The Wall Street Journal story is mostly notable for having push-back quotes from the Scruggs defense attorney, and nothing new.
Patsy Brumfield at the Tupelo Journal strangely interprets Grady Tollison’s account of Judge Lackey’s testimony to imply that the bribe offer originated from Judge Lackey (if that’s not what she means, she should have done it better; if that’s what she means, she heard differently than Folo’s informant). This has already been much grist for the Folo-comment-mill. See update below.
Jerry Mitchell presented a straightforward account of the hearing in Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs. Alyssa Schnugg for the Oxford Eagle also contributed an excellent first hand account that included both the Jones, Funderburg hearing and developments relating to the Patterson and Langston pleas.
All of the other news accounts I’ve noted depended totally on court documents and added nothing to those who have been following this online.
Update:
On reflection, I think I see the source of the confusion about the Brumfield story. What the proffer seemed to say is that Balducci was offering inducements to get the order first, and that the specific number came from Lackey, who made it noting that he was just a country judge (this is in the same tradition as Sam Ervin’s claim that he was just a country lawyer). I don’t know if Brumfield meant the implications of her story, but it does imply that the idea of inducement came from Lackey first, and that was not remotely suggested by Grady Tollison’s proffer.
I posted this already but gonna post it again here.
Heres a recount of Lackeys interview from someone close to the case.
" " " "The interview with Lackey is mostly consistent with the timeline from Rossmiller’s blog. In fact, Grady gave the timeline to Lackey to use on the stand. Lackey became a judge in 1993. He is from Calhoun City. Tim Balducci and Kent Smith were public defenders in Oxford when Lackey hit the bench and they were friends. The first meeting with Lackey was at Tim’s request. At the meeting, Tim went off on Grady and the horrible things Grady had said about Tim’s friends Dick Scruggs and David Nutt. Tim said that John Jones had an over-inflated opinion of himself and his legal abilities. Tim said that the only reason we were asked to be in SKG was because they thought that hiring us would help with Judge Lee/federal court through Stewart. Tim said that Johnny was just a little back-room lawyer in Katrina who was trying to shake them down. Tim asked Lackey to help "his friends " by dismissing the irresponsible allegations and sending the rest to arbitration. Tim then said that he would like to help the judge too and was starting this little firm and would love to have Lackey, etc. Lackey reported it and the feds asked Lackey to tell Tim that he was in a financial bind. Tim went to Scruggs. Lackey just made up the 40k and said it was to pay a specific matter. Tim said they couldn’t pay it all at once … presumably to break it down into small, unnoticeable increments that could be covered up. "
That letter was from last week. Not yesterday
I think what he meant by " Grady gave the timeline to Lackey to use on the stand. " was to say that Rossmiller’s blog had it right on and was using it as a “cheat sheet”
didnt mean to get this going 2x. Just thought this thread was more relevant.
Well, Rossmiller’s timeline was ok as far as it went (I think he’d agree to this extent)– it had the dates from the documents available at the time. What it didn’t have is dates that Lackey knew that were not public information to that time, e.g., the reasons for the delays in the order, the fact that there were two orders, and the statements that were made by Balducci to Lackey and when they were made.
I still wonder about your source. In this context, Rossmiller is no better than an (excellent) reporter– he has no internal investigation. Tollison really relied on that to prep a witness?
It’s easier for me to “see” up here; so, I’ll reply here instead of below – and start by saying one reason for my interest in the terms of the JV agreement was the history of claims similar to those made by Jones. I understand the result, in some of those cases, has been extreme financial hardship – something that taxes the limits of any of us emotionally as well as financially.
Memphis, it seems you are someone close enough to feel the pain and I’m truly sorry.
NMC, would it be unusual, given the amount of time that has passed, for Tollison to give Judge Lackey such a time line to help him recall the events and ask him to point out any errors?
nmisscommenter wrote:
Unless you have a source, I’m having trouble buying your account. Why wouldn’t Tollison interview Lackey and depend on his memory?
nowdoucit wrote:
NMC, would it be unusual, given the amount of time that has passed, for Tollison to give Judge Lackey such a time line to help him recall the events and ask him to point out any errors?
Took the words outta my mouth. Thanks for the kind thoughts nodoucit. My “source” is as close as you can get so anything posted here is concrete.
NMC, I’m having trouble connecting the dots that lead to the FBI. Tollison’s account of the events indicated Judge Lackey knew Balducci well enough to think he might come to him with a problem.
I can see from the conversation reported in the last communication Memphis posted how that might be exactly what took place. Not that it was, mind you, but that it could be.
What I can’t get past is how someone who knew Balducci well enough to wonder if he was having some sort of personal problem and make time to meet with him on that basis, would call the FBI instead of calling Balducci’s hand and telling him that his proposal sounded a lot like a bribe.
This is what i get out of it.
