Keker’s team has something to celebrate today– the appointed judge in the contempt case has just granted Keker’s motion to dismiss it! Odd, as I was sitting here trying to think through and understand the case a bit today. Anyhow, a regular reader of this site sent me the order, which Rossmiller had already posted. Here is the Order dismissing the contempt case. More about it later.
UPDATE:
The dismissal is for two reasons: Scruggs was not subject to the injunction and not within the court’s jurisdiction. The court noted that “there is a cloud of impropriety surrounding what Scruggs did and the nature of his eleventh hour arrangement with Hood. It is certainly understandable that Judge Acker would attempt to hold him accountable. Perhaps there are ethical issues that should be examined. But, the question is not whether Scruggs acted ethically; the question is whether he can be criminally responsible in a contempt proceeding.”
Courts only have the power to enjoin parties who are actually before the court. Scruggs was neither party nor attorney in the case in which the judge entered the injunction. If one cannot be bound by an injunction, “it naturally follows that he cannot be held in contempt for violating that injunction.” He noted that the injunction expressly included the Rigsby sisters’ agents and those acting in concert with them. However, the opinion states, the court explicitly found that the Rigsbys had not acted improperly– they had given the documents up 5 months prior to the injunction. The law requires a guilty principal (the Rigsbys) before an aider and abetter (Scruggs) can be punished.
Alternatively, the court held that Scruggs did not violate the injunction because the law enforcement exception allowed him to turn the documents over to Hood if Hood requested them. The court noted that “there is a cloud of suspicion surrounding the agreement between Scruggs and Hood.” The court expressed doubt about Scruggs’s explanation that the documents would be given to State Farm, and that Scruggs did not take his concerns to Acker. The timing of the ultimate surrender of the documents is also suspicious, as is Hood’s letter to U.S. Attorney Martin. Nevertheless, Scruggs sufficiently fell within the “law enforcement” exception that what he did was not criminal contempt.
Please excuse my non-lawyer ignorance, but does this ruling now let Jimbo off the hook in terms of the commotion re: the documents he kept safe for DS?
It lets Scruggs off the hook. There’s still, as the court notes, a cloud of suspicion over what they did.
“there is a cloud of impropriety surrounding what Scruggs did and the nature of his eleventh hour arrangement with Hood. …Perhaps there are ethical issues that should be examined. ”
I.E. a conspiracy worth investigating.
And to my reading in footnote4 lays some of it out
4
It is unclear who initially suggested that the documents be sent to Hood. See Renfroe Doc. 130 at 197-98. I will assume for purposes of this order, as the
special prosecutors have urged, and as Judge Acker had implied, that it was Scruggs’s idea and that he, in effect, asked Hood to "request " the documents.
Thanks for the UPDATE. You have answered my question as usual NMC.
excuse me for being suspicious but . . . Anytime scruggs wins I have to wonder where was Blake? What really went down and if the court thinks ethics were a problem why doesn’t the court report the misconduct?
Looks like Judge Acker chose the wrong vehicle for justice. He should have hammered on the Rigsbys to get to Scruggs. He let the Rigsbys play dumb and innocent. They may be dumb but ….
Confounded, the court stated they had an ethics problem, as a non lawyer who does the courts turn to. Wikepedia states without prejudice means a temportary end among other things as not lost, could be reinstated etc. This was very time consuming to Keker and Company and very expensive for Alabama if it was in the wrong court. It appears to me Alabama didnot want to get into Mississippi ZLeez at this time.
any court can refer a matter to a state bar association whether the court sits out of state or not. So the bama court could file a complaint with the miss bar if it deemed that was appropriate. If it is dismissed without prejudice it can be re opened or brought up again. Bit I can’t imagine it would be.
And I thought today was a slow news day. Wow.
mag and con, this is a federal court, not an Alabama Court, so it seems to me the “cloud of impropriety” would be handled by a Fed investigation, right? So the federal judge could have called such in this order, right?
sailor: right. could have but didn’t.
After having read the order, I can’t say that I disagree with Judge Vinson’s reasoning. Also, I don’t think P. L. or anybody else greased the wheels of justice here. That being said, Hood & Scruggs can’t feel elated with the “clouds of suspicion” hanging over their activities. In any event, they have other matters to worry about right now.
Well, whatever else there is to say, I still think you won’t find a more intriguing sentence in a more intriguing graf in this whole saga than (emphasis mine):
I’m sure that Vinson’s fun in footnote 7 doesn’t bother Team Scruggs tonight:
But Judge Acker and his three special prosecutors, spanked harder . . . eh, not so much.
