In a response filed today, the Government described the proof it is going to use of other crime evidence against Judge DeLaughter. It’s from the case of Eaton v. Frisby.
The Governments motion states that Jack Dunbar, an Oxford lawyer who oddly enough, and entirely coincidently, was Scruggs’s lawyer in the Wilson case until Scruggs decided to get down and dirty, will apparently testify that he was appointed Special Master on discovery matters in Eaton. Ed Peters will testify
that he was brought into the case by Eaton, not as counsel of record, but as someone who could influence Bobby DeLaughter. He is expected to testify that he recommended to Judge DeLaughter that the Court remove Jack Dunbar and find another Special Master. Ed Peters even took it upon himself to call another attorney to inquire about this availability for appointment as special master in the case, but called back to ask that his name not be mentioned. Mr. Dunbar did not hear from Judge DeLaughter regarding his recommendation of sacntions. He was simply removed from the case. For the most part, DeLaughter rejected Dunbar’s Report and Recommendation. However, after DeLaughter’s recusal from the case, another Special Master, David Dogan, essentially reinstated Dunbar’s Repoort and Recommendation, finding DeLaughter’s rejection to be unsupported by the evidence.
Here’s the Government response on 404b evidence
The notion that Judge DeLaughter can be “influenced” appears to be prevalent among lawyers who practice before him. If that notion is true, DeLaughter does not need to be a judge. If he is so weak professionally that he needs or allows his “mentor” to advise and/or dictate his rulings, he does not need to be a judge.
No doubt, NoMiss. Fortunately, although the process seems to be slow to the point of not functioning, I gather won’t be going back on the bench one way or the other.
NMC, re your phrase in the post above– “until Scruggs decided to get down and dirty:” On page 117 of Balducci’s testimony in Eaton v. Frisby, Balducci states that when Joey Langston called Scruggs to tell him that DeLaughter’s ruling would be favorable in Scruggs’ case, Scruggs was happy and told Langston, Patterson, and Balducci to “make sure we kept our skirts clean.”
I’m juxtaposing your phrase of “until Scruggs decided to get down and dirty” and Scruggs’ alleged statement of “make sure we kept our skirts clean.” I can’t help seeing a little humor there.
And can anyone extrapolate about Scruggs’ meaning of keeping one’s “skirts clean” when he is demanding and paying that someone to do something dirty?
Does that mean that you can get your underwear dirty because no one sees that, but you must keep your skirts clean because people can see your skirt?