Sandra Knispel interviewed Curtis Wilkie this morning on Mississippi public radio. She began by asking about the title invoking a Greek tragedy, she asked: wast it is inevitable his house would fall and crumble?
A. Probably not. It fell because of some poor judgment on his part, the association of some people who got him into trouble. I don’t think it was inevitable. Some of his enemies thought it was inevitable.
Q. Why did such a rich man try to bribe a judge?
A. One, Dick had become addicted to a pain killer… after two back surgeries and I think that probably effected his judgment. Dick wanted to win, you needed to win particularly when you are pitted against implacable enemies.
She asked about the leaked documents and he said they came from all sides. He talked about the wiretaps, which he said show something about the case:
It was handled certainly very zeaolously by the attorneys for the governmetn and the fbi. The attorneys for the defendants made what i thought a forceful motion about outrageous behavior by the government.
He talked about Dawson having sat for several interviews, and said he had interviewed Greenlee (who I don’t remember being cited in a footnote). He said that Keker explained to him why the crime was not entrapment (this is not in the book), because of the length of time the discussions took.
Wilkie also said:
Scruggs didn’t offer money I believe that Scruggs was in the dark during much of this period. … Once Scruggs agreed to reimubre it, Scruggs became part of the conspiracy.
Curtis’s theory is that this was a one time occurence? Does anyone really believe that?
“…implacable enemies”? Johnny Jones? You’ve got to be kidding! This is a shameless rewriting of events.
Curtis Wilkie = Scruggs Apologist
Good point, Dragoman. There are, then, two big questions that come from the reading last week and from this interview:
Assuming Dick’s problem was implacable enemies, the book never engages the question about why Dick Scruggs attracted such implacable enemies. Also, Wilkie has spoken about how angry other lawyers were at Scruggs, without engaging about whether there may have been justifiable outrage at the methods he used?
My second question would be: Isn’t the implication this was a one-off thing or something Scruggs accidentally fell into contradicted by the maneuver Scruggs pulled in the Wilson case, where his lawyers were secretly drafting orders for Judge DeLaughter through concealed ex parte contact?
I maya go ask one or both of these at the event at the Overby Center tomorrow. Thoughts?
Iatrogenic addiction? Again? How convenient. But how implausible. I saw iatrogenic addiction during my admission at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. I ain’t buyin’ that line, especially from one who had an FAA flight physical he had to keep current. The iatrogenically addicted at Oak Knoll weren’t flying around in multi-million dollar jets.
I haven’t read Wilkie’s book, and shan’t, but your comments (that’s a catholic “your” … meaning all you good readers and posters) suggests to me that the author may have followed the leads and story lines that led to the destination he had in mind when he began his work rather than to the destination most solidly evinced by the facts.
Tom, please ask those questions.
the book never engages the question about why Dick Scruggs attracted such implacable enemies
His incorrigible goodness and his courage in fighting for The People, NMC. Those always attract enemies. Don’t you watch Disney movies?
I’ve read the book start to finish and it’s hard for me to see how Wilkie gets cast as a Scruggs apologist. Book makes it clear that the elder Scruggs joined the Lackey conspiracy of his own free will. There really isn’t any editorializing in the book, which makes it different from comments made by Wilkie during the promotion of the book.
The book does provide context for the behavior which makes the “boneheaded” act make some sense. Addiction to Fioricet is one part of the context. Scruggs’s association with shady characters is another part of the context. Scruggs’s involvement with powerful people through the happenstance of where he grew up and where he went to college and what fraternity he was in is another bit of context. Scruggs early relationship with PL Blake is another bit of context.
Wilkie’s book outlines the chronology of the Lackey sting. It is clear (this is one part I remembered from reading the transcripts) that Lackey pursued Balducci and that the request for money (from Lackey) only came after 6 months of improper ex parte communications which were, for the most part, initiated by Lackey. And even Lackey tried to give the chase up but was turned around by the Feds. This may not be a legal defense to the charge but it is certainly strange and only happened because of the size of the quarry.
