Note - This website moved Sunday Feb, 1o to a new address - http://www.folo.us. Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
Hi, one an’ all.
I’m so busy at “New FOLO” this morning that I haven’t even checked for Scruggsiana news yet. HOWEVER, this doesn’t apply to MSlawyer, who’s found us a new Jerry Mitchell story on the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance’s inquiry into Joey Langston’s allegations of DeLaughter/Peters funny-bidness.
So with a gracious thanky to MSlawyer for this saving of my proverbial bacon, y’all come to the table for some savory breakfast! I’ll join you ASAP . . .
lotus
January 27, 2008 at 8:16 am
Good editorial in DJ. http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=264627&pub=1&div=Opinion
January 27, 2008 at 8:27 am
Lotus: talked with a good friend of mine the other day who has a pretty good feel for this DeLaughter/Peters stuff. When I asked him what he thought here was his take. He said he does not think Peters will roll on DeLaughter. He said that Peters obviously knows they have him (Peters) on conspiracy and he will do a couple of years for that. But without Peters rolling on DeLaughter, a sure fire conviction of DeLaughter is iffy. If Peters tells the Feds that he (Peters) will testify @ trial that all he did was earwig DeLaughter a conviction on DeLaughter may be tough. Think about it. @ trial Peters testimony will be, in effect, I took the cash, earwigged DeLaughter, but that was it…DeLaughter knew nothing about my $1M deal….AND DeLaughter’s attorneys will also point out that if Peters had cooperated with the feds in the prosecution of DeLaughter he would have received a recommendation from the prosecutors for a lighter sentence. If I am on the jury, and I hear that kind of testimony, I am cutting DeLaugher loose. As for e-mailing the order, unless there is some incriminating language in the message that accompanies the order (example: “Ed, tell me what else Joey wants in this?”
I think it can be explained away in a believable manner as poor judment on DeLaughter’s part and nothing else.
January 27, 2008 at 8:40 am
If you think DeLaughter is okay without Peter’s testimony, just stop and think for a moment how many murderers are sitting in jail where they thought there were no witnesses.
It’s not just a cliche. There is no such thing as a perfect crime.
But, another cliche, which is also true is, “Be careful who you pick to commit a crime with.”
Everybody is stand up until they get caught.
January 27, 2008 at 8:44 am
Irrespective of whether Judge DeLaughter could be charged or convicted in a criminal case, I still can think of no ethical explanation for his sending that order to Ed Peters. This is why the Commission on Judicial Performance is investigating. Judges may consult with their law clerks, but they don’t routinely send out orders to other lawyers, even if those lawyers happen to be their very best friends and mentors. I will be interested to hear Judge DeLaughter’s explanation of why he sent that order to Ed Peters.
January 27, 2008 at 8:49 am
I meant to add this, but hit the “submit” button too soon. I have always thought very highly of Judge DeLaughter and I am presuming that he is innocent. I hope he will not disappoint me and many others who have always thought him to be a man of integrity. However, my opinion of him will certainly change unless he has a very good reason for sending that order to Ed Peters (that is, assuming that he did and that Joey Langston didn’t just make that up).
January 27, 2008 at 8:50 am
Morning, tortfeasor et al. I’m not familiar with the verb “earwig,” so could you please define that’un for me? Thanks. (Always love to build my word-hoard.)
January 27, 2008 at 8:52 am
MSlawyer, can there be a “very good reason for sending that order to Ed Peters”?
January 27, 2008 at 8:53 am
Oh, and welcome and thanks for the find, losthog. (Wooooo PIG! sooie, if you’re one of my fellow Razorbacks!)
January 27, 2008 at 8:54 am
Lotus: earwig means no ex-parte conversations with the judge. It is mentioned somwhere in the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct.
January 27, 2008 at 9:00 am
“Earwig” means to have ex-parte communicaitons with a judge (0ther than those allowed by law i.e. TRO’s, criminal warrants, etc.). In short, it means, one party is not supposed to be communicating, (and presumably attempting to influence a judge) without the other party being noticed about it or present.
