Yesterday, I noted that Judge DeLaughter had picked Tom Durkin of Chicago as his defense lawyer and linked and quoted some biographical information. The Chicago Tribune ran with Holbook Mohr’s AP story about DeLaughter’s hire of Tom Durkin. He’s the only one who got a direct comment: ”We look forward to vigorously defending Judge DeLaughter and his outstanding reputation,’ Durkin said by telephone Wednesday.”
Jerry Mitchell in the Clarion Ledger lays it on relatively thickly, with this headline: “Lawyer defending DeLaughter ironic pick: White supremacist defender now helping former prosecutor;” followed by this lede:
A prominent Chicago defense lawyer who represented a white supremacist in the killing of a federal judge is now representing a Hinds County judge who successfully prosecuted a white supremacist.
Mitchell’s approach is brings to my mind the notion “if all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.” There’s a lot more to DeLaughter’s lawyer than that one case, and it would have looked just as weird to headline that “Delaughter Picks Hamas Lawyer.”
Meanwhile at the level of excruciating details, Judge Alexander entered the routine orders admitting Durkin and allowing Speetjen to withdraw, substituting in Larry Little, and Little moved for more time to file pretrial motions. The games begin!
Sorry if I’ve missed/overlooked this, but has there been a trial date set for DeLaugther?
It’s either April 6 or April 9, ceece — I think the 6th.
I doubt that Mitchell wrote the headline. In my experience, the editor writes the headlines, and the more sensational the better, not to mention, whatever fits the space. I might be wrong, but that’s been my experience when I was working at a newspaper.
I think it’s a stretch to say that this was “ironic”……
It’s a stretch, PERIOD, regardless of who takes credit for the completely idiotic idea. I don’t know whose attention the CL is trying to get, but anyone with a brain cell knows that one of those things has a sum total of ZERO to do with the other. This case won’t be tried in the court of ignoramus public opinion.
By the way, is Judge Biggers trying this case?? I wish.
Judge Davidson.
Isn’t there some lawyer in these parts (last name of Barrett, Barnett, or such) whose claim to fame is actually BEING a full-time white supremacist? That might make for 15 minutes of animated discussion. But, if Judge Biggers wears the robe, don’t count on a dog and pony show out of any chest-thumping mouthpieces – be they from Chicago, SF, or Escatawpa. Whatever, I for one won’t be looking to the CL to set the pace of hard-hitting trial coverage.