Comments on: Why Judge DeLaughter’s defense team has a hard row to hoe

By: NMC

NMC — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:55:56 +0000

On December 10, 2007, being interviewed by FBI agents, DeLaughter stated “that he ‘never spoke to Ed Peters regarding…’ substantive issues related to the case of Wilson v. Scruggs at a time when said case was pending in his court, when in truth and fact he had corruptly discussed with Ed peters substantive issues in the Wilson v. Scruggs case on numerous occasions…”

I just noted where the quotation mark in the indictment stops: before the words “substantive issues.” Makes me wonder what DeLaughter’s exact statement to the FBI was…

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:56:42 +0000

All three (the TF, EB and SC) are more plausible than Lott having no knowledge of venality Dickie’s actions when he called Delaughter.

By: WantedToBeALawyer

WantedToBeALawyer — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:39:57 +0000

Santa Claus, too. Especially Santa Claus.

By: WantedToBeALawyer

WantedToBeALawyer — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:31:51 +0000

They exist. In my house they go by the name of WantedToBeALawyer.

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:11:28 +0000

Wanted To Be A Lawyer, at 64, what’s your position on the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny?

By: WantedToBeALawyer

WantedToBeALawyer — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:30:09 +0000

ThirdSouth@54 I can easily imagine that Lott had no knowledge of any of Scruggs actions.

To believe Lott was involved, you have to believe Dickie went to Lott and said something along the lines of “I am trying to influence this judge in Hinds county to rule in my favor and it will save me about $12 million. The only thing is, you have to give him a call and tell him he is being considered for a federal judgeship”. Lott’s response should have been “Don’t be such a dumb@$$, Dickie. I can’t do that”.

In the real world, prior to the FBI searching Dickie’s office, it easy to imagine that Dickie, the world-famous slayer of tobacco companies, tells Lott, “There is a very qualified judge in Hinds county. He prosecuted Beckwith. He should be considered as a federal judge”. And, Lott’s response should have been, “Your right. I will put him on my list”.

Also, NMC@44 implies that Scruggs was the only one to suggest Delaughter. Is that true? I would think more than one person would have suggested Delaughter based upon his Beckwith case alone.

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:13:48 +0000

But with a recording, the U S Attorney can’t hold up a 302 with a witness on the stand, before a grand jury, never intending to show it to the witness or the grand jury because it doesn’t say what he’s implying, and say, “Isn’t it true you said X to FBI agent Y” when nothing of the sort took place. I’m not saying it’s a bad interrogation technique, but, like waterboarding, it has its critics.

By: a friend of the law

a friend of the law — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:12:11 +0000

I don’t have a problem with a tape recording. IMO, that indeed should be done, especially if there are going to be prosecutions based upon any “lies” told to the FBI. My point is that these type prosecutions are not really new —Martha Stewart also comes to mind. Why is everyone in a tither about them now?

Of course, I don’t think there is much doubt that Delaughter took the position —probably multiple times — that he had never had any improper contacts with Ed Peters or anyone else about any material or “substantive” issues in the underlying legal case —regardless of the words actually used by Delaughter. I think I recall seeing such quoted statements from Delaughter in some early newspaper reports about the matter. Semantics, or alleged faulty note taking by the FBI, won’t likely get him out of the obstruction charge.

By: NMC

NMC — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:42:32 +0000

AFOTL:

This isn’t empathy for anyone for me, or lack of empathy. I think the FBI’s self-created mystique about their note taking method is not a good thing, and would prefer an actual recording.

This very case has an excellent example, where Balducci remembered telling something to the FBI in Dec. 07 different than the FBI’s final memo. The difference was material (and not something that mattered personally to Balducci). I had the sense listening to both the agent and Balducci on the stand during the motions hearing that Balducci was right. No one suggested either was testifying other than to the best of their recollection, but the difference mattered. Why not a tape recording?

By: lotus

lotus — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:20:40 +0000

all this empathy

All what empathy, afotl?