Still,
– that is fairly suggestive that “Scruggs expected Renfroe’s attorneys to do what he would have done in the same sitch,” and it really isn’t too hard to hear Vinson thinking it.
Anyhow, as MSlawyer says, this ain’t really the best time for a big Team Scruggs party (though they may be having one anyhow).
Lotus – As my boys say, “it might be the bestest time available”.
So using the same logic, an atty is not a party’s atty or agent unless he/she is of record? Is there or isn’t there liability for giving legal counsel ?
Also, did I read somewhere that the Rigsby sisters were already acquainted with DS prior to the data dump. Is that true?
Something was definitely rotten in Denmark.
Government asks for a delay in Patterson’s sentencing
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=267457&pub=1&div=News
Lost 15, according to earlier reports (which I don’t remember where to look for now, sorry), Dickie and the Rigsbys’ mom have been friends since childhood, so I imagine he and they were previously acquainted too.
I am thoroughly baffled by this decision.
Judge Vinson begins by saying he will rule on the motion to dismiss prior to other motions since, if the motion to dismiss is granted, the other motions are moot. Very appropriate.
When he considers the motion to dismiss, Judge Vinson begins with the jurisdictional question. Again, very appropriate since, if no jurisdiction is found, the other issues are moot. However, he finds no jurisdiction, but then rules on the "law enforcement exception " anyway. Huh?
Judge Vinson should have stopped with the jurisdictional issue. First, because not stopping there doesn’t make sense. Second, because his "law enforcement exception " interpretation is VERY unconvincing. So unconvincing that he seems to be reaching for a result, despite his "sympathy " for Judge Acker and "suspicions " about the hide-the-documents games.
As to the jurisdictional question, the opinion seems more solid. On the surface, the legal principles seem correctly stated (although I haven’t explored them). Applying those principles is admittedly difficult, given the myriad relationships between Scruggs and the Rigsbys. In fact, the relationships between Scruggs and the Rigsbys are so complex that I can neither agree nor disagree with Judge Vinson’s decision. I am not capable of forming an opinion of my own because I would get a headache.
Can this decision be appealed? I have no idea, but I have a hunch. My guess is the jurisdictional question can be appealed; and the "law enforcement exception " cannot. Which might explain why there was a ruling on an issue that was moot.
Although I don’t have time to fully research it, I am troubled by the methodology used by the court.
Years ago, I had a civil case in MS federal court. I went to inteview a witness who had photos and other physical evidence that was relevant to my case. After viewing the items, the witness said it would cost me $10k to get them. I reported this to the federal judge and swore to the facts in an affidavit. Well, he sent the US Marshall’s to that guy’s home at 6:00 the next morning and brought him and the items to the federal building. The court called me and said come and get it, and if you don’t think everything is there, he will be further detained and prosecuted. When I went to the courthouse, the witness had everything there and was singing like a songbird.
Any court should have a remedy for willful obstruction of (civil) justice like what Scruggs did. I just don’t know what it should be. Criminal contempt of an injunction was obviously the wrong tool.
Welcome to folo, MsNExile, and thanks for this interesting take. I too wondered why Vinson went on after ruling “no jurisdiction” and don’t recall another opinion in which a court discussed its dispositive decision first, only then to broach another it had just thereby mooted.
But perhaps because I am no appellate scholar (any more), I don’t know what to make of your hunch that the jurisdictional question alone is appealable. How could that be? What about the second issue would make it untouchable?
What finally happened to that witness, Curly? Did he end up a defendant?
#20
My hunch is based on nothing, and I have never been an appellate scholar. I just assume a jurisdictional issue is always appeallable, even in a criminal context. But I am not sure prosecutors can appeal the dismissal of a criminal case based on a court’s interpretation of the language of an injunction and the actions of the defendant. My gut just tells me that case is over, maybe because it somewhat resembles a finding of fact, at least a finding of "ambiguity. " So, that’s the basis for my hunch. I know absolutely nothing about the law on this subject and would love to hear from somebody who does. I hope my hunch is wrong because I don’t think the “law exception analysis” will stand up if the jurisdictional analysis does not.
Well, as to hoping to hear more from somebody with federal appellate chops: you ‘n’ me bof, MsNE — all I ever dealt with was Florida law, and some years back at that.
It’s an order the special prosecutors can appeal, I am almost certain.
Lotus, the court didn’t prosecute that offense. Maybe the DA didn’t want to try a “he said – he said” case. Interestingly, I saw the Judge a couple of years later and we were talking about it. He told me the guy burned down his warehouse and was convicted of arson. Some folks are just bad apples.