This morning, Bobby DeLaughter submitted his resignation to Governor Barbour as a circuit judge. This afternoon, he entered a guilty plea to obstruction of justice under a plea agreement that (if the judge accepts it) puts him in jail for 18 months and does not require that he cooperate.
The real drama at the guilty plea was over the factual basis the government offered. In it, the government outlined the extensive nature of Peters contact with DeLaughter, and explicitly stated that Peters would testify that DeLaughter understood that Scruggs would help DeLaughter get a position on the federal bench in return for DeLaughter’s rulings in the case. There was also a detailed description of the circumstances of DeLaughter’s FBI interview, when he stated that he’d only talked to Peters about the case twice, on the telephone, and therfore mislead the FBI about dozens of meetings with Peters and their importance to the case. DeLaughter’s lawyer, Tom Durkin, vigorously objected to the parts of the government’s factual basis that described Peters’s corrupt influence of DeLaughter, stating that DeLaughter admitted to the false statement but not to the honest services charges. This continued until Bob Norman responded that “If the defense wants a trial, we will give them a trial.” Judge Davidson cut through the tangle by asking Durkin and his client to admit the essential elements of the obstruction of justice charge, which they did.
DeLaughter plead to obstruction of justice– lying to the FBI– and has a binding plea agreement with an agreed upon sentence of 18 months. Judge Davidson will read the presentence report and make an announcement in open court about whether he accepts the agreement and therefore the setnence.
The court room was relatively full. Roberts Wilson sat inside the bar, and sat where he was as close as a non-participant could place himself to defense table– where DeLaughter could not escape seeing him. Charlie Merkel, Vickie Slater, and others from that case where there, as where Scruggs’s local criminal lawyer, and civil lawyer, Cal Mayo. Tony Farese was there. Representing the government was Bob Norman, Chad Lamar, and the head special agent for the FBI in Mississippi, Fred Brink.
More details about this later…
BS on the no cooperation. DeLaughter didn’t cut a very good deal. He should’ve learned more from his mentor. Promise to tell the feds everything and get a “Get out jail free” card, i.e. “transactional immunity”.
His civil legal problems are not over. And, now, with this stinker of a deal, neither are his criminal legal problems. Would any lawyer here, knowing or thinking that your client has a lot skeletons in his closet, advise him to take such a narrow plea? Wouldn’t you want to get him off the hook from as much as possible, i.e. future criminal charges involving basically the same thing?
IMO, Durkin was here to crusade against the “honest services” charges, and when those disappeared with the plea, he checked out. Too bad Peters wasn’t available for DeLaughter in this case.
Wanted: not arguing with you, just wondering why the deal is a stinker? 18 months does not sound bad.
“I only had a couple of beers, officer.” WTF was Bobby THINKING when he talked to the FBI? To tell them he only talked to Peters TWICE when he knew they’d talked a whole bunch? WTF was going on in his head ???
Tortfeasor, if this was the only questionable case in which DeLaughter was involved, it would be a decent deal. But, I think if DeLaughter had offered complete and total cooperation on any future cases, and many suspicious cases have been discussed on this blog, then he probably could have cut a better deal than Peters did. Although others here have stated that Peters “transactional immunity” applies universally, my understanding of it is that it only applies to the case at hand, and possibly to any new cases that the pleader brings to the feds attention. I doubt that Peters made a complete confession to the feds. DeLaughter, having multiple discussions with Peters about multiple cases (this is my supposition), could have double-crossed Peters and make a complete confession to the feds.
Understand, this is absolute supposition on my part, and not based upon any facts, just rumors and gossip and ruminations.
The bad guys are really good at being bad. The good guys are not very good at being bad. Ultimately, I think DeLaughter is the tragic figure in this mess. But, he has nobody to blame but himself.
Wanted: thanks for that additional analysis. Perhaps the Feds did not offer a deal on other cases because they don’t need DeLaughter’s cooperation. Since the Minor witch hunt, there have been lots of rumors floating around about who may have spilled the beans, then left town. Hmmm…
I am thinking that DeLaughter can offer new information on cases unknown to the feds.
I don’t consider the Minor case to have been a witch hunt, especially as it related to Whitfield. Teel had a case, but not Whitfield. Diaz, on the other hand, was a witch hunt, except for the IRS violations on the (non, mis)reporting of the Minor loans. My understanding is that Diaz recused himself from every case involving Minor. Therefore, there were no “honest services” or bribery cases with Minor and Diaz. But, incorrect reporting of Minor’s “campaign” contributions caused (Ex-Mrs.?) Diaz problems. Teel didn’t let opposing lawyers know that he owed Minor money from legitimate campaign loans. Whitfield didn’t let opposing lawyers know that he owed Minor money that he did not use as campaign loans, i.e. paid off his mistress’ house. And, lied about that in his divorce proceedings to boot. And, Minor used a “straw man” to pay off those loans. Not good. It implies wrongdoing.
