Percy: We proved bribe. Severest of sanctions are called for. All I want to do at this time is call to the court’s attention exactly what it is we are asking for. What we are asking is to strike the motion to compel arbitration, and it will be as if they had never requested it, and asking your honor to strike their answer to the complaint, entitling us to entry of default, which entails acceptance of all the factual allegations of the complaint as true. Then a hearing with or without a jury under Rule 55 as to damages. We are requesting a jury in the hearing to determine the amount of the plaintiff’s damages. The ruling under Rule 55 is without prejudice of the right of the defendants to raise legal issues. Asking for discovery on issue of damages and on issue of punitive damages.
Mayo: Richard Scruggs, his son, and Backstrom have already accepted responsibility for their conduct. They have pled guilty to their charges. … They will pay for their decisions they made for a very long time.
Without dispute, a serious ethical lapse occurred in March of last year but certainly no intent to bribe a judge. No intent to engage in criminal conduct. It was wrong but not criminal. It was the federal government’s intent to pull the matter further along. There was no quid pro quo, no offer to pay money. Not until the demand for money that criminal conduct occurred. Even with that there was no evidence Scruggs knew anything about it.
Judge: How do you account for the statements in the guilty pleas that a meeting took place in March where Mr. Scruggs was involved.
Mayo: Question was whether there was an effort in March to corruptly influence Judge Lackey. Pleas: That there was a conspiracy later on. Mr. Scruggs said he joined the conspiracy later on. Nothing shows intent to commit a crime back in March. Judge Lackey’s testimony puts it in clear context. An ethical lapse clearly. Only in September that Judge Lackey made a request for the money.
Judge: You are arguing entrapment, are you not?
Mayo: Not arguing that, not the criminal case, trying to put this back in context. Damages: attorneys fees. Not a situation where all the fees are causally connected. Does not think plaintiff should get a windfall.
[absent from courtroom at this point about 3:40]
OMG. This is idiocy. Just an ethical lapse? Just an ethical lapse? An ethical lapse is bad enough for a default judgment and now Judge Biggers is gonna really do something to make it real clear to the Scruggses that they DID in fact commit a crime. Joining a criminal conspiracy later is Just an Ethical Lapse? Scruggs would fare better to waive argument at this point.
[Curly paraphrasing Mayo] “Didn’t commit bribery in March but only later and that makes all the difference, Judge …”
Only a “serious ethical lapse?”
Windfall??
Tell us did Mayo have a straight face when he said these things?
Scruggs has never had a lawyer with enough guts to do anything but be a handpuppet.
I hope Mayo is getting his fee up front, and that it’s a large one to compensate him for having to get up and make these arguments.
I’d just about win a case for free, but if I know I’m going to lose, I would want to console myself with lots of cash.
Wow…if that’s only an ethical lapse and not criminal, I’m going to add some more items to my bucket list.
Earth to Mayo: Smoking crack can cause brain damage.
Lord have mercy. I’ll bet his nose was growing longer with every word coming out of his mouth.
Wot’s yer bucket list, ccvz?
im glad you asked lotus – thought i was the only one confused bout da bucket
He said he will rule at 9 a.m. after maybe some brief arguments…I laugh at the word “brief”…or cry. I’m not sure..my behind is too numb from those darn wooden benches.
lotus – jester: bucket list – things to do before you kick the bucket.
There was a pretty good movie by that name out last year.
Whoops, jester, we mus’ be stuck off up here too far in the sticks to keep up with our pop culture, hah? Thanks, Headscratchin.
Lyd, honey, you need you one a them donut pillers.
People used to laugh at me hauling two throw-pillows to all my law-school classes, but shoot, we had original-equipment early-60s wooden seats BOLTED TO THE FLOOR and designed for bodies rather longer than mine to deal with. Hauled ‘em to the only venire call I ever got too — might have been a good non-verbal signal to excuse me ASAP, I wouldn’t doubt. Something sure worked . . .
Only an “ethical lapse?”
I am hoping against hope that Mayo did not actually say this.