The book also explains the Farese/Langston machinations that compromised Zach Scruggs. I thought it interesting that a big law firm just got hit with a big verdict for double dealing on a civil matter when the book makes it pretty clear that Farese was double dealing against his own client. Farese refunds $225k (or was it $250k?) of a $300k retainer after his representation of Langston is revealed? What motivated him to abandon his client? Was it positive or negative motivation?
I’m sure the book isn’t a perfect telling of the story but it is a very interesting read. Before anyone criticizes the book they should read it first.
Couple more points on the book. With respect to Johnny Jones it makes it pretty clear why Jones was upset with Scruggs and Barrett. It describes the phone call from Scruggs and the meeting where the whole thing came to a head pretty much from Jones’s point of view.
I don’t know of the term implacable enemies being used in the book. I don’t believe anyone reading the book would think that Scruggs got railroaded by enemies.
where his lawyers were secretly drafting orders for judge Delaughter through ex parte contact. Not any more.When they screw up their lawyers and when they don’t their attoneys. Hummm!I got that.
Curtis used the term “implacable enemies” this morning, dd511dd.
There’s more to the Farese / Langston machinations than is actually in the book, yet is in the public record interestingly enough. But you’re right, it explains some of that.
I’m thinking about your dissent from the term “Scruggs apologist,” which isn’t my term. Curtis has made clear he accepts the fact of Scruggs’s guilty plea, while he also believes that Scruggs didn’t really know what was going on when the bribe was made. I think he thinks that Scruggs’s guilty moves were made either in that Nov. 1 tape or perhaps when Scruggs agreed to pay Balducci back. But I think his sympathy for Scruggs causes him to accept hostile views toward Scruggs’s “enemies” that aren’t supported by the facts, and to fail to question things about Scruggs and his career that this story naturally raises.
The flip side of the facts you raised about the fed’s pursuit of this are so, but that still begs the questions from Wilson, where Scruggs’s side pursued the effort to get close to the judge illegally with no encouragement from anyone in law enforcement.
Aw, and I was giving NMC props for the Faulknerian “implacable.”
Dickie didn’t appear to take responsibility before and he isn’t about to now, through his new mouth-piece.
If Wilkie’s intention is to try and garner sympathy for Scruggs I can direct him the most sure place he’ll find it: in any English language dictionary, right between shit and syphillis. He’s much more likely to get it there than from any rationally thinking person. Wilkie should just shut up and quit attempting to explain the actions and motivations of a millionaire felon that consciously chose his devious path on more than one occasion, “implacable enemies” and the Devil didn’t make him do it, his greed did.
Curtis will discuss the case on campus tomorrow at 5pm:
http://events.olemiss.edu/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=1300
You know, Curtis Wilkie is selling a product and I’m sorry but that’s all this is. I never believed and still don’t believe that Dickie started out with the intent to bribe anyone (I’ve stated such from the beginning)BUT he joined it willingly once it occurred, no one other than Dickie Scruggs did that, and while I am saddened for someone (and more so his family) I called a friend I am even more sad for the damage “they” did to our profession. I am actually frightened even more by the Delaughter/Peters issues than I am of the bribe. As I have said before that issue is far more dangerous than than the bribe…THERE IS NO DEFENSE NOR SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO EITHER NO MATTER WHAT WILKIE OR ANYONE SAYS!!!!
I have always held the notion Dick found himself in this mess after too much damage was done–bordering on entrapment. Show me in the tapes where it was Dick’s idea to bribe Lackey. Balducci, Patterson and Joey sunk him! They were after a huge take of his money. They sold themselves as the Saviors for Dick. They wanted to be the heavies (no pun intended) to get Dick out of the long hard fought litigation with Wilson, Luckey and eventually, Jones. Rather than intelligent lawyering, they stooped to bribing judges and took down their client! FOOLS!!!
tdg…I don’t disagree BUT “Get the hell out of my office” would have been much better that what I heard on the that tape from Dickie’s mouth!!
No excuses!!!