I think the term comes from the wigs English jurists wear, and the picture of someone raising the wig up to whisper into their ear.
January 27, 2008 at 9:16 am
Thanks, t & o. I like that provenance veddy much.
January 27, 2008 at 10:06 am
Two questions, now that I’ve seen the JM story:
(a) Can any of y’all recall one of his on the Scruggs thing that DIDN’T quote Charlie Merkel? I can’t.
(b) Seems to me that if you morphed photos of the old teevy actors Michael Landon and Raymond Burr (R.I.P.s), what you’d get would be mighty close to this photo of Bobby DeLaughter. Is that true in person as well, those who know?
January 27, 2008 at 10:10 am
NMC, no I can’t think of any good reason for Judge DeLaughter to send that order to Ed Peters. And believe me, I’ve spent a whole lotta time trying to think of one. I guess I’ve always thought to highly of DeLaughter because he was willing to prosecute Byron De la Beckwith. I thought that took courage, and I admired him for that. I guess that’s why I just don’t want to think he’s dirty. But it really, really doesn’t look good for him, at least based on what Jerry Mitchell has published.
January 27, 2008 at 10:14 am
MSlawyer, it’s pretty telling that DeL won’t let JM near him anymore, I’d say. (Maybe that’s a condition laid on him by the Feds?)
losthog, you’re right: good editorial in the DJ (my only pick with it is proofreading).
January 27, 2008 at 10:28 am
Yikes, just read Alyssa’s story in the Eagle about the power failure in Oxford last night — hope that didn’t hit any of y’all.
January 27, 2008 at 10:56 am
Since this thread has to do with browsing the Sunday papers, I guess I won’t be OT if I ask whether any of y’all are running into cases of mayhem involving Iraq/Afghanistan vets, like these that NYT reports on today. If you haven’t yet, I imagine you will sooner or later.
In More Cases, Combat Trauma Is Taking the Stand
January 27, 2008 at 11:18 am
“Earwigging” is also prohibited by the Mississippi Uniform Circuit Court Rules and the Mississippi Uniform Chancery Court Rules. It is a very serious matter. Sharing an order with one side ostensibly for approval without also sharing same with the other side could warrant removal from office. Also, under Mississippi case law, a Special Master’s opinion should only be overturned on “clear and convincing evidence” that the Special Master committed manifest error. Most judges routinely adopt a Special Master’s report and tell the agrieved party that his/her recourse is an appeal to the Supreme Court.
January 27, 2008 at 11:30 am
Good stuff, UMATTY. Thanks. Do all these rules actually use the term “earwigging”? It’s not just lawyer-slang?
January 27, 2008 at 11:45 am
Yes, lotus, the rule in the circuit and chancery court rules is titled “Earwigging Prohibited.”
January 27, 2008 at 11:56 am
Lotus 10:56 that’s just the NYT. It doesn’t have to be accurate to be NYT news, kinda like SeeBS.
January 27, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Kinda like ALL MSM, Delta Boy. That’s why I rely on blogs for about 95% of my news anymore.
January 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Earwig may also be used as a verb to mean: “to fill the mind with prejudice by insinuations” or “to attempt to influence by persistent confidential argument or talk.”
.
As found in Wikipedia
January 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm
NMC 11:45, as my daddy used to say, “AhbeJohn Brown!”
January 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Thanks and welcome to folo, kycol.
January 27, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I was wondering since there seems to be a lot of heat for Hood to investigate these charges against Scruggs, et al., is it practical for the AG to do so given that the feds seems to have a pretty good grasp on the case? I guess it wouldn’t be double jeopardy but what’s the point?
January 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm
re: Bellesouth 12:44.
In such a highly sensitive case, I also wonder if the feds would look kindly on anyone at this point interviewing Their witnesses. Presumably they got all the tangible evidence. How likely are they to share it before they’ve concluded their investigations? I mean besides the oft-repeated argument that Hood is conflicted.
