Public Corruption

Jerry Mitchell’s Sunday Clarion Ledger story asserts that DOJ officials are considering racketeering charges against Dickie Scruggs in connection with the Wilson v. Scruggs asbestos fee dispute case involving the alleged corruption of Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter. The article is short on detail but the investigation has been active. Joey Langston pleaded guilty in January to offering a bribe to DeLaughter on behalf of Scruggs in the case.

Lest we forget, in Scruggs’ March plea hearing in the Lackey bribery case, AUSA Thomas Dawson stated “I want to make it painfully clear that the investigation with respect to the Wilson matter that is currently under investigation — that this plea agreement and this plea has no affect with respect to any charging decision or subsequent prosecution with respect to that case.” Mitchell does report that Scruggs apparently rejected a plea deal in March that would have included the Wilson case along with his plea in the Lackey case.

Stay tuned.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Thursday voted unanimously to stay indefinitely the retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht while it considers defense motions in the case. The ruling is a slap in the face of U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, who presided over Wecht’s trial. The retrial was scheduled to begin on May 27. The principal issue on appeal is the defense motion for dismissal, which contends that Schwab failed to follow proper federal procedures in declaring a mistrial and immediately ordering a retrial, violating Wecht’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Among other pending issues are a defense motion to remove Schwab and a local media appeal to force Schwab to follow an earlier Third Circuit order to release juror names (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

On April 22, as we noted here, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WPXI-TV asked the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to overturn US District Judge Arthur Schwab’s decision not to release the identities of jurors in the case of of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht until after the case is resolved. That appeal was successful, but attorneys for the three media organizations on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the Third Circuit because Schwab allegedly has not followed through with the appellate court order. This would apply to jurors who heard the first trial and to the voir dire for the second trial, still scheduled to begin May 27 (Post-Gazette).

There has been no news of late in the ongoing federal bribery investigation of Judge Bobby DeLaughter, former Hinds County DA Ed Peters and Dickie Scruggs in connection with the Wilson v. Scruggs state asbestos fees case, but there is an April 22 filing in the fees case which is of interest. Wilson’s motion for sanctions filed by his attorney Vicki Slater lays out the allegations of bribery in much greater detail than previously revealed in Joey Langston’s guilty plea in January. Of particular interest is a description of how information was allegedly passed between Scruggs’ associates and DeLaughter via Peters and how the rulings were previewed and worked out in advance. The motion asks that all Scruggs’ pleadings after January 2006 be stricken from the case and that all DeLaughter’s rulings after January 2006 favoring Scruggs be declared null and void.

It’s slo-pitch season at the Biloxi Sun-Herald. Anita Lee’s Sunday interview with Cori and Kerri Rigsby lobbed such softballs at the sisters that the paper acted as their mouthpiece, allowing them to deliberately misrepresent what occurred and failing to ask some very pertinent questions.

“I guess they’re going to get away with hiding the truth,” Kerri Rigsby said. “That’s what they’ve been trying to do the whole time. There is no justice. How is State Farm now the good guy?”

In fact, no one is claiming State Farm is the “good guy.” State Farm may possibly have unfairly denied some claims or even engaged in a pattern of unfair claims practices. But that has not been established one way or the other in a court of law. And why not? Because the whole modus operandi of Dickie Scruggs and his stooges has been to extort settlements from companies before cases are heard, preventing evidence from being examined and facts from being established. He files class action lawsuits with the intention of intimidating companies into settling; he operates hand-in-hand with cronies who present themselves to the defendants as shakedown artists “facilitators” to negotiate settlements. The Rigsby Sister Act was an essential part of the process in the Katrina cases.

The Rigsbys wish they had known what they were getting into. They found out after the fact that whistle-blowers suffer a common fate: retaliation, lost wages, stress and more stress.

In fact, the Rigsbys are not whistleblowers. On April 4, US District Judge L.J. Senter ruled that they wrongfully appropriated the documents. He excluded the documents and disqualified the sisters from testifying. The effect of his ruling is that their actions were not protected whistleblower actions under the False Claims Act. If ex rel. Rigsby somehow is allowed to continue, which is highly doubtful since the US Attorney has so far declined to join the case, it will be in spite of the Rigsbys.

The report’s conclusions about the timing of surge and wind dovetailed with a State Farm “wind-water protocol” vetted and edited by corporate executives and attorneys in Bloomington. The protocol, an internal company document…

In fact, the anti-concurrent causation clause is part of the standard policy language, not some secret company plot to ignore policy language.

The sisters said they were naive in February 2006 when they first reported in a meeting with policyholders’ attorney Dickie Scruggs…

The Rigsbys …went to Scruggs, taking with them records from State Farm files. They had begun saving and copying the records in the fall of 2005.

In fact, they used a list of Dickie Scruggs’ clients to determine what documents to steal, months before they allegedly first met him. It’s in their own depositions. Yet Ms. Lee repeatedly fails to challenge them.

In a related puff-piece, the Sun-Herald reports here on the Rigsbys’ latest response in the qui tam case.

