As described in the most recent post, Ed Peters was subpoenaed for documents relating to his role in Eaton v. Frisby. As we’ve reported, Judge DeLaughter was also subpoened. As to many of the requests, he says he has nothing (no documents relating to any compensation for him, no documents about communication with Peters or the Eaton side, etc.). But when asked about drafts of opinions and orders, he says the final drafts were furnished to all attorneys in the case. He then says: “Respondent [DeLaughter] is not aware of an particular opinion or order that may have been furnished to Ed Peters, but any such opinion and/order [sic] would not have been any different than that also furnished to all attorneys in the case.” The wording of this sentence is quite remarkable (he’s unaware of any particular sharing of draft orders with a lawyer outside his chambers, but any were the same as final versions?!), but not the most remarkable thing in the response.
Asked about similar documents in the Scruggs case, he objects to relevancy, notes that the parties all got the orders and opinions, and then says: “Respondent is not certain which draft opinions/order may have been furnished to Ed Peters, but it would not have been any different in substance than the final draft entered and furnished to all attorneys in the case.”
I think we can call that pretty close to a confirmation that, in Wilson v. Scruggs, Ed Peters got draft opinions/orders which quite likely differed from the final version. Though not, uh, “in substance.” Note that, here again, Peters did not have a public role in the case.
Judge DeLaughter did have his own phone bills and produced them. He does not have documents showing where Ed Peters has been spending time recently. Asked about documents he’s given to a governmental agency relating to any investigation relating to Peters, Wilson v. Scruggs, Kirk v. Pope, or related investigations, he once again objects to relevancy, and notes that any Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission investigation is privileged. He then notes he has no such documents.
Here is DeLaughter’s response, which was filed on his behalf by Cynthia Speetjens.
Good god, Judge. Resign, already.
Email:
“The documents given to the commission are privileged from the commission’s standpoint — NOT from DeLaughter’s standpoint.”
Why do public servants caught in the crosshairs of federal investigations insist on splitting hairs and twisting in the wind? Is it something their benefactors insist that they do, as some kind of homage to them? Why do you think Spitzer stood up there and quickly resigned? Not because there is any advantage except quick closure and getting on with one’s life. How does it profit a man with an otherwise honorable history to sink to Bill Clintonesque parsings (such as “what does ‘is’ mean” and “what does ’sex’ mean”) with goofy natterings like this one: “different in substance than the final draft entered”? The only remotely plausible explanation would appear to be that Dickie is still writing this stuff for DeLaugher, and he’s still signing off on it.
Also and as to Delaughter’s answer #10, ‘is not certain’ is another way of saying: “I’m not absolutely positively certain beyond all possible shadow of any possible or conceivable doubt as to every possible aspect of everything being asked, imagined or implied, … but otherwise ‘Yeah, I guess that you got me on that one.’”
I don’t consider the parsing being done here particularly careful. It doesn’t seem to involve the least bit of consideration what documents one might have to answer for in a trial, or on cross-examination, or on a deposition.
Whether or not to object is one thing. Explaining one’s inability to recollect about improperly sharing orders in a particular case is another and isn’t careful.
It’s sorta like this: Say your wife shows you a picture and says: “Did you sleep with this woman in the last year?” Will it help particularly to say: “I can’t recall if she’s one of the woman I’ve slept with in the last year.”
Is that answer particularly different, logically, from the response I linked? Personally, I’d just as soon confess as go with that one. I’d rather be the victim of a straightforward execution than the death of a thousand cuts.
With the Sweet Potato Queens representing Peters and DeLaughter, do you expect there’s some coordinating going on? Also, how can one claim to be independent of the other when their counsel share an office? They even have the same phone and fax numbers.
Weren’t the Cynthias and DeLaughter all employed by Ed Peters in the DA’s office. Talk about incest…
NMC – nice poetry.
correct somslawyer….and man just look at that signature on the pdf…lol….that ought to tell u a lot…it must be a freebee (her representation) cuz the best i remember her w/l record is not good and one case in particular she p.oed the jury and the jury promptly found her client guilty
Well, I dunno what her W/L record is, but I will say it’s a rare crim-defense lawyer with a shiny one.
It’s all in how you define w/l. If Dickie gets less than three years at a Club Fed, I’d say Keker deserves a “w” for the work he did in Oxford. And if Dickie later cooperates in the investigation of Hood and Nutt, and gets no new time for later charges for that good citizenship, I’d give Keker a Capital “W.” In my humble opinion, plea bargains like Dickie’s should not count against a crim-defense lawyer’s w/l record. I’d also eliminate from “losses” trials resulting in convictions after the Government makes no reasonable plea offer.
correctomoose lotus on the records of crim defense…lawyer….i guess i was saying that you usually lose on the facts and those that lose on p. off the jury….adds another dimension as to why one might have someone like that to defend them?…oh well its not my j-bird butt in the sling..so in the full context of the word teenagers typically use “WHATEVER” lol
Oh and to Third South..sooooooooo very right…its not guilt or innocence in fed ct..its how many counts found not guilty and how many counts guilty…good plea bargains are a W everytime…and the reason why is that it is rare in State Court that when a Defendant is found guilty that he is not given the max…vs. fed court may be somewhat diff…but still gets more time..upon a guilty verdict…the defendant gets punished for not pleading guilty…LOL..thats why its always necessary to get a client to sign that letter that he don’t want the please bargain…ha
Cynthia Speetjens used to work for D.A. Peters, but don’t think Cynthia Stewart ever worked for Peters while he was DA. She was did some death penalty defense work. As an aside, I think Speetjens is/was married to a Somebody at Malaco Records.
That’s right, duckweedpond – Stewart started out handling pro bono death penalty appeals.
She later partnered up with noted criminal defense attorney Tom Royals. Royals has represented a number of high-profile defendants over the years, including Dixie Mafia honcho Kirksey McCord Nix, Klansman Ernest Avants, and more recently, the murderer George Bell III, and Mendenhall, Miss. police chief Jimbo Sullivan (in his second trial for statutory rape and other charges).