Comments on: The Fifth Circuit overturns all federal program bribery convictions in the Minor case

By: Crispin Garcia

Crispin Garcia — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:02:51 +0000

Kingfish @ 11:29 am:

Yes, potentially statute of limitations for some offenses.

By: zen master

zen master — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:00:55 +0000

May I just point out that the decision was made by the Bush Justice Department to pursue the prosecutions of Minor, Diaz, and Scruggs through the federal system, and none of you had any objections at the time? If you’re unhappy now, you should take it up with the U.S. Attorney’s office.

By: DeltaLawMama

DeltaLawMama — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:56:36 +0000

Paraphrasing Ben, Forget it CHMBA (Jake), it’s Miss’ssippi (Chinatown.)

By: NoMiss

NoMiss — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:19:16 +0000

Question: “So is there anything stopping Hood from prosecuting Minor for the bribery stated in the Court’s opinion?”

Answer: Yes, that’s part of his “family.”

By: Kingfish

Kingfish — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:29:06 +0000

So is there anything stopping Hood from prosecuting Minor for the bribery stated in the Court’s opinion?

By: NMC

NMC — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:04:21 +0000

I completely agree with the first two sentences of your comment, chmba

By: bellesouth

bellesouth — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:03:53 +0000

Our attorney general does not have access to wiretaps thanks to the legislature.

By: stephanie

stephanie — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:10:07 +0000

Upon further analysis as to how this case affects Scruggs:

(1) Scruggs was a 6 count indictment. Count 1 was a conspiracy to violate 666 and the honest services wire fraud statute;

(2) counts 2, 3 and 4 were substantive 666 charges;

(3) counts 5 and 6 were honest services fraud charges based on interstate (?) use of the wires (2 emails from Oxford to New Albany)

So- 1/2 of Count 1 is not a federal crime;
Count 2 is not a federal crime;
Count 3 is not a federal crime;
Count 4 is not a federal crime

Counts 5 and 6 are honest services fraud counts based on the use of wire (emails) in interstate commerce

It appears very likely that the US Supreme Court is going to rule that the honest services fraud statute is unconstitutional (oral arguments held on Tues)- if so, that means that the entire Scruggs case is no federal crime;

In addition, even if the Supremes uphold the honest services statute the viability of the honest service fraud counts in Scruggs is hinged on whehter a intrastate email (from oxford to new albany) was sent in interstate commerce. Maybe that email was routed from Oxford, then out of state, then back to new albany, but maybe not- Either way, a fair assessment of this jurisdictional element is that to base a federal prosecution on interstate commerce- when the email was an intrastate email from oxford to new albany- really shows a reach by the prosecutors

Bottom line- VERY good chance the entire Scruggs case ends up being NO FEDERAL CRIME

Regardless of which side you were “rooting” for in this case (and some really believe this was a political prosecution) the irony of this is of monumental proportions

By: chmba

chmba — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:50:20 +0000

What all of this emphasizes is that prosecutors and the attorney general of Mississippi have consistently and egregiously failed to pursue judicial bribery as a crime. These arguements would all be moot if ANY of these bribery cases had been prosecuted on a local or state basis. Hinds county and coast courts have been a sordid cesspool of misbehavior for decades and this state is still unwilling to do anything about it.