I have wondered if perhaps Hood has helped procure the guilty pleas to date by agreeing to withhold state prosecution.
January 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
JG, IANAL and have no idea about that myself, that was why I was asking. Thank you, though.
January 27, 2008 at 1:20 pm
one question…did I miss where peters is hanging out right now? Has anyone heard from him? I haven’t had a chance to read today’s paper.
January 27, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Peters is thought by many to be completely m.i.a. Balbo. No one has seen him (I think even C/L has reported this)
January 27, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I have no idea where Peters, Balducci, Patterson or Langston are. I, too, have wondered about their whereabouts.
January 27, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Balducci is in some sort of protection– that’s in one of the transcripts. I’ve not heard about Patterson either way, but have heard people mentioning “sightings” of Langston relatively recently.
January 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Does anyone know who leaked the story about Bobby Delaughter being investigated by the Commission on Judicial Performance? Proceedings before that body are supposed to remain highly confidential.
January 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Balducci is still in Wren around the in-laws which is not to say that he isn’t being protected. Found the Lawd and looking thru the classifieds. Can’t say I know about the others.
January 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Things must be worse than I thought if a witness needs protection. Scary.
January 27, 2008 at 3:50 pm
MSLawyer:
The thing that gets me with DeLaughter and Peters is that the Wilson case is not an isolated incident. The Eaton v. Frisby case contains an almost identical set of facts. There’s even a special master who’s findings are rejected and an “accidental email” from DeLaughter to Peters (who doesn’t enter an appearance in the case).
Bottom line: Either DeLaughter and Peters are crooked and have been corrupting justice in Hinds County for years, or DeLaughter has the computer skills of a drunken cro-magnon.
If Judicial Performance looks further into the DeLaughter/Peters relationship, they’ll pull his robe. If the Bar itself investigates, they’ll pull both of their bar cards.
I’m glad that you were honest enough to admit that the reason you’ve been trying to ignore the elephant in the middle of the room is your appreciation of DeLaughter’s courage in taking down Byron de la Beckwith. But it’s time we admit to ourselves that everyone’s flawed, even our heroes.
By the way, anyone else hear anything about nefarious dealings in the Frank Melton cases by Ed Peters?
January 27, 2008 at 3:57 pm
UMATTY, and you understand — that may be just from his inlaws, capeesh?
You know, OMTL, the computer skills of a drunken cro-magnon be just about what I was about to suspect of my own self these last couple of days — until a techie and I finally ID’d the real culprit (some newly-installed renegade software).
You got time to give us outsiders a brief overview of “the Frank Melton cases,” perchance?
January 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Not defending the actions, but it is not unknown in Mississippi legal circles for a judge to hear arguments and then call the prevailing attorney to write the opinion for him. Too much work for the Judge. I believe this was prevalant enough for some ethical opinions to address it. Not exactly the case in Peters/Delaughter because apparently Peters not counsel of record.
January 27, 2008 at 4:18 pm
A wealthy former television executive, Melton is the controversial — to understate the case — (black) Mayor of Jackson. He usurped the role of Chief of Police as well and regularly led late-night raids on night clubs, “crack houses,” etc., using a tricked-up vehicle that resembles a cross between a Winnebago and a Bradley. (Which brings to mind for older Jacksonians uncomfortable memories of the notorious “Thompson’s Tank” of the civil rights era.) It has been widely suspected that he was frequently assisted in his zeal by generous servings of bourbon.
One such outing ended with Melton and several of his cohorts — some police officers, some male “youths” that Melton had “rescued” from the streets and harbored at his gated estate — using sledge hammers to substantially destroy a house in the inner city that he had declared a crack house.
The former DA, a Melton foe, brought charges related to the events. Melton, still popular with inner-city residents although having lost much of his erstwhile white supporters, was acquitted on all charges by a jury. Peters, the former DA, who had promoted the career of his successor, was now a Melton supp0rter who also supported the current DA, who defeated Melton’s nemesis in 2007, after all of the previously described events had fully unfolded. If all that is clear as mud, then you have some idea of how much fun local politics here can be.