Five jurors from the mistrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht held a news conference on Monday to speak about the trial and its aftermath (WTAE-TV raw video here). The bottom line: they believe the prosecution was politically motivated; they were disturbed by the actions of lead FBI investigator Brad Orsini; they felt demeaned when prosecutors immediately requested and Judge Schwab granted a retrial without even polling them and before they were even dismissed; they were treated well during the trial by Judge Schwab but felt he was biased against the defense; and they are opposed to a retrial (WTAE-TV text), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

On Tuesday Judge Schwab denied the defense’s motion for dismissal on double jeopardy grounds and refused to delay the retrial, which is scheduled for May 27 (Post-Gazette). Wecht’s attorneys immediately appealed that ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and filed another motion asking Schwab to delay the retrial until the Third Circuit rules (Philly Inquirer).

Developments in State Farm-related Katrina cases since US District Judge L.J. Senter’s momentous ruling earlier this month in McIntosh v. State Farm (here):

• Yes, he really meant it: If there were any doubt that his ruling applied to any attorneys even peripherally related to Scruggs Katrina Group/Katrina Litigation Group cases, it was dispelled on April 16 when Judge Senter disqualified the Taylor-Martino law firm from representing McIntosh because the firm had provided assistance to one of the KLG firms.

• Citing Judge Senter’s ruling, US District Judge Halil Ozerden on April 11 disqualified KLG, the Rigsby documents and the Rigsby sisters as witnesses from another Southern District of Mississippi case, Kreeger v. State Farm. US District Judge William Barbour on April 16 did likewise in Shows v. State Farm, the RICO case filed last year by SKG.

• State Farm moved to dismiss ex rel. Rigsby (the qui tam case) for lack of jurisdiction, to disqualify the Rigsbys’ lawyers, and for summary judgment. The two Kansas City law firms representing the Rigsby sisters (Graves, Bartle & Marcus and Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny) filed an emergency motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling on the motion to disqualify. State Farm fired back immediately, pointing out among other things that the Kansas City firms are already disqualified under Judge Senter‘s ruling.

• The motion to disqualify the Kansas City firms accuses several of the attorneys — including (fired US Attorney for Missouri) Todd Graves — of being present when the Rigsbys met with Dickie Scruggs in his trailer on the beach at Pascagoula in 2006 and illegally accessing password protected proprietary documents belonging to State Farm. This was based on Kerri Rigsby’s own deposition. Graves and Tony DeWitt (of BFR&G) went on the attack with a public hissy fit (here), specifically denying that they were ever on State Farm’s computer system. But that was a deliberate dodge, because that’s not what State Farm claims they did. They carefully avoided denying being present at the trailer meetings and accessing documents that the Rigsbys downloaded. Rossmiller has all the Rigsby depositions here.

• On Monday, the Kansas City lawyers responded to State Farm‘s disqualification motions, and both Graves and DeWitt filed affidavits. Graves acknowledges being present at one of the two trailer meetings, DeWitt at both. NMC at folo has an excellent analysis here.

• Rossmiller notes here that Don Barrett of the Barrett Law Office, one of the now-disqualified KLG firms, advised clients in an April 18 letter that the Provost-Umphrey law firm has agreed to take their cases. A commenter notes: “The address for the Nashville Provost-Umphrey office is the same as that on Barrett Law Office letterhead for the Nashville office. Remarkable.”

We’ll have more on the Rigsby sister act shortly.

Robert E. Coughlin II, former deputy chief of staff of the DOJ’s criminal division, on Tuesday pleaded guilty to a single count of violating federal conflict-of-interest laws in connection with the Jack Abramoff public corruption scandal. His plea was entered before before US District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in the District of Columbia.  Coughlin admitted accepting meals, concert tickets and luxury seats at sporting events from a lobbyist who has been identified by sources as Kevin Ring, a key lobbyist for Abramoff, while helping Ring and Abramoff’s clients by leaking inside information, attempting to influence department colleagues and providing other help. Coughlin accepted the gifts from 2001 to 2003 while he was working on legislative affairs for the DOJ.  Under a plea agreement with the government, he faces up to 10 months in prison and is actively cooperating with prosecutors who are investigating Ring. Court papers also refer to at least two other unnamed DOJ officials who accepted meals from Ring.  Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) and his wife Julie are known to be still under investigation in the Abramoff scandal and have been linked to Ring, who once worked for Doolittle, so Coughlin may also provide information in that matter (AP, Washington Post).

The latest developments in the bizarre aftermath of the mistrial of of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht:

• A defense motion for dismissal alleges that the FBI falsified the proabable cause affidavit that led to the search of Wecht’s office in 2005, then deliberately hid the information from the defense (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review).
• The juror who was excused from deliberations has stated that he never asked to be excused, contrary to what the trial record states (WTAE-TV).
• The Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WPXI-TV have asked US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to overturn US District Judge Arthur Schwab’s decision not to release the identities of jurors until after the case is resolved; that ruling applies to jurors who heard the first trial and those yet to be seated for the second trial, scheduled to begin May 27 (Tribune-Review).

