Comments on: US v. Scruggs contempt case dismissed! http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/ Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:40:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Curly http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9786 Curly Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:29:25 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9786 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. 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.

]]> By: nmisscommenter http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9781 nmisscommenter Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:25:36 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9781 It's an order the special prosecutors can appeal, I am almost certain. It’s an order the special prosecutors can appeal, I am almost certain.

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9778 lotus Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:18:59 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9778 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. 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.

]]> By: MsNExile http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9777 MsNExile Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:54:32 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9777 #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. #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.

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9773 lotus Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:43:42 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9773 What finally happened to that witness, Curly? Did he end up a defendant? What finally happened to that witness, Curly? Did he end up a defendant?

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9772 lotus Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:39:23 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9772 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? 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?

]]> By: Curly http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9771 Curly Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:36:06 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9771 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. 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.

]]> By: MsNExile http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9770 MsNExile Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:20:18 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9770 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. 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.

]]> By: lotus http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9747 lotus Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:40:21 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9747 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. 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.

]]> By: Seacrest http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9739 Seacrest Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:17:55 +0000 http://www.folo.us/2008/02/29/us-v-scruggs-contempt-case-dismissed/#comment-9739 Government asks for a delay in Patterson's sentencing http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=267457&pub=1&div=News Government asks for a delay in Patterson’s sentencing

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=267457&pub=1&div=News

]]>