January 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Ooo. Wee. I see what you mean there, Gardenia.
I just don’t know — haven’t checked in on Texas in a couple of days, but zowie, I think MS might be gainin’ on ‘em in the Wusser’n Yours Grudge Rodeo again. Mmmh.
January 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I was just yakking away, oblivious to the Texas connection. So get this: Frank Melton came here from East Texas. Yes! There was a license fight over the NBC affiliate here because of its alledgedly biased coverage or some such thing. Melton was part of a black-dominated ownership group to which the license was transferred. He immediately became high-profile in Jackson, doing a weekly spot at the end of the local news called “The Bottom Line” in which he called out supposed drug dealers and other miscreants by name. Hence, his image as a crime fighter that carried him to the mayor’s office.
He has been here at least 25 years, but his wife — who is an M.D. — and children have never lived here, remaining some place like Tyler, Texas. The connections proliferate. No one could make this stuff up.
January 27, 2008 at 6:29 pm
We MUST alert Juanita Jean, Gardenia!
January 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I re watched Ghosts of Mississippi this week with renewed interest, thanks to the current scandal.
I decided that Alec Baldwin owned the right to again play Delaughter, based on seniority, in the yet to be filmed Ghosts of Mississippi 2.
I also cast Robert Duvall as Scruggs, James Spader as Langston and Jack Nicholson as Lackey. I am having trouble with Patterson as Dom Deluise is deceased. Any suggestions?
January 27, 2008 at 7:39 pm
John Goodman with a wig?
January 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Thanks Gardenia, John Goodman works and
Jim Hood could play himself as he seems idle for the time being.
January 27, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I can think of nothing at all good to say about that scumbag Ed Peters –nothing. And IF he is a “mentor” and confidant of Delaughter, then that tells me all I need to know.
For VERY good reasons, I would not piss on Peters if he were on fire. In case its not clear, I don’t like the man at all. And I trust my judgement on character.
January 27, 2008 at 7:57 pm
To a friend of the law:
L I B DAMNED. That’s what I used to say about my ex wife.
Are you now or have you ever been Mrs Peters?
January 27, 2008 at 7:58 pm
kycol, I’m thinking more Redford as Dickie Scruggs (needs must ponder on Zach), but I like Spader as Joey, maybe Newman as Judge Lackey (as I said way long time ago, it’s just too bad Gregory Peck isn’t available), and yep, Goodman could do as Patterson right well.
And OF COURSE they need someone about like Sarandon as the intrepid-if-puckish blogger-lady Who Solves the Case and Saves the Day in the Last Reel, don’t you-all certainly think?
January 27, 2008 at 8:04 pm
dear tortfeasor: your friend’s analysis of prospective criminal proceedings is amiss because it ignores the testimony of langston, Patterson, and balducci who will say yeah we bribed him and he acted on it; the zach e mail about filing briefs on paper napkins; trent lott’s phone records and documents; other e mails; course of delaughter/peters conduct in other cases, flight plans, and who know what else.
January 27, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I prefer Ashley Judd for the heroine if that is OK with you. Could she wear a crime fighting cat suit?
Matthew McConaughey for Zach work for you?
January 27, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Both those would be poifeckly fine with me, yepper, kycol. We need to get Johnny Depp in here somewhere . . . the prosecutor, mayhap?
January 27, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Ashley can borrow one of my cats’ suits.
January 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Sure Lotus, J D is from my hometown so I can live wit it.
January 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Lotus, we can finish our casting decisions tomorrow.
Bye
January 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Ta, kycol. Have your people call my people . . .