Circuit Court Judge William Coleman on Wednesday granted the motion by the Jones, Funderburg law firm to sanction Dickie Scruggs and all the other members of the former Scruggs Katrina Group and enter a default (here and earlier), striking the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. He also granted Jones’ reasonable attorney fees in this proceeeding in addition to the question of damages originally sought from the partnership. He has scheduled a hearing on damages for November 12, 2008. H/t to David Rossmiller for the order, here. Legal Newsline has more here.

In yet another bizarre move, AUSA Stephen Stallings suggested in a court filing on Tuesday that the government may seek to empanel a jury of outsiders in the retrial of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht. It was not a formal request, but Stallings said the government would accept a trial delay “if such a continuance were to become necessary to empanel a jury untainted by defendant’s unethical media campaign.” That’s right, the prosecution is complaining about prejudicial coverage (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review).

On Wednesday US District Judge Arthur Schwab refused to delay the retrial, scheduled for May 27, and refused to recuse himself. Lawyers for Wecht will appeal (Post-Gazette).

Jones v. Scruggs is the state civil suit between the Jones, Funderburg law firm and its former Scruggs Katrina Group partners over disputed legal fees which resulted in the federal bribery charges against Dickie Scruggs and his four co-defendants. A hearing was held in Oxford on Tuesday before state Circuit Court Judge William Coleman on Jones’ motion to sanction all the members of the group and enter a default judgment against the other law firms; Jones is seeking 20% of all past attorney fees from Katrina litigation as well as the firm’s legal fees in this case.

Alyssa Schnugg covers the hearing in the Oxford Eagle here and AP’s coverage is here. But NMC @ folo liveblogged the hearing in six parts beginning here, giving us a much broader picture. Of particular interest is the testimony of Judge Henry Lackey, especially in part 3; these are his first extensive public statements about what happened, and it’s quite apparent from his testimony that he was outraged, referring to Dickie Scruggs as a monster. If Scruggs’ attorney Cal Mayo expected to impeach Lackey’s testimony, he failed badly. And in final arguments (part 6), Mayo ran afoul of Judge Coleman by referring to the bribery as an “ethical lapse” and appearing to argue entrapment. If he was intending to portray his client in a better light, he again failed badly.

Judge Coleman expects to issue a ruling today. His statements on Tuesday indicate that his decision will apply to all defendants.

Attorneys for former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht on Monday asked US District Judge Arthur Schwab to dismiss all charges against Wecht and to bar a retrial, asserting that Schwab erred in not following certain steps following last week’s declaration of a mistrial and that a retrial would subject Wecht to double jeopardy. Wecht’s attorneys also asked Schwab to order prosecutors to reveal how they obtained names of jurors contacted by the FBI last week after the mistrial was declared, asserting that that both sides were under strict orders from the judge not to record the jurors’ names (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

In a Monday Pittsburgh Tribune-Review op-ed, columnist Ralph Reiland lambasts USA Mary Beth Buchanan, calling her a thief and a fraud for wasting millions in public funds on the prosecution. And a Tuesday Tribune-Review editorial characterizes the prosecution “up to and including the questioning of the jurors, [as] nothing less than outrageous.”

If you are going to try and kill the King, you better damn well get it done. Cyril Wecht is a celebrity pathologist superstar. This means that the Cyril Wecht prosecution is a suitcase trial. If you are the prosecutor, you pack your suitcase ahead of time. If you don’t win, you leave town. Maybe that’s why the Wecht prosecutors were so quick to announce they would retry the case, almost right away, despite a hung jury leaning toward acquittal.

The haste to announce retrial was unseemly. Judge Schwab’s strong advice to the jury not to discuss the case with the press or the attorneys was bizarre at best and improper at worst. The publicly displayed animosity between the defense team, which includes a former U.S. Attorney General, and Judge Schwab was stunning. This just doesn’t happen at the federal level. 

The FBI’s decision to call some of the jurors to interview them about the case, reported here in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, was unusual and stupid, although Judge Schwab’s decision to wisk the jury away quickly after the trial obviously prompted the move.

I started reading about the Wecht trial late in the day. Press coverage has been abysmal. Some things are clear, though, from merely reading the indictment. The case looks pretty chicken-_____ at best.

Prosecutors and defense atttorneys divide crummy cases into two fundamental categories; chicken-_____ and bull-_____. Chicken-_____ cases allege actual crimes, but the charges, even if true, are technical and/or low-grade in nature. Bull-_____ charges are not really crimes at all. They are not “righteous” and never should have been brought in the first place.

The government charged way too many counts in the Wecht case. Most of them appear to be incredibly petty “misuse of public office charges” masquerading as honest-services mail and wire fraud. But honest service fraud cases usually require, in the absence of bribes or kickbacks, lying and/or concealment by a defendant regarding his/her theft of honest services. The Wecht indictment doesn’t do a great job of setting this lying/concealment out and neither, apparently, did the evidence. (Dr. Wecht’s private forensic pathology practice was well known to all.)

