the potential far-reaching effects if something apparently alleged in a court document is true. I asked you and others to not to state outright (certainly on this Web site) that someone is guilty of something that, to our knowledge, they have not officially been accused of doing or that there is no evidence you can point to to support the assertion. There's a huge difference. As far as the million-dollar bribe—IF it was taken by either an attorney who is an ex-DA or a judge who is an ex-ADA, I would assume that it's *possible* that this person did not suddenly just have a lapse of ethical conscience. I know what you are getting at -- that because he might have taken this bribe, then he was probably corrupt and withheld exculpatory evidence, wrongfully convicted some poor person who is now in Parchman, etc. I'm not buying it just yet. You don't have to. But I will say that the first time I really started questioning the halycon image of Bobby DeLaughter was when we did this story about Cedric Willis' false imprisonment. I also started to wonder about him after delving into this historic slice of Jackson's history (that most of the people freaking out over the Scruggs case have not given two sh!ts about) and learning that he was the ADA on the juvenile-detention center case. (Peters was the DA who wouldn't put it before a grand jury.) I'm not alleging that either of them are guilty of anything, but these are very real episodes that should be looked at closer, if people can manage to tear their hungry gaze away from Jim Hood for five minutes. I think there's enough attention span to go around, don't you? So, if you don't mind, I will continue to be concerned about what has happened in our criminal-justice system in the past, what guilty people may have gotten off, and what innocent ones may have gone to jail.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

Well I think the facts as I understand them so far are: 1. The price of a judgement in your favor is $50K 2. Your choice of lawyer is dependent on whether he gave money to the judge assigned to the case in the judges last election.

GLewis

Jan 17 2008

I saw Cedric speak at the Innocence Project fundraiser a few months ago at the Hilton. It was an extremely moving and sad speech. I completely support the goals and methods of the Innocence Project. However, I (with only anecdotal evidence and damned lies/statistics to back me up) really feel like wrongful convictions are a tiny, tiny fraction of the cases which go to trial. There is a difference between that and NOT prosecuting a case. There, if a DA decides not to bring a case before a grand jury, the victim should seek civil remedies. The burden of proof/evidence is lower and, upon a successful civil verdict, the DA would have no choice but to go with an indictment. I apologize in advance for not having the time to read your article on the alleged rape. I enjoy the JFP's article very much and find them well-written and well-researched.

QB

Jan 17 2008

From the Sun-Herald today: [D]uring a closed-door proceeding in federal court last week, a prosecutor said Scruggs dispatched intermediaries to tell DeLaughter that "if he ruled in his favor he would pass his name along for consideration regarding the federal judgeship." Former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters, a friend of the judge, later approached DeLaughter and "passed the information along" to him, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Dawson told U.S. District Judge Michael Mills in Oxford, Miss., according to a transcript of proceedings. "The government would further show that, in fact, DeLaughter's name was submitted for consideration for a federal judgeship, and DeLaughter was so notified," Dawson added. [...] Court papers unsealed Monday accuse Langston, Peters and former state auditor Steven Patterson of splitting $3 million that Scruggs saved "as a result of rulings in favor of Scruggs by Judge DeLaughter resulting in a settlement of the case." In December 2005, Scruggs hired Langston and attorney Timothy Balducci to represent him in the case assigned to DeLaughter. Langston later hired Peters and paid him $1 million for his services. "While Peters was not fully cognizant of the issues surrounding the litigation, he would relay whatever information he received from Langston, Balducci and Patterson to Judge DeLaughter before any of this information was filed with the court," Dawson said. In at least one instance, according to Dawson, DeLaughter e-mailed to Peters a rough draft of an opinion he planned to issue. "And Langston and Balducci and Patterson would be able to see it before any (final version) was filed," Dawson added. Balducci has pleaded guilty to trying to bribe Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey and is cooperating with investigators in their case against Scruggs. Peters and a lawyer for Patterson didn't immediately return calls for comment Thursday. Scruggs is a brother-in-law of former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., whose duties as a senator included recommending nominees for federal judgeships. Lott spoke to DeLaughter and other potential candidates about a vacancy in the federal court system, but the senator supported Halil "Sul" Ozerden, who was sworn in as a federal judge in Mississippi in August, according to Lott's former chief of staff, Brett Boyles.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

Thanks, Fat Harry. The article links on the rapes was by a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for New York Newsday—not the JFP. But thanks for your kind words!