January 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm
even though i am still in the presumed innocent camp, doesn’t mean i ain’t playful so im working on the sound track music. course, Sonny Landreth’s Congo Square has to play in the background while all that activity is going on in Oxford Square. Here’s another one. Will get back to you with the rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKEkDKaa1k&mode=related&search=
January 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I like to imagine it like this.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMYA7XnOOVk&rel=1]
January 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
oops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMYA7XnOOVk
January 27, 2008 at 9:31 pm
We don’t know the facts on the federal judgeship matter. It could be that Trent Lott recommended Delaughter and that Thad Cochran wouldn’t go along with him so they chose someone else—or the President could have said no—-or he may have had problems with the background check. It will all come out in time.
January 27, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Confounded, how you know what Langston, Patterson, and Balducci will testify?
January 27, 2008 at 9:47 pm
supergreg, i prefer the subtlety of the cowboy junkies’ common disaster. i woulda thunk sexy margo timmins would appeal to a supersumthin like yrself.
January 27, 2008 at 9:55 pm
look at the transcript of langston plea. Look at balducci’s buried bodies statement. Then see Patterson coming into the fold with peters trying to get into the corral with the deal cutting group. Maybe they won’t testify but I’m betting that’s part of what they’ve offered up. Just pointing out there is more to the delaughter equation than peters.
January 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm
dear now: I have no special insight. Just my opinion that the Feds have more on delaughter than just peters and it looks like peters and delaughter had more entanglement than just the scruggs matter.
January 27, 2008 at 10:15 pm
What will be interesting is what other judges’ names will erupt out of this debacle. Lest we forget there are rumors circulating that the fen-phen escapade will come to the forefront.
And also….Hmmm…..Holmes County anyone?
If what we have heard is true , and there are 52 plus target letters that have been delivered through be it rain, sleet or snow then many people are having their year rained upon. I don’t think it would be very hard for us lawyers to predict how may or may not recieved aid target letters. I’m willing to bet that in few countys south of Hinds some judges are sweating bullets. Home cooking? More like home screwing!
January 27, 2008 at 10:25 pm
confounded, if you just set the Lackey deal aside and compare it but don’t connect it to Delaughter-Peters, what do you see?
I see one small case and one large and getting larger case. The small case consists of allegations a bribe was offered. It’s the larger one where I’m seeing what jim calls “circles and cycles” with a ticket agent that makes the world go round.
January 27, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I remember a case in the Delta a while back. Prominent merchant’s son was implicated in a murder, pled ng, rumor was the defense lawyer said he could get off for $1m bucks, and he got off. We all figured it was split between the pros, judge, and defense.
January 27, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Avery v. State Farm
http://www.slate.com/id/2137529/
In May 2003, the Supreme Court of Illinois heard oral arguments in Avery. The dispute involved a class action against State Farm on behalf of 4.7 million policyholders in 48 states. The appeal was not decided until after the November 2004 election. In other words, the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court of Illinois, and had been for over a year, by the time of the 2004 campaign. The stakes in Avery were hardly trivial. State Farm’s appeal sought to overturn a $1 billion lower-court verdict, including $456 million in contractual damages.
“Like a good neighbor” the company was indeed “there” for Judge Karmeier, who received more than $350,000 in direct contributions from its employees, lawyers, and others directly involved with the company and/or the case. Karmeier got an additional $1 million from larger groups of which State Farm was a member or to which it contributed. As is often the case, he won both the fund-raising battle and the election.
Although Karmeier himself described the fund raising as “obscene,” his concern for appearances waned almost immediately upon election. Once seated on the Illinois high court, he refused to recuse himself from the Avery appeal. He then cast the deciding vote on the breach of contract claims, overturning that verdict against State Farm. The public, not to mention the opposing litigants, could be forgiven for questioning whether justice was truly served.
January 28, 2008 at 12:03 am
Researcher, did you see that I found the article you were looking for?
January 28, 2008 at 6:01 am
Morning, all. Another article by Jerry Mitchell in today’s Clarion-Ledger — about Bobby DeLaughter and Ed Peters. Here’s the link:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080128/NEWS/801280338
January 28, 2008 at 6:38 am
Reseacher. great post there. And, another example of why our justice system is for sale whenever we force judges to raise money for elections (and sometimes even when we are not forcing them to raise money for elections).