The only thing in the indictment that looks like a real crime, if true, is Dr. Wecht’s alleged billing of private clients for reimbursement for transportation expenses that were actually provided by the county. The indictment charges that phony receipts from a defunct company were used in connection with these bills. But even if this happened and Dr. Wecht knew about it, it isn’t the kind of thing you typically see prosecuted at the federal level. It falls under the category of petty theft or greed–fodder for state cases or private lawsuits at best.

Zach Scruggs appears to have realized the possible consequences of his motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss the disbarment complaint initiated by the Mississippi Bar (earlier). In a response filed on Wednesday with the Mississippi Supreme Court, he told the court that he would not fight suspension of his law license and that his earlier objection to disbarment was meant to give him time to straighten out his clients’ affairs. The response filed by his attorney Mike Martz  states that he “is truly and humbly sorry for his actions” and that he “takes full responsibility for his acts and is prepared to accept the full consequences from all of the courts involved and the Mississippi Bar” (Sun Herald). Zach Scruggs pleaded guilty on March 21 to a one-count information for misprision of a felony in connection with the bribery of Judge Henry Lackey.

For reasons that are yet unclear, US District Judge Arthur Schwab asked jurors in the public corruption trial of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht not to speak to the press or public until after a retrial. However, two jurors have spoken to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and the jury foreman has spoken to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, all on condition of anonymity, and a juror who was dismissed for medical reasons after the seventh day also spoke to the Post-Gazette. It is obvious from their statements that the majority favored acquittal and that the jurors who spoke did not buy the government’s case at all. The jury foreman contended that the allegations did not exist independently of the FBI investigation:

• “I guess what bothered me was the FBI went and informed his private clients, ‘Look what Dr. Wecht is doing to you. I can understand if they didn’t know that ahead of time, OK, fine. But once they were notified, not one of them came forward and said, ‘You know something, the government is right, Dr. Wecht cheated me, he robbed me, I would like to file charges, I want my money back, I want something done.’”

Another Post-Gazette article here by Jonathan Silverman analyzes the trial and finds the government’s case unconvincing. A retrial has been scheduled for May 27.

The public corruption trial of former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht has ended. US District Judge Arthur Schwab on Tuesday morning declared a mistrial after the jury told him it remained hopelessly deadlocked following 10 days of deliberations. Dr. Wecht was indicted on 41 counts including wire fraud, mail fraud and theft of honest services. Judge Schwab set May 27 for the start of a new trial after AUSA Stephen Stallings announced the government would try the case again; prosecutors have until April 11 to tell Schwab which counts they will pursue. Schwab gave the defense until April 18 to file motions to oppose a retrial and to have the charges dismissed. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

The jury in the honest services fraud trial of celebrity pathologist Cyril Wecht begins its 10th day of deliberations. Jurors told the judge on Thursday that they were deadlocked. The defense has, therefore, made a mistrial motion. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports here on the jury’s languid pace.

In a stunning decision on Friday in Gulfport, Mississippi, US District Judge L.J. Senter disqualified the remaining partners of the former Scruggs Katrina Group (now renamed the Katrina Litigation Group) from any litigation against State Farm or its contract adjuster E.A. Renfroe in the Southern District of Mississippi. In addition, he disqualified Cori and Kerry Rigsby as witnesses in any such litigation and excluded from evidence any documents provided by them to the Scruggs Katrina Group (opinion, order). The particular case at issue was McIntosh v. State Farm, but the order gives plaintiffs in all such cases 45 days to retain new counsel. Senter held that Scruggs’ actions with regard to the Rigsby sisters were unethical and held all members of the original Scruggs Katrina Group responsible for Scruggs’ actions because they were aware of the payments to the Rigsby sisters and did nothing to stop them. From the opinion:

• State Farm and Renfroe have charged Scruggs with two basic types of ethical misconduct and with conflicts of interest, all of which relate in one way or another to the relationship between Scruggs and the SKG and two former Renfroe employees Cori and Kerri Rigsby (the Rigsby sisters). State Farm and Renfroe allege 1) that Scruggs participated and encouraged the Rigsby sisters to wrongfully appropriate and disclose confidential documents in which both State Farm and Renfroe had a legitimate right to confidentiality; and 2) that Scruggs paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum in furtherance of Scruggs’s efforts to encourage the misappropriation of these documents… I have determined that disqualification is required because Scruggs, acting in furtherance of the SKG joint venture, paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum of money (a consulting fee of $150,000 per year) despite Scruggs’s knowledge that the Rigsby sisters were material witnesses in connection with many hurricane damage claims that were likely to become the subject of litigation… It is apparent to me, from my review of the deposition testimony of the Rigsby sisters, that there was no legitimate reason for these payments and that the “consulting” work that ostensibly justified these payments was a sham. Even if this were not the case, the performance of legitimate work that is closely related to a matter in litigation cannot justify an attorney’s payment of a substantial sum of money to a non-expert material witness.

