I have a really odd observation. As I understand it, for the Government to convict Judge DeLaughter, they have to show that he got something of value for being improperly influenced by his buddy Ed Peters.
If Judge DeLaughter did it because he’s a chump, or because he was a sucker for anything his old mentor wanted, it’s a subject for the Judicial Performance Commission perhaps, but not a federal crime. That’s the importance of the call from Trent Lott: The idea was that Judge DeLaughter did the dirty deeds because Scruggs (through his brother in law) was dangling that judicial position before his eyes.
Well, the government has filed a response to Judge DeLaughter’s motion asking about 404(b) evidence– that is, evidence of other crime evidence the government intends to use– and I’ll have to say it’s a double edged sword. The evidence does just what the government says it does– it shows a modus operendi of behind the scenes improper influence. What it does not show is that Judge DeLaughter got anything whatsoever in turn for being Peter’s puppet. He apparently did what he did for… I’m not sure why. For old times, I guess.
So if Judge DeLaughter would do those dirty deeds for nothing, why conclude the call from Trent Lott had anything to do with his decision to continue to do Peters’s bidding? And add in that Trent Lott is most assuredly going to say his call was no biggie and I’ll bet will even say it wasn’t caused by his brother-in-law. I’d be really thinking about arguing that, given DeLaughter and Peters were operating this way in other cases, you can’t conclude that the call from Senator Lott had to do with why DeLaughter did as he did.
You are right on NMC. This case may not be the lock everyone always thought it was. With the issue about “honest services” and the unknown of how Peters will do as a witness in light of his sweetheart deal, this is anything but a lock conviction. Delaughter could easily be simply following the advise of his mentor Peters without any knowledge of what was going on. Even the Trent Lott call from Delaughters perspective could be totally unconnected to the Scruggs case. It all comes down to Peters and is he believable. Or is he a scumbag that took advantage of this protege’ to pocket a million dollars.
I find it hard to swallow that DeLaughter was that big of a chump. Why on earth would you share information with one side, knowing that, at the least, you’ll be removed from office and probably disbarred if caught, with absolutely nothing to gain from it? DeLaughter had to get something of value, even if only psychic value, from the exchange. What was it?
Somslawyer, I’m totally with you– I just don’t believe that DeLaughter “played” this way without getting something concrete and something more. I am strongly suspicious that Ed Peters held out on the government– that his story is some sort of firewall, giving them the minimum.
Will the defense be able to overcome the conviction anyone would have to that effect? I don’t know.
Several hard hurdles: 1) DeLaughter has to get a juror to draw a distinction between clearly improper behavior and criminal behavior and let DeLaughter off the hook for the later even though he’s guilty of the former. 2) With all this money coursing through the system, DeLaughter has to get a juror to hold the government to proving DeLaughter got something for what he did– DeLaughter has to convince the juror to overcome a natural presumption he got something and require that to be explicitly proved.
One of the biggest factual and possibly psychological dilemmas in this case is why DeLaughter did what he did. Because of what he did in Eaton and Kirk v. Pope, it’s obvious he didn’t require a position on the federal bench to do Peters’s bidding. The call from Lott was some sort of bonus benefit.
And what was the usual quid pro quo? Or what was the psychology operating with this judge that caused him to behave this way? Nothing known in the public sphere answers that question for me.