Tim, You’re correct. “I’ll take care of it” was the wrong answer and that ends the analysis. The book also chronicles a meeting in Birmingham with PL Blake where Scruggs agreed to handle the original $40k. This meeting didn’t surface prior to the plea because it wasn’t recorded. Game over for the elder Scruggs as a result of those two facts, although it’s not clear how the second one would have been proved at trial unless Dick or PL testified.
Speaking of throwing you out of my office, what if Lackey had done that? “I hope I’m not hearing what I think I’m hearing, Bal-dooch bag. Get out, and don’t come back!” But as the book makes clear, Lackey saw Scruggs as a monster (Lackey’s word) even though he had never met him and it was a stretch to connect him to the Balducci overture. And it was a stretch to make the Balducci visit an overture to much of anything other than a good old boy request for some “hep” as they say in NE Miss. Balducci had been buddies with Lackey and was too dumb to see that when he mentioned helping Scruggs he tripped a wire. Two weeks later Lackey calls the Feds. And we’re off.
NMC, I’m interested in the public record regarding Farese/Langston. That’s a part of this I still can’t get my head around and the book does not provide an answer. Why would Farese betray Zach to handle Farese’s defense to Zach’s detriment when Zach was ready to go trial and Farese had the chance to win a huge case (or at least make a huge fee)?
Can you elaborate on the public record comment you made yesterday?
dd511dd…I don’t believe anyone started out to bribe Judge Lackey. Balducci was hired to influence ala Ed Peters (which I still maintain is more insidious than the bribe) via his friendship with Lackey. Balducci made his overture about the “of counsel” in the same conversation about Jones v. Scruggs. Lackey was concerned about the implication…but didn’t want to imply something that wasn’t intended. I won’t repeat the rest we all know where it went from there.
Clearly Lackey should have rebuked Balducci’s attempt to talk to him about Jones v. Scruggs. If he had done so we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion now. That was his mistake and I think he knows that, but if he hadn’t I’m afraid of what would have been continuing undetected. Because of Lackey’s honesty we discovered some very dangerous and serious problems in our profession.
Balducci made his overture about the “of counsel” in the same conversation about Jones v. Scruggs. Lackey was concerned about the implication
In the real world, that is a bribe. Please, please everyone, tell me you would never DREAM of telling a judge who’s adjudicating your case, “hey, maybe after you step down you could collect some cash from appearing on our letterhead.”
I’m with Tim on this. Scruggs and company set out to influence Judge Lackey, ex parte, because that was how they had been doing things for years. You don’t have to stop at Wilson v. Scruggs; it goes all the way back to the early asbestos days in Pascagoula.
Tim, You have hit the nail on the head: problems in the profession. Truth is that prosecutors and (to a lesser degree) public defenders in the state court system have talked informally with judges about their cases for eons. It doesn’t always stop there as some of these lawyers have civil cases before those judges at some point. Generally the influencing is much more subtle than Balducci’s run at Lackey. But I ask, did this former public defender do this in a vacuum? Was it the first time he had ever had an informal conversation with this judge or some other judge about a pending case? What made him think he could do this in the first place.
Lawyers and judges have to shut down the informal communications about all cases and let the cases be decided based on the formal presentations. And they should not tolerate any deviation, however slight. And that should apply to prosecutors as well as lawyers handling civil cases.
And judges should recuse themselves whenever they have any objective reason to question their own impartiality. Period.
I’m with Anderson’s last remark, and throw this in: Please, everyone, tell me you don’t send a secret off-the-record lawyer emissary to the judge who’s adjudicating your case…. etc. (It is absolutely clear that the Scruggs folks chose to do exactly that).
One of their problems with presenting Balducci as a free-lancing goofball is that they consciously chose to send him on what they ought to have known is a delicate mission. Another problem is at the back-end, where Scruggs did on purpose both pick up the tab for the bribery and agree to up the ante (on tape). Another, as I keep saying, is what they did in the Wilson case.
Scruggs’ enemies were implacable, but only because he refused to pay them the money he clearly owed.