McIntosh v. State Farm is one of the cases which led to the fee dispute between the Jones, Funderburg law firm and the other Scruggs Katrina Group partners, which in turn led to the state civil suit which resulted in the federal bribery charges against Dickie Scruggs and his four co-defendants.

David Rossmiller at Insurance Coverage Blog has been following Katrina litigation since well before the bribery indictments. He has an excellent analysis here and raises a very interesting question about former US Attorney Todd Graves, who has appeared as counsel for Zach Scruggs in the bribery case. The AP story is here.

Chip Off The Old Block Department: Zach Scruggs has followed in his father’s footsteps and filed a motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss the disbarment proceedings initiated by the Mississippi Bar. The Sun Herald story here indicates that the basis of the motion is that his guilty plea has not been accepted by the court. However, page 14 of Zach Scruggs’ plea hearing transcript quotes US District Judge Neal Biggers: “the Court will accept your guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilty on your plea.”

Judge Biggers has already made it abundantly clear that the court is not bound by the recommendation of probation contained in Zach Scruggs’ plea agreement. Zach Scruggs could receive up to three years in prison. It’s hard to see what he could possibly hope to gain by this stalling tactic when he has so much more to possibly lose. Does he suppose that Judge Biggers does not follow the news and will not be aware of this motion?

That didn’t take long: here is the Mississippi Bar’s response to Dickie Scruggs’ motion to dismiss disbarment proceedings, and separately,  the Mississippi Bar’s motion to suspend Scruggs immediately (h/t folo). The former argues that a plain reading of the rules contemplates that a disbarment proceeding is triggered upon the entry of a guilty plea, and therefore is not “fatally flawed” even if a formal acceptance of the plea has not yet been entered; and if it is premature, that Scruggs should immediately be suspended until the plea is entered. The latter is motion to do just that. Of course, if the general counsel of the Bar had been reading the blogs, he would know that Scruggs’ guilty plea has in fact been accepted by the court (earlier here and here).

Here is Dickie Scruggs’ Motion To Dismiss the disbarment proceedings which were initiated by the Mississippi Bar following his guilty plea, and here is the “criminal minutes” document from Scruggs’ March 14 plea hearing (h/t folo). The latter states: “Defendant appeared before the Court and Plead Guilty to Count 1 of Indictment; Plea Accepted [emphasis added].” Scruggs’ motion argues that a certified copy of the plea agreement was attached to the complaint, but not a certified copy of a judgment of conviction or an order accepting a guilty plea, as required by statute; and that the plea agreement is not in itself evidence that the plea has been accepted.

In other words, Scruggs does not appear to be claiming that his plea has not been accepted, only that the complaint does not contain evidence that his plea has been accepted.  Even so, at best this is only a delaying tactic that may buy him an extra few days. Since Judge Biggers has yet to sentence him, the possible consequence of such a move could be severe.

A two paragraph addendum to this Sun Herald story about the suspension of Judge Bobby DeLaughter indicates that Dickie Scruggs has asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss disbarment proceedings against him subsequent to his guilty plea “because U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. has not yet accepted his plea.”

However, on page 16 of the transcript of Scruggs’ March 14 plea hearing, Judge Biggers says [emphasis added] “the Court will accept your guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilty on your plea.”

Despite signing a plea agreement, Scruggs had to be prodded by his attorney John Keker into admitting his guilt in open court. Now this. It’s hard to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by this move, but once Judge Biggers learns of it, we shall probably hear more in short order.

In response to the petition by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance for an interim suspension of Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter (earlier here and here), the Mississippi Supreme Court on Friday suspended DeLaughter indefinitely. The commission has charged DeLaughter with willful misconduct in two cases, Wilson v. Scruggs and Kirk v. Pope. In the former case, Joey Langston has pleaded guilty to bribing DeLaughter via former Hinds County DA Ed Peters on behalf of Dickie Scruggs. No one else has yet been indicted but DeLaughter is known to be under federal investigation in the case (Clarion-Ledger, Sun Herald).

Six days after the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court asking for an interim suspension of Judge Bobby DeLaughter for judicial misconduct in two cases, one of them involving Dickie Scruggs (earlier), DeLaughter delivered a letter to the Commission stating that he will not challenge a temporary suspension pending a decision after a hearing if it is so ordered. SunHerald, DeLaughter letter.

Lotus and NMC at folo have put together a remarkable narrative here, here and here, going back more than a decade to examine the trail of machinations and alleged public corruption attempted and sometimes achieved by Dickie Scruggs and associates. The winding tale concerns the asbestos litigation legal fees suits filed by attorneys Alwyn Luckey and William Roberts Wilson against their former partner Scruggs, and the actions taken by Scruggs over the years to thwart them and prevent the cases from ever being heard. While Luckey did eventually prevail, the Wilson case has resulted in the federal guilty plea by Joey Langston for bribing state Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter on behalf of Scruggs, a matter which will almost surely result in more indictments shortly. DeLaughter’s actions (as described in the second installment) are nothing less than shocking. DeLaughter continues to assert his innocence.

