Hat-tip to Its All Good for the alert to Patsy Brumfield’s report that U.S. v. Scruggs will be presented to an anonymous jury.
Discuss.
Scruggs jury will be anonymous
March 6th, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - by lotus · 39 Comments
Tags: Dickie Scruggs, U.S. v. Scruggs
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner
Where do I collect on my bet?
Not here — I broke and didn’t wager against ya.
In Oxford, I guess, NAAS. What was the bet?
I posted about this a moment ago.
wow a trial involving dickie scruggs where no amount of sweet ‘taters nor federal judicial nominations can help him. this will be interesting.
Patsy’s answer “why” misses what is most interesting about the order, at least to a lawyer.
does this mean p.l. blake is out of work on this one?
That’s okay. I’ll play double or nothing and bet that the motion to disqualify the judge is not far from being filed. Dickie’s team will have “something on the judge.”
I will be really, really surprised by a motion to disqualify, NAAS.
NMC: Are you thinking they won’t want to chance pissing off the judge?
You mean “… pissing off the judge any more than they already have,” NAAS?
Any of y’all (say, observer?) ever dealt with an anonymous jury before?
I’d love to hear some stories about what that’s like and how you handle voir dire differently, etc.
No, NAAS. With the exception of the State Farm v. Hood deposition fiasco, everything they’ve done so far I’ve understood their basis for doing. (Well, perhaps except for Zach’s motion to dismiss. That one seems, uh, I won’t characterize it for now). I’ve disagreed with some of the tactics in the criminal case, but thought that Keker was very effective in how he used those motions to get discovery without pissing off the judge. He was able to get Judge Biggers to bear with him in that hearing to a degree that impressed me given my knowledge of Judge Biggers. Keker was careful not to piss off the judge in that hearing.
I’m having trouble imagining what basis they may have to move for recusal. Biggers’s background doesn’t provide much leverage for that– he’s been a district judge since the early or mid 80s, was a circuit judge before that in an area Scruggs never would have been, etc. His paths would not have crossed anything Scruggs-related. I just don’t see them coming up with something even as thin as the recently filed motion to dismiss that would support a motion for recusal.
I don’t think these guys are boneheaded (If asked I can explain why the stupid moves they made in the deposition case aren’t the same thing as boneheadedness). A baseless motion to recuse here would be a very boneheaded move.
anonymous juries are very, very rare, Lotus. I doubt if there has been one in Mississippi ever. There was one in the Edwards case in Louisiana.
you folks really should read the order on the anonymous jury, which I posted.
Lotus: Good point. I think they have to file every motion possible. If nothing else, it puts the judge on edge a bit.
It may lead to him making a ruling or instruction against them during the proceedings that could be grounds for a reversal.
On the other hand, he may toss them a softball or say a kind word just to make sure he appears fair-handed. That could catch the attention of a juror who may latch onto that as some indication that the judge likes the defendant.
You never know with juries. Never.
Well, maybe somebody who hasn’t piped up here yet but has dealt with the situation would like finally to pull up a chair . . . ?
I have read it, NMC, and it strikes me as very no-nonsense-allowed-here. Biggers is no DeLaughter — not even in the same universe.
NMC: I’m not trying to dispute what you’re saying. Personally, I agree that a motion to disqualify would be somewhat “boneheaded.”
I just think they will try it and say something like “he has not ruled in our favor on ANYTHING substantive.” They will cry “bias” and “anti-trial lawyer”, etc. I guarantee they have already searched every opinion he has ever written, looking for even a hint of politics or trial lawyer bashing.
In the Edwards trial here in Baton Rouge, they moved to disqualify not only the presiding judge, but all judges in the district (Republican appointees). They dug way deep to find something. The judge denied the motion, but behaved noticibly different once the trial started.
Excuse my non-lawyer ignorance, but doesn’t the anonymous jury status send up a red flag to said jurors that the defendants are VERY SCARY characters?
Sailor: I’m not a lawyer, but I believe there are measures the court can/will take to address that concern.
Jane: The jurors will be told they are anonymous. The court will refer to each of them by number or letter, but not by name.
I’m just thinking they might be prejudiced if they know they’re somehow different from the jury Aunt Ginny served on in that burglary case…
Sorry to hog the topic, but I was very intrigued by the Edwards trial. I’m goign to post a few news abstracts from that time period to give you an idea of what it was like:
Prosecutors to investigate jury tampering in Edwards case
Advocate – Baton Rouge, La.
Author: BRETT BARROUQUERE
Date: Jan 5, 2001
Section: News
Abstract (Document Summary)
The assistant U.S. attorneys, Jim Letten and Michael Magner, didn’t explain who they were targeting or explain the scope of the investigation, according to a transcript of the Dec. 7 meeting, released earlier this week. “We believe that there is an open investigation now concerning obstruction of justice and witness tampering, and we plan on pursuing this strenuously,” Magner told U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola in a meeting in the judge’s chambers.
The misconduct allegations were made during a discussion between attorneys and Polozola concerning allegations that the jury foreman made statements about his belief in the guilt of [Edwin Edwards] two years before he was ever selected for the jury.
In earlier unsealed documents, Polozola said he used an anonymous jury mainly because of accusations of juror tampering in Edwards’ criminal trials in the 1980s.
Scruggs has friends in the Attorney General’s office, doesn’t he?
Prosecutors’ claims led to unknown jury
[Kts Edition]
Advocate – Baton Rouge, La.