I just finished the book. Not really any bombshells. It did little to change my opinion as to the guilt of the primary players. It also reinforced Zach’s image as a spoiled, petulant child, and at the same time reinforced my doubt as to his guilt and the injustice of his sentence.
The only “new” impression Wilkie made on me was this: There were no heroes in this affair–none–on either side.
I’ve read the book.
Something that jumped out at me was the ease with which Balducci made the improper statements to Judge Lackey. In Dick Scruggs sentencing, Judge Biggers talked of the ease with which Scruggs handled the repayment of Balducci etc. He said that it indicated a familarity with the practice of bribing or improper influencing, something along that line.
When I read how Balducci walked into Judge Lackey’s office and started talking about “bodies being buried all over Mississippi” and so forth, I thought the same thing. How was it that he felt like he could so casually make those type of statements to Judge Lackey?
I’m not questioning Judge Lackey’s honesty here but I think he was more influenced by his animosity toward the “Monster” Scruggs, whom he reportedly had never met, than by his honesty. He and Balducci were supposed to be close, by all accounts, and it seems to me that the proper thing would have been for him to confront Balducci about the improper inference or at the most, turn him into the Bar after telling him he was going to.
I think this tragedy has more to do with across the board “envy” of Scruggs than with the “hubris” of Scruggs. I thought this before I read the book and the book confirmed it to me.
Scruggs’ enemies were implacable, but only because he refused to pay them the money he clearly owed.
My creditors are exactly the same way.
I think this tragedy has more to do with across the board “envy” of Scruggs than with the “hubris” of Scruggs.
That seems to be exactly what Scruggs and Wilkie wanted you to believe, so good job to them!
Crowley is right that the book makes it clear that there were no heroes in this story. It does suggest a victim, however, in the younger Scruggs. Spoiled petulant whatever Wilkie says the prosecutors thought of him, he was entitled to be represented zealously by his attorney without any divided loyalties. We all agree the worst mass murderer gets that. I was struck by the book’s suggestion that that rule was violated here. I understand that there has been some motion and/or a bar complaint about this and just wondered what the status of all that was. NMiss, maybe you already have an blog entry covering it?
I do, dd511dd, but the thing you should focus on is about timing, which Wilkie doesn’t emphasize.
Zach was supposedly being represented into January. One day in January, at his attorney’s behest, Zach signed a form waiving his attorney’s representation of Joey Langston. The next day, Langston secretly plead guilty. A detail the book fills in is that the attorney went directly from the negotiations to see Zach; this is no surprise given the accounts of Langston’s plea negotiations that were already public.
Obviously, an attorney has an obligation to make full disclosure when he gets a client to sign something like that. The plea decision by Langston at that time was completely in secret; I can’t believe Zach was told the details when he signed the waiver.
On the other hand, one problem with an argument that Zach had ineffective counsel from this conflict is this: Shortly thereafter, he got counsel with undivided loyalties, who represented him in all of the hearings and in the plea negotiations. From the standpoint of an ineffectiveness claim, he has “cause” but not “prejudice,” I think. In other words, the conflict gives him a claim, but he can’t point to a harm from it that I can see. I may be missing something, but I don’t see an identifiable harm that occurred in that weird period from December to January.
I had heard about a bar complaint about all this through the grapevine. Its existence was publicly confirmed when Zach filed his motion to challenge the conviction; one of the things he included was affidavits that the prosecutors gave in the bar complaint proceeding.
One place where I believe Wilkie’s account and am very sympathetic to Zach is Wilkie’s account of Keker striking a deal with the prosecutors after the mock trials. Dick Scruggs then goes in to tell Zach he’s going to make a deal and it involves Zach pleading too– this is the first Zach heard of such!
Have any of you ever earwhigged a judge, or anyone in a profession that has power over you?
Come on teach, change that grade, I deserve better than that! The teacher responds. No! Get out you fool! (I know this is a stretch.) Lackey should have done the same, in my opinion. This has never happened before? It may be happening now. Is this a rare occurrence? Absolutely, no “benefit of the doubt,” in the justice system. Wilkie was getting out the word that really is “nothing as it seems.”