Friday’s Miami Herald reports here that longtime GOP operative Roger Stone alerted the FBI to Eliot Spitzer’s call girl habit last year. In November of 2007, Stone’s Cosa Mesa, CA attorney sent a letter to the FBI declining an interview request but reporting Stone’s admittedly second-hand information about New York’s then-Governor. Stone had learned from Miami Velvet, an acquaintance, that Spitzer once used the services of a high-priced call girl in Miami. Stone, in the letter, reported what he knew and stressed that the information was second hand. Stone’s Florida lawyer released the letter last week in an effort to counter Internet-based conspiracy theories about his purported role in bringing down Spitzer, a long-time nemesis. Hat tip to TalkLeft for alerting us to this story. 

Zach Scruggs has pleaded guilty to a one-count information for misprision of a felony, in exchange for dismissal of the original indictment. There is no requirement for cooperation. He admitted to improper ex parte contact, knowing about improper ex parte contact by others and doing nothing to prevent or report it. He denied knowing about the bribe to Judge Lackey.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison but the government has recommended probation. However, US District Judge Neal Biggers pointed out, per customary practice, that the court does not have to accept that recommendation. This report comes from David Rossmiller’s contact in the courtroom. More to come.

UPDATE:

Sun Herald story by Anita Lee, Zach Scruggs Plea Agreement, Zach Scruggs Factual Basis, Zach Scruggs Plea Hearing Transcript.

The transcript confirms the earlier report above. There will be no further charges arising out of this case, but the agreement does not preclude any prosecution in any other case. However, the government has “no knowledge that he has any information on other cases at this time,” which indicates he is not currently a target in the investigation related to the Joey Langston plea; Dickie Scruggs is under investigation in that case.

Judge Biggers made it quite clear, per standard federal plea bargain procedure, that the court is not bound by the recommendation of probation contained in the plea agreement. He ordered a presentencing report and stated that sentencing would probably take place in six to eight weeks.

Zach Scruggs’ defense team filed three motions on Wednesday, which was the revised motions deadline. Zach Scruggs’ James Hearing Motion seeks to force the prosecution to prove its basis for  allowing 404(b) evidence now that he is the sole defendant. Zach Scruggs’ Motion To Reconsider An Anonymous Jury is based primarily on his alleged lack of involvement in the judicial bribery referenced in Joey Langston’s plea. It asks alternatively for a change of venue or a revised supplemental jury questionnaire. Zach Scruggs’ Motion For Continuance asks for another 90-120 days in light of the changed circumstances brought about by the guilty pleas of Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom.

Based on his prior statements,  US District Judge Neal Biggers is not likely to countenance a delay in the scheduled March 31 trial date, whether or not he grants the James Hearing motion.

Two developments regarding corruption allegations against Judge Bobby DeLaughter in cases involving Dickie Scruggs:

First: In response to William Roberts Wilson’s recusal motion (earlier), DeLaughter and the two other circuit judges have recused themselves: Wilson v. Scruggs Recusal (h/t folo). But unlike Judges Kidd and Yerger, DeLaughter saw fit to editorialize and proclaim his innocence:

The undersigned judge of this Court has never, in this or any other case, issued a ruling in exchange or consideration of anything (money or otherwise) other than the applicable law, all allegations to the contrary being belied by the record.

The record? It is precisely because of what allegedly transpired off the record that he is under investigation.

Second: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance on Wednesday filed a petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court to suspend DeLaughter based upon actions he took which were allegedly under the corrupt influence of Ed Peters on behalf of Dickie Scruggs in Wilson v. Scruggs, according to the guilty plea of Joey Langston; and also in the case of Kirk v. Pope, one of two other known cases which did not involve Scruggs but which did involve the intercession of Ed Peters. Commission v. DeLaughter. The petition contains specific details of the alleged violations. The Sun-Herald has an AP story here.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Monday entered an order based on Friday’s hearing, formally denying Zach Scruggs’ separate dismissal motion and granting 5 additional days from March 14 to amend current motions or file additional motions, but ruling that the extension “in no way affects any other deadlines previously set forth in this cause, including the change of plea deadline of March 17, 2008, or the trial date of March 31, 2008.” Zach Scruggs 3/17 Order.  The big surprise of the day was former Mississippi AG Mike Moore’s Entry of Appearance on behalf of Zach Scruggs.  Moore was a key player in Dickie Scruggs’ multi-billion dollar looting of the major tobacco companies.  A Sun-Herald story here quotes Moore as saying Zach Scruggs “asked me to represent him should his case ever get to trial.” We should know by Wednesday if that plea deadline was set in stone or if this case will proceed to trial.