On the other hand, there was a big difference between the integrity of the Northern District and the Southern District of MS at that time.
Wonder where it would have went had his honor not intervened in the honest service dispute? Looks like the feds were calling Durkins bluff. Would he have willingly backed down?
What was the evidence that Delaughter talked to Peters about the case? He is stupid for pleading. I would have let them parade felons and jackasses all day long, thru the courtroom, to testify against me. There wasn’t a money trail or wire taps. I’m not saying he wasn’t guilty, but the USA’s office did’t have anything hard to say he was. Federal Prison Camps ain’t so bad, I would have took my chances, at trial.
WTBAL at 7:40:
This was a really great deal. DeLaughter came in last in the Wilson v. Scruggs case, and is only getting 18 months. He was the big target– in any public corruption prosecution, the corrupt public official is the apex of the pyramid, and this wasn’t just a public official, it was a judge.
Compare that to Langston, who (not counting Balducci) was the first to come in, and has to be wondering about his three year sentence and his cooperation.
Durkin plead DeLaughter guilty to an indefensible charge, and got rid of the charges that might have been a fight, but were still in my opinion a long shot. He has to count that a good result for his client.
And if you want to complain that not cooperating is BS? Don’t talk to Durkin. That’s something the other side would have wanted.
Observer: quote for the day.
Roy DeLaughter told the FBI he spoke to Peters about the case slightly over the phone. It seems that Peters would say it was more including meetings which probably left a paper trail or other.
Then the honest service charge. If at trial it came out that dishonest services landed some attorneys lots and lots of money and those attorneys were involved in politics from the top of the state to the little home towns etc, etc, then there might be all kinda good ole boys pulled in and well I’m sure you can figure that one out.
WTBAL:
“Tortfeasor, if this was the only questionable case in which DeLaughter was involved, it would be a decent deal”
About a week after lying to the FBI, DeLaughter had “lawyered up” and came in with Cynthia Speetjens and a polygraph exam (this was revealed in the motions DeLaughter filed) and made a proffer which I have to assume was closer-to-the-mark or we’d have heard about it. I have to assume that she did her job and the point of the proffer was to try to clean up the mess her client had made pre-lawyering. But whatever the judge said in the proffer wasn’t good enough to make him an attractive witness– and– after all, who was he going to deliver? Peters on other cases (how embarrassing for the govmnt)? If Peters was the only contact DeLaughter had with the evil lawyers who hird Peters in these cases, who could DeLaughter have delivered? But it was close enough that the government did hold their fire for a while, which itself I think suggests that Ms. Speetjens got a good result at that point.
And then there’s the apparent absolute fact that no prosecutor in the SD Miss seems to care a hoot about prosecuting this mess– The ND Miss prosecutors have no jurisdiction over most matters that would have appeared before DeLaughter.
WTF was going on in his head ???
Something along the lines of what a good pal Ed Peters was to him, I’d imagine, and how he could always trust Ed.
NMC: I disagree a great deal is one that wraps up everything criminal and civil and doesn’t have your client waiting for the next knock on the door.
This all seems to fit my previously stated theory that these actions of both Peters and Delaughter were, for the most part, a part of a carefully thought out advance plan in the event things went bad.
Delaughter’s deal does not require him to cooperate. It does not require him to admit facts that would prevent him from defending the civil suit. His plea deal, and sentence recommendation of 18 months, if accepted by the Court, is fairly light under the circumstances. He will lose his job and his law license. Clearly, he would not have gotten such a good deal absent Peters’ weak expected trial testimony on the other counts —- too weak to seemingly justify the sweet deal Peters received.
Peters got away much better. Despite being the ringleader of this circus, he pays back a portion of the ill-gotten gains from this one deal (at least what we know about), loses his law license, but serves no jail time. And due to no prosecution, he gets to keep his state retirement. He outfoxed everyone.
Both will likely retire to the fish camps —reunited and retired old friends —likely living off of other, unknown ill gotten gains stored away somewhere —free to engage in other under the radar schemes (does not take a law license or judicial robe to play this game — ask Steve Patterson).
It still just doesn’t “feel” right. Either it was SOP for DeLaughter to operate this way through/with Peters and it wasn’t a big stretch for him to do it in this case OR there is something else, because simply promising to mention one’s name for a Federal Judgeship doesn’t appear, on it’s face, to warrant taking such risks. It would appear that if that was the aspiration, it could have occurred through regular channels without the exposure.
Something is still missing in this whole cabal.
The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects.
Google “Quadri-Track ZCT”
I think the Legal System is in jeopardy if the FBI can ask Lawyers and Judges what they talk about hmmmmmmmmmm