It’s funny how people acknowledge every day that thugs will put a gun to someone’s head and commit a serious crime to make $100, but somehow think that no one will ever consider doing the moral equivilent when hundreds of millions in dollars are at stake.
(And, yet, some people are still wondering why the feds have armed guards on Balducci).
People who won’t do anything and everything for money, need to be sometimes reminded that there are lots of people running around out there who will. And, some of them have law degreees, and some of them work for insurance companies.
January 28, 2008 at 7:15 am
Researcher, what observer said. Damn.
January 28, 2008 at 7:18 am
dear researcher: that state farm story is eerily similar to what happened on our own state supreme court on a smaller scale years ago. A justice recused from a state farm case because his wife had a claim against state farm. State. Farm lost the recused from case. Then state farm settled with the judge’s wife. Filed a petition for rehearing. The justice unrecused and voted in state farm’s favor and state farm won the appeal. It wasn’t $1 billion but it did save state farm money in the long run.
January 28, 2008 at 8:29 am
confounded, do you happen to recall which judge that was?
January 28, 2008 at 9:50 am
Nerboo 01-27- 10:10pm re: fen-phen..Can anyone out there tell me where I can find what was called fen-phen second tier payout..This happened sometime in 06..Mr Langston was the adminstrator..or the checks was signed by him…Trying to find the Judge and the attorneys of record..and if this was something that was handed off by our Attorney Generals office to assistant ag..
January 28, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Confounded, you are almost right about that previous case, but exactly backwards wrong on your facts. The case was Grimes v. State Farm.
Justice James Smith’s wife was injured in a car wreck caused by a State Farm insured. They wouldn’t pay what she and her lawyers thought was fair, and it drug out. Her husband the Judge stayed completely out of and away from it. She then died of unrelated cancer, and he was the Admin. of her Estate, so got brought into her car wreck case as part of that. The case was eventually mediated, with a significantly compromised settlement reached, and that settlement had to then be approved on the public records by another Judge (Chancellor). It was not a big case and was very insignificant, no suggestion or hint of anything unusual about it (except that State Farm argued and negotiated its side strongly, without deferring to the status of the claimant’s husband).
Later, the Grimes case went up on appeal, on totally unrelated legal issues (State Farm denied a policeman’s auto theft claim based on alleged fraud, and a bad faith suit was tried based on that, resulting in minimal actual damage award and 1 Mill. punitive damages award). The Plaintiff’s atty. asked Justice Smith to recuse himself from the appeal, saying that he had been the recipient of a settlement with State Farm. (No motion to recuse Smith from any other State Farm cases had ever, nor was one subsequently ever, filed in any other State Farm cases going up on appeal). Smith noted that it was distant and unrelated, as well as his incidental role in it, said it had no influence one way or other on him, and therefore denied recusal motion. He eventually voted with 5-4 majority that reversed the bad faith finding and the punitive damages award, with the case being sent back to Hinds Circuit Court to decide extra-contractual consequential (aka “Veasley”
damages.
Plaintiffs’ attorney then ratcheted up her invective on a Motion for Reconsideration of Smith’s recusal when the Sup. Ct. agreed to reconsider the initial opinion. Smith eventually recused, saying the previous case had no influence or bearing on him but apparently bothered by the degree of accusations being made about him by the Pl’s atty. THE NEW 4 judge pluralityDECISION (written by Banks and joined by McRae, Sullivan, and Pittman) THEN AFFIRMED THE MILLION PLUS AWARD TO PLAINTIFF. Justice Prather, joined by Mills, would have reversed the bad faith award and allow actual damages, in line with the initial majority ruling. Justice Waller would have affirmed but reduced the Million dollar punitive damages award.