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

I tell you, the chatter about Peters perhaps giving up one particular local defense attorney and a prominent client is in overdrive today—I've been getting it from all directions. My fingers are itching, but it's not confirmed well enough, yet.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

Oh come on! Criminal defense attorney?

QB

Jan 17 2008

Yes, criminal.

DonnaLadd

Jan 17 2008

Ladd, I am not sure I would consider Danks a defense attorney, his client though... I could see. Rumors surrounding others, there is one other prominent defense attorney that has confided to me he wakes up every day, and has for the past two years, wondering if today is the day he will be indicted for past misdeeds with a firm. He could fry some more, and he could even be drawn into the Scruggs deal due to everyone selling out everyone... (Langston has dirt on people that have dirt on him) Amazing how all this could collapse so many people. I will stick to being honest.

AGamm627

Jan 17 2008

AGamm, I'm not talking about Danks, so not sure where that came from.

DonnaLadd

Jan 18 2008

Per Rule 8.3(a) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: "A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that Lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respect's, shall inform the appropriate professional authority"

LawClerk

Jan 18 2008

LawClerk Know in this definition is as "having proof or actual knowledge." While I hope you are a real attorney by now, you should know that as a member of the bar, you know, or should know (otherwise you are pathetically disconnected and trivial) 1. Every rumor 2. Every rumor that is backed by a person that knows things 3. Who actually knows things and who their sources are 4. The story on what really happened and what deal was cut, AND 5 There is more crap floating in legal rumors among bar members than in the sewers of NYC As for 8.3 Screw yourself if you think this was a smart reply. If I had actual knowledge of an actual crime I would report it, I am that straight laced. I can listen to statements like "I am going to get indicted any day now" and do not know that is due to an actual misdeed. Remember the whole innocent rule until proven? I will NOT have my ethics questioned. If you are naive enough to think you should report every lawyer over any off the cuffs jokes, remarks or even suspicions, you won't survive long. Never act without proof.

AGamm627

Jan 21 2008

Ladd, I assumed you meant Danks with defense. He is also in the middle of the rumor mill and his most prominent client is certainly tied in with peters, 75 cash tied. All for a deal that fell through AGamma627

AGamm627

Jan 21 2008

I'm sure it's a huge revelation to some that Ed Peters is dirty as sin. Do you think he ran a clean shop when he was D.A? I hope the digging is deep and far-reaching. Hinds is far from the only county in Mississippi is for sale. Any bets on who all Ed Peters will take down with him when his plea deal is cut?

Oh_Happy_Day

Jan 21 2008

*5 There is more crap floating in legal rumors among bar members than in the sewers of NYC* Ain't that the truth?? Mississippi is just one big rumor mill right not..... Don't believe anything without proof. We've got to clean this state up......

gipper

Jan 21 2008

Folks, please do not post any allegations or rumors about individuals here by name. There is no need, and it's cheap. There are enough people rolling around in the gutter out there; there is no reason for us to join them!

DonnaLadd

Jan 21 2008

My grammer and writing skills might need a lot of help. But, not long ago Ms. Ladd you came down on me for a point I made when you had that story about Minor in your paper. The point that I made, which I'll will not back down from, was the rich get richer and the poor get children. You got down on me about how you didn't have a problem with rich folks like I do...... I also said..... at the end of the day they all meet at the country club and have a laugh and a drink together. This Scruggs thing is going to prove me right! Oh, don't forget Bobby D single-handedly took on the establishment in the Medgar Evers affair... Seems to me he just might be part of that very establishment!

Truthseeker

Jan 21 2008

Truthseeker, I'm not sure what post you mean or what exactly you said, or have time to go find it. However, I'm quite sure that I didn't argue that rich people can never go bad. Obviously, they can. And often people get rich by being dirty. However, and this is what I suspect I said then, not all rich people are bad or dirty. Not to state the obvious. And as I've said, we've been concerned about some of Mr. DeLaughter's cases for a while now, not to mention Mr. Peters. I think we're probably the only media around here that have questioned either of them.

DonnaLadd

Jan 21 2008