Thanks to David Rossmiller, the Friday transcripts are now available:
Dickie Scruggs Plea Transcript
Sid Backstrom Plea Transcript
Zach Scruggs Motion Hearing Transcript

Zach Scruggs’ motion to dismiss was denied, and his attorney Todd Graves indicated that he would be conferring with prosecutors on other pending motions. And despite Friday’s pleas, today is the actual deadline for plea agreements. The Clarion-Ledger first reported, then withdrew a report that Zach Scruggs would surrender his law license in exchange for deferred prosecution (earlier). In light of the way the hearing ended, a plea deal could still be in the works. Alan Lange at Y’all Politics thinks so, and explains why here.

The Backstrom transcript indicates a dispute over language in the plea agreement that was resolved, but Backstrom clearly admitted entering into a conspiracy, apologized and accepted full responsibility.

In contrast, during Dickie Scruggs’ response to Judge Biggers’ questioning, his attorney John Keker had to intervene and practically prod him into answering in manner that would be accepted by the court. See pp.15-16 of the transcript. Scruggs offered no apology.

Perhaps more significant to Dickie Scruggs’ future was this statement from AUSA Thomas Dawson: “…I want to make it painfully clear that the investigation with respect to the Wilson matter that is currently under investigation - - that this plea agreement and this plea has no affect with respect to any charging decision or subsequent prosecution with respect to that case.”

Weekend articles of interest include Patsy Brumfield’s Daily Journal story which takes a look at the courtroom drama and the LA Times staff story which provides a very good overall view.

The Associated Press and other news sources will not hesitate to take action against those who reuse their photos without permission. A Photo District News story here points out that Ashley Alexandra Dupré — Eliot Spitzer’s “Kristen” — owns the MySpace photos which the same news organizations apparently thought they could reuse without permission.

Mark Steyn at NRO’s The Corner expects legal action: “…it’s pretty clear from her general philosophy that ‘Kristen’ doesn’t give away much for free….You go, girl! It’s not often you get a case where there’s someone in the room with a higher hourly rate than the lawyers.”

UPDATE: The revised C-L story here now says that Zach Scruggs’ status is not known. The Daily Journal story here and other sources state that Zach Scruggs is still scheduled to stand trial on March 31.

This seems to be confirmed by a related development: following the November 27 search of the Scruggs Law Firm offices, an FBI “taint team” turned over certain evidence to two AUSAs from the Western District of Tennessee. Today the two AUSAs filed a motion to allow disclosure of that evidence to prosecutors in the Northern District of Mississippi by no later than March 21 for use in this case. If granted, at this point the evidence would be used against Zach Scruggs and the motion header is worded US v. David Zachary Scruggs rather than US v. Scruggs et al. The evidence was turned over to Judge Biggers on yesterday. Did attorneys for Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom know this? If so, it could have precipitated their pleas today.  US v. Zach Scruggs Motion To Disclose Search Evidence

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting that the government will defer prosecution of Zach Scruggs in exchange for surrender of his law license, but there is no confirmation of that yet in any court documents.

Dickie Scruggs’ guilty plea to the single conspiracy count carries a maximum five year sentence; the actual sentence will be at the court’s discretion. The remaining five counts are dismissed. Dickie Scruggs’ plea does not include an agreement to cooperate, and the agreement specifically does not preclude the government from bringing charges in any other case, federal or state.

Sidney Backstrom’s guilty plea to the single conspiracy count includes the provision that his sentence will be no more than half of Dickie Scruggs’ sentence, and in any case no more than 30 months in prison. Backstrom does agree to cooperate fully in this case and “all other criminal offenses in any way.” So it appears that this saga is far from over.

Dickie Scruggs Plea Agreement

Dickie Scruggs Factual Basis

Backstrom Plea Agreement

Backstrom Factual Basis

(h/t Rossmiller)

Former National Republican Congressional Committee (”NRCC”)Treasurer Christopher J. Ward has been accused by GOP officials of diverting up to $1 million from various campaign coffers to his personal accounts. The Washington Post has Paul Kane’s story here.

An early report from this morning’s pretrial conference in US v. Scruggs by AP’s Holbrook Mohr indicates that Dickie Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom have each pleaded guilty to conspiracy counts in connection with the attempted bribe of Judge Henry Lackey. There is no word yet of a plea for Zach Scruggs; his second motion to dismiss is on today’s agenda.

They do things a little differently in Guam.  Apparently without any advance notice to Greenberg Traurig LLP, the giant law firm was added to a Second Superseding Indictment in Guam, along with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who once worked for Greenberg Traurig. The ABA Journal  story is here.  Here is the Abramoff/Greenberg Traurig Indictment. The Pacific Daily News of Guam has coverage here. The charges were brought under Guam territorial law and essentially allege a conspiracy to evade the procedures and regulations, and misapproriate the funds of, the Superior Court of Guam, in an effort to hide lobbying activities undertaken by Abramoff and Greenberg Traurig on behalf of the Court. Greenberg Traurig has vowed to fight the Indictment, and has stated that it is a victim of Abramoff. From a quick view of the Second Superseding Indictment, it looks as if Greenberg Traurig may have simply been added because Abramoff worked for the firm at the time of the alleged events.

