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.


The Fifth Circuit holds that Scruggs’s guilt of bribing DeLaughter was “overwhelmingly establishe[d]”

We agree with the district court in concluding that the record overwhelmingly establishes the existence of a corrupt bribery agreement between Scruggs and DeLaughter.

Fifth Circuit opinion in United States v. Scruggs

An interesting thing about the post-conviction efforts by Zach Scruggs to set aside his plea in Scruggs I and his father in […]

Scruggs and the Government file their briefs….

The court asked for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Yesterday, the Government filed an eight page brief, and the Scruggs side filed a forty pages proposed findings.  There’s a “don’t think about the elephant” quality to the Scruggs proposed findings.  The elephant is the testimony from Peters, Paterson, Langston, and Balducci […]

Paul Minor (but not the US) moves for rehearing in Fifth Circuit

Last week, the deadline arrived for rehearing petitions in the Paul Minor case.  There had been two extensions of the deadline, one agreed by all parties that bumped it past the first of the year, and a second because of the blizzard in Washington– the Solicitor General had to pass on any en banc […]

F.B.I. is investigating whether bribery attempts occurred with the Oxford Aldermen

Melanie Addington, in an Oxford Eagle story headlined “FBI investigating bribery claims,” writes:

The FBI is investigating whether bribery attempts were made toward three members of the Oxford Board of Aldermen to influence them to vote in favor of extending bar hours, according to one member of the board.

“In talking with the mayor […]

Government says Judge DeLaughter should not be allowed to prove he ruled correctly in Wilson v. Scruggs

The Government has filed an interesting and deceptively simple motion in limine today (for non-lawyers, that’s a motion asking the court to rule before the trial starts that certain facts won’t be allowed into evidence).

The Government is arguing that Judge DeLaughter should not be allowed to prove that his decisions in Wilson v. […]

Judge Davidson rejects Delaughter’s motions to dismiss the mail fraud and bribery charges

Update: adding Judge Davidson’s opinions.

Early in his opinion denying DeLaughter’s motion to dismiss the mail fraud count, Judge Davidson strongly signals how much he’s not buying arguments that diminish the seriousness of what’s at issue:

DeLaughter, in the introduction to his motion, diminishes the charges against him.  According to DeLaughter, the Government seeks […]

Judge DeLaughter visits Oxford, and some thoughts on that final count in the indictment

Judge DeLaughter’s lawyer is in town to meet with the prosecutors (a trip he mentioned in his request to delay a reply on the grand jury motion, where he suggested that some of the issues could possibly be resolved and stated “On April 14, 2009, undersigned counsel Durkin had a telephone conversation with AUSA […]