“Tim then said that he would like to help the judge too and was starting this little firm and would love to have Lackey.”- This is when Lackey gets suspicious and contacts the feds.
The FEDS “asked Lackey to tell Tim that he was in a financial bind” Then Lackey made up the $40,000 amount.
The last comment comes close to fitting the accounts of the proffer in court today, Memphis, for whatever that’s worth.
I understand what was said, I’m trying to understand why I feel it peculiar Judge Lackey reacted by contacting the FBI. It would seem that he would confirm his feelings in someway first.
nowdoucit, it would be totally understandable for a judge to be creeped out with a lawyer coming in and:
*talking about a case ex parte in which he had not entered an appearance;
*dog-cussing the lawyers on one side and endorsing the other side; and
*suddenly switching to a virtual job offer (in a context where Balducci was unvieling a new firm that had two former chancellors (one who had been a US magistrate), a former DA (Ed Peters no less) and a former governor (Allain, about whom we probably don’t need another tangent that involved), so he seemed serious.
So Judge Lackey, I’m guessing, thought this creepy and then thought it worse and went to the FBI and the rest proceeded from there.
I’m not disagreeing with your puzzlement, nowdoucit, but trying to elucidate.
This is a confusing mess! And we’re having to guess what went on in the minds of people who aren’t yet free to talk about it!
I appreciate the thoughts, NMC. I know neither Balducci nor Judge Lackey. I wouldn’t have nearly so much trouble were it not for the Judge’s own statements indicating these comments weren’t coming from a stranger by any means.
That puts everything in an entirely different light. It just seems odd that this must older Judge didn’t tell this “rising star” (as Lackey called Balducci in the early reports) that regardless of how he feels, it is not something they should be discussing.
In the absence of that, you’re right, we’re just guessing – so I guess I’m going to bed!
nowdoucit // January 15, 2008 at 3:23 am
“I understand what was said, I’m trying to understand why I feel it peculiar Judge Lackey reacted by contacting the FBI. It would seem that he would confirm his feelings in someway first.”
Well, that’s why you have to be careful about who you approach to enlist in the commission of a major felony. Because, some people say yes, some people say no, and some people call the police.
NMC is right. Judge Lackey did the right thing and contacted the Feds, The Feds correctly realized something like a job offer at a f uture point is too ambiguous and leaves too much room for doubt. If there is going to be an airtight case, there had to be something concrete. Hard to argue with cash passed and captured on video.
wouldn’t it have solved alot of delaughter’s problems if when he was told he could get a federal judgeship in exchange for a ruling favorable to scruggs, he went straight to the feds like lackey did?
You know that about right now, DeLaughter is wishing he had done what Lackey did.
Morning, y’all.
CONFOUNDED, your question reminds me of something I used to say to engineering students in my tech-writing course: “In the end, the ethical way is the only efficient way.”
Back then I used Morton ThioKol’s performance in the Challenger disaster as a recent for-instance. Now legal-ethics professors can deploy these mopes as vivid examples of the principle for a long time to come.
CON – Yes it would have been best for him to do, and yes it might be hard to prove a bribe based on political influence. However, if you piece together the two men who were the conduits between lawyer and judge – both good friends of each, a phone call from the political power in charge of the judgeship (influence), and then take a look back at the rulings of the judge combined with the events all taking place in a small window around the time of the Special Master’s ruling then the outlook is good that Wilson will at least get himself a new trial and even possibly a new federal trial. That has a few MS & LA lawyers involved in the tabaccoo trust a little worried. My advice – wait until Ed Peterrs is “found” and his information to the gov’t comes out and some hands are going to be forced. You may not have an envelope and cash but you’ll have a heap of validated evidence, and possibly a stronger case than the current one. Ironically, Lott and DeLaughter are somewhat butting heads right now concerning the elections – not Lott directly but I think we can all surmise he is not too happy with elections in March/April.
Good points, msman. I’m wracking my brain to think of anything Trent Lott might be happy about right now. I got nuthin’.
Regarding the Honorable Henry Lackey, could it be a possible scenario that he had heard rumors of this type of behavior but had never actually encountered it? Perhaps he did the honorable thing by reporting the overture and saving TB from further improprieties . . . just a thought.
Heh, Jane — I don’t guess we’ll put “self-awareness” down as one of Timothy’s strong suits, hey?
been told Lackey actually contacted the Feds when he got the job offer, offended that they were trying to set him up as part of sting op. Then the fun began….
Simpler explanation. Balducci makes his overturn. Judge Lackey runs into Greenlee or another Ass’t U. S. Atty he knows (in small town of Oxford) say you want believe what Tim Balducci said to me!! Well lets see what he meant get him back in and tell him your a poor country judge who needs help and see if he bites, then we will know what he meant. And you know the rest of the story. Simple explanation.