Two new filings Wednesday in the US v. Scruggs bribery case seek reversal of prior rulings: Sidney Backstrom’s Renewed Motion for Severance, previously denied by US District Judge Neal Biggers on February 26 (here) and all three defendants’ Motion to Reconsider the Anonymous Jury Order, which was granted to the prosecution by Judge Biggers on March 6 (here). The Backstrom motion argues that the reason for the anonymous jury and the 404(b) evidence to be introduced against Dickie and Zach Scruggs are connected the US v. Wilson case and will prejudice Backstrom’s right to a fair trial by association. The joint motion argues that the decision to allow an anonymous jury is based on “mere allegations or inferences” — an argument already rejected by Biggers. h/t folo.

Kimberly Strassel, in WSJ’s Opinion Journal, analyzes Spitzer’s Media Enablers. WSJ’s Review & Outlook discusses the use and abuse of old statutes in prosecuting current crimes in Of Martin and Mann. The reference is to New York’s Martin Act, which Spitzer used as Attorney General as part of his effort to intimidate Wall Street, and the Mann Act, the old federal prostitution statute, which may be used against Spitzer himself. The Washington Post has the resignation story. One thing is clear as the fog begins to lift in this scandal; for the SDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office to be even contemplating charging Spitzer under the Mann Act is unprecedented and appalling. It is virtually unheard of for a call-girl customer to be prosecuted at the federal level. This would constitute a clear abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

With the March 17 plea deadline approaching, attorneys for Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom on Tuesday filed a second motion to compel discovery. The motion seeks  documents and further information referenced in the February 20-21 hearings but not released to the defense, and also seeks extensive material related to the similar bad acts evidence (the Wilson v. Scruggs bribery allegations) which the government plans to introduce under federal rule 404(b) . Scruggs Second Motion For Discovery. Daily Journal story here.

What others are saying about Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to clean up prostitution, one hooker at a time:

Scott Horton at Harper’s raises questions about prosecutorial motivation.

Walter Olson of Overlawyered presents a reader’s information about the “structuring” statute here, and in a NRO article here looks at the statute in the context of increased powers given to white collar prosecutors: “…the structuring statute was part of the ever more ferocious treatment of business and economic offenses in American law that might be termed, after its best-known practitioner, Spitzerization.”

At Houston’s Clear Thinkers, Tom Kirkendall bemoans the absence of media coverage of Spitzer’s abuses of power as a prosecutor, as well as the lack of coverage in the Jeff Skilling appeal.

Today’s AP story mentions that Spitzer is a Democrat exactly zero times. Have they done likewise with Republicans?

The Agitator presents Great Moments In Sex Scandal Press Conferences (from a running gag on BBC’s Little Britain series).

The Washington Post has the basic Elliot Spitzer story here. Dana Milbank’s Washington Sketch column reveals perhaps the most revolting aspect of the case: Client 9 would not even spring for the Amtrak Acela to transport Kristen down to DC from Manhattan. Egads! He forced her to take the regional! Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorializes on it all, here, noting that there isn’t a “shred of nobleness” in Spitzer’s fall. The investigation of Spitzer apparently started with a Suspicious Activity Report filed by a bank in connection with the Governor’s transfer of funds to pay for call girls. We’ll see in coming days whether this turns out to be true and how the investigation grew from this kernel into the exposure of a sitting opposition-party Governor. Stay tuned.

Zach Scruggs rebuttal memorandum to government response to his separate motion to dismiss. It’s hard to see how this could succeed; it steps up an attack the government has already termed “gratuitously inflammatory” and splits hairs over matters of intent that would almost surely be left to a jury. At the same time it ignores the broader context of the transcripts–that Zach Scruggs was discussing an order that had been written by the firm for Judge Lackey, and that Zach Scruggs was discussing the order with Timothy Balducci, who was not the firm’s attorney in the case. Perhaps Zach Scruggs’ current intent is to discover any additional information, from taped conversations, that was not presented to the grand jury.

The deadline for pleas in this case is March 17, with the trial scheduled to begin March 31. Judge Biggers has scheduled a pre-trial conference for March 14 and will rule on any outstanding motions. It may be an eventful week.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Thursday granted the government’s request for an anonymous jury in US v. Scruggs. He ruled that three elements existed which could justify granting the motion, and in particular whether there has been a past attempt by the defendant to interfere with the judicial process:

In this case, there is evidence before the court in sworn testimony in open court, uncontradicted at the time, of past attempts on the part of the defendants herein to interfere with the judicial process. Indeed, that is the charge involved in this case, and, in addition, the court has heard sworn testimony that an attempt at interference with the judicial process also has taken place in another court by some of the defendants herein. The court is not judging whether this evidence is true; however, there is sworn testimony, unrebutted at this point, sufficient to find at this time, based on more than “mere allegations and inferences,” that this element is applicable here for the purpose of ruling on this motion.

US v Scruggs Anonymous Jury Granted

In a related development, the government responded to Zach Scruggs’ separate dismissal motion (earlier), calling it gratuitously inflammatory and that it appearing “to be designed to influence the jury pool.” Response to Zach Scruggs Motion to Dismiss