Author: BRETT BARROUQUERE
Date: Oct 14, 2000
Section: News
Abstract (Document Summary)
Paul Fontenot, who at the time of the trials was a state police colonel assigned to guard Edwards, told the FBI in 1999 that he performed records and license plate checks on people at the request of the governor’s staff, U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola said in a July ruling released to the public Friday.
Edwards’ apparent use of State Police in those trials suggests he could have used his extensive contacts to try to subvert the legal system in the riverboat case, Polozola wrote. Edwards left office in 1996, four years before his riverboat trial.
Polozola said affidavits filed by prosecutors show Edwards’ “political operatives” contacted friends and co-workers of jurors and passed the information along to the defense staff. The judge does not specifically accuse Edwards of jury tampering.
Judge Edith Brown Clement is now on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge defends jury secrecy, cites events in earlier trial
Advocate – Baton Rouge, La.
Author: CHRISTOPHER BAUGHMAN
Date: Sep 22, 2000
Section: News
Abstract (Document Summary)
U.S. District Judge Edith Brown Clement released an order saying the jury selection process, called voir dire, in the riverboat case allowed too much information to leak out about jurors.
“The open voir dire process allowed the media to gather a significant amount of information regarding the identity of jurors, thereby compromising their anonymity,” Clement wrote. Both Clement and U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola, who presided over the riverboat trial, ordered the juries to be anonymous. Jurors are known only by numbers, not their names.
This is a brief abstract on the issue of disqualifying the judges in the Edwards case in Louisiana. Note how trivial some of the reasons are:
Federal judges asked to step aside *** Edwards, others claim potential conflicts, bias
Advocate – Baton Rouge, La.
Author: WILLIAM PACK
Date: Dec 3, 1998
Section: NEWS
Abstract (Document Summary)
Former Gov. Edwin Edwards and four men indicted with him in an extortion and racketeering scheme on Wednesday asked U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola to withdraw from the case and to also disqualify the other two federal judges in Baton Rouge.
In a 63-page memorandum that supports the motion to disqualify Polozola, the chief judge, John Parker and Ralph Tyson, the defendants jointly contend the judges violated their own rules concerning the manner in which cases are allotted among them and have imposed other rules that give federal prosecutors “every possible advantage in this case.”
Defendants also cite statements made by Polozola and Parker during the past year-and-a-half that question Polozola’s impartiality concerning one member of the defense team and that suggest Parker believed the government’s case is sound.
NAAS 25-28
Any truth to the urban legend that Buddy Roemer’s dad served time to limit Edwards’ culpability, and then Buddy magically found himself relatively unknown but still elected as governor?
As my username denotes, I am not a Louisiana native, but I grew up on the border. Never saw credible evidence to substantiate that claim, but there was plenty of smoke.
MS B&B: That has certainly been the legend. Buddy ran as a reform candidate. He ended up in a runoff against Edwards that lasted all of a couple of hours when Edwards announced he was withdrawing from the race.
As the “reform” governor, he introduced the state to the lottery and other “gaming” legislation (“gambling” is prohibited under our state constitution) — something that couldn’t get passed under the Edwards administration because of his penchant for gambling.
Buddy lasted all of one term. Edwards was re-elected and ushered in the casino boats and related licenses – a few for which he is now serving his own prison term.
NAAS or anyone else if you’re around and want some amusement read the new post I just did about Judge Mills and the State Farm depositions
Anybody know whether the parties and/or the gallery will be able to see the faces of the jurors?
If so, they won’t be anonymous for long.
The jury will be visible. They will be tightly sequestered, though.
I’m not making a comparison, just telling a story. When “the dapper don” was being tried, he had an anonymous jury. Someone connected was able to tail a juror out of the courthouse (I don’t remember how it fit with sequestration) and figure out who their family was and had a family member come and sit with the defense team during the trial. When the feds nailed them on this, it was part of the beginning of finally convicting that guy.
ItsAboutTime and NMC both have good points. It’s one thing to be “anonymous” in New York, and a whole different thing to be anonymous in north Mississippi. And, once a friend of the Scruggs’ team recognizes one of them, and calls it in, it would not be surprising to see the same thing happen, and for a juror to look out and see his or her grandmother hugging Dickie Scruggs.
I imagine that courtroom will be full of “observers” from all over north Mississippi, observer.
Well, if they weren’t before (ha!), we just put the Court and all officers thereof on notice of this issue, didn’t we?
I have no doubt, that this has already been a heavily discussed issue in the U.S. Attorney’s office and FBI office, for some time (the fact that they filed the motion at all demonstrates that). This isn’t their first rodeo.
Please see my questions at 20 and 24. I just don’t see how this can work…
no man the jury will be told this is pretty routine for cases involving corruption but they are to presume innocence. to them (most of whom will not have served before) it will be routine for this kind of case.
Sailor//The District I live in will be the jury pool. Dicky Scruggs’ reputation around here is known by very few people, and many of these people have had to go and sit on these Juries. A relative of mine was called to sit on a case where A Treasure Agent had had his Goverment Payroll Check stolen…To made a long story short, the agent had been caught with his pants off somewhere he should not have been, and the cash he give her she felt was not quite enought for the services she had rendered so she had taken his check. In Mississippi we have a very active Court System , and the last time I was called into the Circuit Court as a prospective jury there was atleast 200 of us, I had a brother and a sister-in-law in the pool and none of us looked up because it was a death penalty case. My sister-in-law was selected as Jury Foreman and the Lady is sitting on Mississippi Death Row. To this day we have never discussed this because I stood up and said She was in my Sunday School Class, and was to close to the situation. Mississippi is rural but there is a class of people that are not related to each other or have never met the population as a whole, but are very well educated and make the correct decisions when called upon to do it.