I say that because Jimmie Gates reports that Judge Swan Yerger
has ordered documents to be presented in court [by this Thursday] to determine whether former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters was hired by [Eaton Corp.] to try to influence Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in a $1 billion lawsuit. …
“To the extent a truthful answer to any part of this interrogatory would reveal intent on Eaton’s part to hire Ed Peters for the purpose of attempting to improperly influence a judicial officer, then it must be answered. The information concerning who was involved in the process is discoverable and must be answered,” Circuit Judge Swan Yerger ruled this month.
Frisby’s attorney, Ed Blackmon Jr., said there is strong circumstantial evidence Peters communicated with DeLaughter.
“We want a true story of what happened,” Blackmon said. …
He “and other attorneys for Frisby” tell Jimmie that DeLaughter’s rulings began favoring Eaton after its then-attorney Michael Allred hired Ed Peters. Now all three of them have had subpoenas and won’t let Jimmie find them for comment. But, he says, either a special master or Yerger will review Eaton’s documents to decide whether to make them public; meanwhile, Wallace doesn’t expect the case to come to trial before next year.
Whether this is the one NMC’s been dropping hints about remains to be seen, but I do believe I hear well-armored Lynda clanking back into battle position. Some of you probably won’t be able to resist engaging her, but I assure you, all you’re apt to accomplish will be boredom for fellow readers. I therefore repeat my best advice: “Don’t feed the trolls.”
Does anyone know if DeLaughter is getting his hearing in front of the MCJP?
intent on Eaton’s part to hire Ed Peters for the purpose of attempting to improperly influence a judicial officer
Someone *might* have been stupid enough to put something like that in print, but I would expect anything to be more along the lines of “Peters is a good guy to have in front of DeLaughter, they know each other from way back.”
Which I am supposing is legally innocuous, since it happens all the time … is that a fair inference?
ccvz, I understand there’s a hearing or two scheduled for September, to deal only with scheduling the next stage(s) of the case, nothing substantive.
Anderson, I think determining the “intent” in hiring Peters would depend on several factors. Did Peters make an appearance as counsel, or was he under the radar? What legitimate tasks were assigned to Peters, and does his compensation reasonably relate to the amount of legit work performed? Was there ex parte contact with the judge? Those are just the ones I think of off the top of my head. I wonder if billing records are part of the documents they are ordered to produce?