Comments on: Notes about Minor’s argument about what was missing from the instructions

By: peregrine

peregrine — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:32:10 +0000

Do you think that the ruling by the Supreme Court in June 2009 requiring Judges to excuse themselves from cases assigned to their court(W Va.) whenever one of the attorney’s involved has made large contributions to their campaigns, have any bearing on this case? Didn’t one of the judges in the Minor case remark that Miss. legal administration would not allow any judge to excuse himself in any case assigned to his court?

By: Madison

Madison — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:49:09 +0000

I agree with Tim in that the Fifth Circuit will find a way to affirm. However, in light of the new microscope the Justice Department is under I think it make for an interesting discussion. This is in regards to the fact that Holder is facing calls to overhaul the public integrity section of the Justice Department. A former federal prosecutor,Joseph diGenova, was recently quoted as saying that the actions of the prosecutors in Ted Stevens trial were “in essence, a framing of a senator. That doesn’t mean he’s pure as the driven snow, but they were going to convict him no matter what.” (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BLLF81.html) Therefore, could the change in the jury instructions be seen in the same light. Could changing the instructions be a way to convict Paul “no matter what”?

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:52:11 +0000

Agree with AFOTL also, although RazorRedux, just so its accurate I don’t think he was “guaranteeing the house mortgage”. He guaranteed the loan and Whitfield used it to buy a house no mortgage involved I don’t think. A difference without a difference of course but accurate.

Bottom line, there is no way that what Minor, Whitfield and Teel did was ethical without disclosure and serious issue of recusal no question about that. Seems Jury Instruction has a problem to me having read the brief. Why the change from 1st Trial to the 2nd. Also the Judge made substantial changes in evidentiary rulings that were consistent with the “new” jury instruction.

The Fifth Circuit will find a way to affirm i. e. the jury was adequately instructed by ALL the jury instructions given, etc. etc.

By: RazorRedux

RazorRedux — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:05:54 +0000

I agree with AFOTL’s above assessment, especially the “…absolutely crucial to maintaining public confidence in our legal system…” only taking exception of the last part: privately would suffice.

There is NO way that guaranteeing the house mortgage can possibly be construed as a “campaign donation.” My 14 yo knows better than that cuz he said so.

By: a friend of the law

a friend of the law — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:20:48 +0000

He made the gifts and loans and kept them secret from those who could be affected. He went to great lengths to hide the truth. He received favorable rulings from those who received the gifts/loans.

IF the conviction gets overturned, then there is NO DOUBT that our MS laws need to be changed ASAP to make this scenario ILLEGAL –no prid quo pro should be necessary. These type of practices have NO PLACE in our legal system — NONE. The appearance of propriety is absolutely crucial to maintaining public confidence in our legal system. This type of bullshit engaged in by Minor and these Judges destroys any such confidence and severely hurts our profession and legal system.

IMO, he should be publicly flogged.

By: Curly

Curly — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:51:09 +0000

Tom, I was responding to Anderson’s first post above, regarding potential to convict without intent.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:32:09 +0000

“the efforts Minor made to launder the loans and cover them up, which went beyond mere nondisclosure”

FWIW, a friend who’s been in cases w/ Minor (on the other side) suspects that Minor is the kind of person who’s just too clever for his own good — in this instance, so clever that he takes an otherwise legal (if shady) occurrence and decides he’s so clever, he’s going to razzle-dazzle and cover it up.

Of course, that’s a jury issue. And probably not an argument his counsel would be likely to make.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:44:35 +0000

All good points, I have always said if Paul had not gone to such great extent to cover up after the fact, he would have had a ethical problem but no crime. Afterall he guaranteed the loans, and he had to fulfill his contract (personal guarantee) to the bank. Regardless all three had a duty to disclose to opposing counsel the existence of a monetary relationship between them.

As to being friends with a Judge in our small communities we are all “friends” with the Judges, heck we been practicing law with them for many years before they were elected judges. Sometimes they rule against me and sometimes for me, I may disagree with them, but I expect no more no less, than simply a fair consideration. I don’t believe a Judge should recuse himself simply bec he may be friends with one or both sides’ counsel, which is usually the case. If that’s the rule then none of the Judges would be able to hear our cases, we would always have to appoint from outside our communities. Its a difficult issue, but it truly depends on the honesty of all sides, Judges and Lawyers, alike.

By: Mikey's mom

Mikey's mom — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:08:05 +0000

Does anyone believe that if Teel and or Whitfield were just some guys on the street or just some good ole friends of Minor’s that Minor would be guaranteeing the loans then funneling money around to make it look like he wasn’t repaying the loans when he in fact was? The loans made the judgeships of these two possible in that without the loans presumably the candidates could not have become judges in the first place. The judges should have recused but could not out of fear that Minor would quit paying. Wouldn’t the same fear exist if the judges dared to rule against Minor?

By: Alan from YallPolitics

Alan from YallPolitics — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:06:34 +0000

That’s about what I’d figure you’d say, and I agree. But here’s the deal. Minor and his paid PR machine are trying to make this about Karl Rove and jury instructions and they’ve done a pretty good job of it. No one else, it seems, is going through the analysis of how wrong the stuff he did (that’s really not in dispute) was.

For Minor to go to the lengths that he did to hide is actions shows everyone how guilty he thought he was.

I’m all about fair trials. I am all about the system working like it’s supposed to. But this guy manipulated judges with money (same as Scruggs), and that’s my bottom line. So, selective prosecution, my ass.