I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.


Ed Peters grand jury testimony and FBI interview released in Scruggs motion to clarify

Dickie Scruggs’s team has filed a “Motion to Clarify,” essentially asserting that, at the plea in Scruggs II, prosecutor Bob Norman said:

Peters would testify that he believed if DeLaughter would help Scruggs, Scruggs would help DeLaughter obtain the judgeship he wanted so badly. Peters would testify that he believed DeLaughter understood that agreement.

They ask in their motion for “clarification of the record… to clarify that Ed Peters never stated that then-Judge DeLaughter knew of an agreement to exchange favors or any other thing or property with Petitioner or his agents.”

This is sort of confusing, but, regardless, in support of their motion the produce some very interesting evidence:  One of Ed Peters’s (several) FBI 302s, a statement of an interview transcribed in September of 2008.  This is one of several 302s involving Peters, and it is the meatiest document about Peters yet to emerge. It talks about Peters’ involvement in the Jeffery Middleton manslaughter case, Eaton v. Frisby, and Wilson v. Scruggs.  It talks at some length (more so than the grand jury testimony) about the effort to dangle the possibility of a position on the federal bench before Judge DeLaughter.

Also included in the documents is Ed Peters’s grand jury testimony from October of 2008, in which he makes clear that he is upset at testifying against DeLaughter.

These documents far from exculpate Peters, Delaughter, Patterson, Langston and Scruggs.  How they will be used is in an attempt to argue that, ultimately, there was no quid pro quo— that the DeLaughter didn’t know what, if anything, Peters was being paid.  It is going to be a lot harder to argue that there wasn’t a connection between the talk about a judicial position and Peters’s role in the case based on what I see in the interview, particularly, and also the transcript.  More about all this later.

Here’s the Motion to Clarify,  Peters grand jury testimony, and Peters September 8 302.

Comments are closed.