Damn, I’ve blown my cover. He has empathized with this charismatic man as you can see. I’ve passed Dicks office many times on the square, and his head was up and confidence and greeted me with a smile as he passed me. He might have been high. Na, the older generation tends to be friendlier in my experience.
dd511dd, this is hearsay, but I’ve heard that Farese and Langston were very close. Farese also may be very cozy with the prosecution. Robert Whitwell was a former Northern District US attorney. He is partners with the Farese’s. This evidences to supports the Farese conspiracy of trading off clients and working for the “conservative” attorney’s office. I could gossip about this, but I’ll just shut up. I knew this before by reading Zach’s 2255 and the affidavits of the prosecution and Langston. Wilkie just reinforces my beliefs; however, Zach being spoiled doesn’t have anything to do with his guilt. Period. Don’t know him and I’m very poor. I don’t care how much money they have. I love my life the way it is. We should not discriminate either way. We should drop the “eat the rich” mentality that is so prevalent in this area. It’s not about his character, but the crime he committed. Don’t know Zach but the 5-3-1 plea made me nauseous.
These “thugs” or “good ole boys” didn’t murder, rape, or molest. This case has hit a “discriminatory nerve” that has polarized both sides: the “lynchers” and the “get out of jail free card” holders. Dick Scruggs was made and example of. It sucks for him. I don’t think Dick Scruggs is a “monster” as Lackey describes. He was a victim of the “Rove Republican Racket,” some might say and some might say he had it coming. I don’t think this story is over with. I will be surprised if justice comes for Zach. You’ll have to prove it to the judge. Bigger’s despises the Scrugg’s. Did anyone get that picture. Was that true? Wait a minute; that sounds “Pro-Scruggs” to me. Dick’s whole life was a “crime in progress” and that 404(b) did him in. Oh no, the Fiorcet is wearing off. As Wilkie describes, the bottleneck which is in Mississippi, and he also implies our refusal to except the context of which events occur and to understand how such a successful person could have made bad choices. Anyone ever played “King of the Hill.” It is hard to stay on top to long.
According to Zach, Screech Powers was preparing to testify against Zach, you know the whole napkin fiasco. This set the tone of Zach’s case from then on, as Zach was basiclly bluffed by the gov’t or who knows who is what he claims. I’m sure someone is looking into it. (:
enjoy your site…
Thanks NMiss, agree that the scene where Zach is told of 5-3-1 is powerful.
You may have a point about whether he was ultimately harmed but I’m thinking that when the Langston deal broke it broke against all the Scruggs defendants without regard to relative culpability. And when your own lawyer is an architect of the Langston deal, how do you recover from that.
Guess we’ve run this thread out as far as it can go but I don’t see Judge Biggers giving young Scruggs any relief. It seems to me that the only way his filings could get a hearing is if Biggers said, I’m too far into this, expressed my views at plea and sentencing and I’ll recuse and let someone else look at it . . . the exchange with Moore was very heated . . .
Anyway, thanks, NMiss for hosting this interesting forum. Seems like it’s been years since we all started talking about this. Oh, I suppose it has.
One thing that stood out in my mind re Zack’s motion was the evidence that the government misrepresented it’s 404b evidence. When Zack lost that motion, he decided to plea. Regarding the harm element from the conflict, the fact that Farese is negotiating a deal for an adverse defendant, while burdened with conflicting loyalties is troubling. When an attorney is making decisions re discussions with the gov. while under a conflict, I wonder how much specific harm must be shown.
Gee, was Dickie hopped-up on medication way back during the Tobacco trials? That’s when the bribery started; that’s when he lost his humility; that’s when he started refusing to pay his debts and felt he could control everything and everybody! Some parts of the book are more fiction than fact.
Broke down and bought “THE” book, yesterday….ugh not sure I have the fortitude to read about this mess all over again but here it goes.
I was hoping we would hear about the discussion at the Overby Center. Did anyone go and participate?