Welcome to folo, LQC. Alas, Jsh may be right about the long line of handpuppets — that “mere ethical lapse” crap sounds like pure Dickie to me.
Rossmiller had some eyes on the scene –about Moore
“Mr. Scruggs through Mike Moore had told the AG that if he didn’t go along with it then they would fund a candidate against him and see that he was properly funded to defeat. " [Mike Moore, sitting in the gallery, looks down and shakes his head]”
and
“Another of the reasons that he got back into the case was that he knew that Jim Hood had told Ron Stellins through Mike Moore that if he didn’t go through with a settlement of State Farm cases and allow them to collect $26.5 mil in attorney fees that they would find a candidate that would run against and fund just like they were going to do the commissioner of insurance. [Moore's jaw appears to tense whenever his name is mentioned.]“
Seacrest – 14 – At the risk of being crude, I bet that’s not the only thing that tensed
NMC, thank you very much for this incredible account.
After reviewing all of these fine comment threads by NMC (great work btw, and thank you very much), it appears to me that the Scruggs camp strategically decided (perhaps out of lingering delusion) to use this opportunity in court to try to embarass Judge Lackey and others with cross examination, and attempt to contruct a foundation to what could later be used as a back door PR effort to claim that he and the others were not really guilty of a crime (depite their pleas and admissions in court) — instead, merely a lapse in ethical judgement. And but for the misguided Judge and those tricky federal investigators, they would never have thought about actually bribing a Judge. (Now, that is a whopper of Clintonian magnitude).
No doubt, this strategy failed miserably. They now look like bigger saps than they did before (if that is possible).
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Instead, the Scruggs bunch has rented a backhoe.
Why didn’t Barrett testify and say he “knew nothing”.(Reminds me of Col. Klink from Hogan’s Heroes.) Perhaps he got one of those oft mentioned target letters and could not take the stand? Hmmm
Jester -15 – The biggest buttonholes will be pinched in their boxer shorts later I’m convinced.
I read Barry Hannah”s letter to the Oxford Eagle w/ fascination, but after today I feel that I must write a letter to the editor. I would love to know if Mr. Scruggs is going to foot the probably millions of dollars that these hearings are going to cost. Also, if I had a case that Mr. scruggs won- I would be asking for a new trial. How much is THAT going to cost the people of Mississippi? Criminal, criminal, criminal…
Tried to see if I could pull up Barry’s letter but couldn’t. What did it say?
“lost ball in the high weeds” by the Judge. classic.
Also, before the ruling in the morning, what did the original partnership agreement say? Nutt @ 35 % was the original figure, I believe. Nothing filled in for the other 4 joint venturers. When shares were voted on at the March 3 meeting, Nutt got only 31 %. What did the others receive
If Lackey was like a lost ball in high weeds, then what was DeLaughter like when he was approached, a hawg in a sty of warm mud?
This entrapment stuff is a load of bull. If a judge is susceptible to a bribe he will name it and ask for it like DeLaughter did. Scruggs learned this from the rodeos before Lackey. Thus wasn’t his first rodeo ya know.
I didn’t see a letter in today’s paper from Barry Hannah. Must have been in a previous paper?
I’m really curious about this, scandaljunkie
Jester
You know it.
#25 The letter that Barry Hannah wrote to the Editor of the Oxford Eagle, was published earlier last week. Basically said that publicity on the Scruggs had been overwhelming, and everyone makes mistakes and that we should pray for them as well as everyone daily. He spoke of the good that Mr. Scruggs had done for everyone. I searched for it on the website, but they do not store the letters to the editor. I think it was last Tuesday’s paper.
I will try to obtain a copy and scan to post here
Thanks for the summary.
That classic Cal Mayo. Glad to see he hasnt changed much for ours days at Ole Miss.
[...] two), SKG joint venture David Nutt’s testimony, SKG joint venturer Lovelace’s testimony,   closing argument and another post with commentary. Judge Lackey’s testimony may be the most dramatic I have seen [...]