Notably, another recusal motion was submitted in that case, by State Farm against Justice Chuck McRae. It was denied. THE BASIS OF IT WAS THAT A PARTNER IN STATE FARM’S DEFENSE FIRM HAD BEEN A PRIME WITNESS IN McRAE’S INFAMOUS DUI TRIAL. (He had grabbed her and “dipped” her at the Jackson Young Lawyers’ party that he’d left just before his accident, and pretty much everyone at the party was remarking about how drunk he was when he left). At that DUI trial, the main point of cross-examination against her by McRae’s counsel was a charge that she was lying to get him in trouble because he ruled against her in some medical malpractice cases that she handled before the Ms. Sup. Ct.
Without McRae’s staying in the appealed case and Smith recusing, the million dollar punitive award would not have stood, although a much lower consequential damages award would have been allowed as per the original MS Sup. Ct. decision, or at least a significant reduction of the punuitive award as per Waller’s eventual final Opinion.
Guess what’s good for the goose on recusals isn’t ok for the gander when big contingency atty fees are involved, though, or when comparing the record of the honor and integrity of Justices Smith and McRae.
Not a big deal, but interesting how screwed up facts can be repeated incorrectly over time and end up indicating the exact opposite of what truthfully occurred.
(Grimes case cites are:
1997 WL 746006 on the rehearing/withdrawal of initial opinion; and
722 So.2d 637 on the final opinion).
January 29, 2008 at 6:10 am
Welcome to folo, Veritable. I reckon that’s as authoritative and complete a case history as we’ve ever had around here, so thank you for it.
As to Chuck McRae, wowzers, I’m almost afraid to ask . . .
Almost, I said.
January 29, 2008 at 7:09 am
dear veritable: thanks. I have seen all the pleadings, motions, orders and disagree with some of what you say. But that’s okay. I can see by dragging mcrae into it you have a bone to pick. Don’t know why judges insist on hearing cases where legitimate issues of recusal are raised, regardless of who the judge is. But most times, the more loathe the judge is to recuse, the more reasons there are that they should recuse.
January 30, 2008 at 11:14 am
Confounded: Good point re the recusals. Lawyers are loathe to ask for it because the challenges might be perceived as personal integrity attacks on the judge even when that is not at all the intent. One the one hand, the duly elected/assigned judge ought to be on the case and that should not be circumvented by a desire to improperly affect the outcome of the case; on the other hand, if even gray area recusal facts are present, why not err on the side of appearance of complete propriety (a la Larry Latham’s recent w/drawal as Special Master in the Eaton case) and just go ahead and recuse?
And truthfully, I don’t have a bone to pick w/ McRae, have known him since way before he was a judge. I know the good and bad sides of him, as do most South Miss. lawyers probably. The particular facts of the Grimes case just happen to include him and, bottom line, in the end– Smith recused himself, McRae didn’t, and on a plurality opinion the Ms. Sup. Ct. decision wound up changing from a favorable State Farm result to a favorable Grimes result.
(This is the opposite of what I may have mistakenly took to be the implications of your original note, which is why I posted a response). I also have concerns about the whole judiciary being seen as crooked with our present news, and really hope most of the rumors are not true. As of now, one judge (Delaughter) looks bad but hasn’t admitted taking a bribe, but another judge (Lackey) and two Special Masters (Sneed and Latham) have shown their integrity to be beyond reproach. Hope we don’t lose sight of the normal good guys in all this lurid scenario.
January 30, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ok here’s how it really went. Justice Smith recused himself of his own motions (sua sponte in lawyer speak) BEFORE the opinion came down. Then the opinion came down 5/4 reversing, with Smith in the majority. When reconsideration was filed pointing out that Justice Smith erroneously participated given his prior recusal, he issued a postdated order (nunc pro tunc in lawyer speak) un-recusing himself, stating that the reason for the recusal, namely his wife’s case against SF (which had not been previously disclosed as the reason for recusal) no longer applied since the case had settled. It was then that the FIRST request for recusal was filed, pointing out the appearance of impropriety given the timing of the settlement. He recused, the case was affirmed, and it has been cited with approval recently in opinions joined in by Justice Smith (e.g., Merrill). Dat’s dat.