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.


Bobby DeLaughter: “I didn’t do nearly everything that they thought I did.”

Megan West at WAPT TV in Jackson got an interesting interview with Bobby Delaughter, apparently on the occasion of his Amazon-only new novel.

“I said then, and will always say it because it’s the truth, I didn’t do nearly everything that they thought I did. But I was stupid. I admit that,” DeLaughter told […]

More Evidence of Eaton Perfidy Emerges

Judge Weill has entered an opinion of over 120 pages outlining discovery that should have been provided by Eaton to Frisby and was not.  Phillip Thomas picked up  on a report by Allison Grant of the Cleveland Plain Dealer about the opinion and has posted more than once about it.

In the opinion, Judge […]

If you’ve followed Eaton v. Frisby, I’m guessing you can guess who wanted to hire Ed Peters

Phillip Thomas has an informative post about Eaton v. Frisby.  Before reading it, here’s some chronology that will set one piece of news in context.

Recall the timing:

1) Mike Allred, a lawyer for Eaton Corp., agrees to pay a witness for testimony in Eaton’s case against Frisby Copr.  Allred and whoever else knew […]

Government Dismisses Charges in Eaton v. Frisby criminal case

In a dramatic development, the Southern District U.S. Attorney’s office moved yesterday to dismiss all criminal charges arising out of the Eaton v. Frisby case.  The Government moved to dismiss with prejudice, which the court did, and which means the criminal case is ended and will never be pursued again.

The motion and order […]

A summary of the posts about the Scruggs II hearing last week

I’ve made a number of posts about last weeks hearing in Scruggs II, involving Dick Scruggs’s effort to set aside his guilty plea for corruptly influencing Bobby DeLaughter.  The issue in the hearing was whether Scruggs could prove that he was innocent of the charge of bribing the judge.

One major post was a summary […]

12-21-07: DeLaughter comes clean(er) with the FBI

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.  You also probably should read about DeLaughter’s first FBI interview.

DeLaughter’s second FBI interview memo closes with passages that makes me wonder, again, why this was placed in evidence by the Scruggs team:

At the time, DELAUGHTER did not think that PETERS’ and LANGSTON’s help […]

12-10-07: Bobby DeLaughter misleads the FBI but then thinks better of it

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.

Two FBI interview memos from Bobby DeLaughter were placed in evidence in the hearing.  With DeLaughter not testifying, it is not clear to me the evidentiary import of these documents.  Whatever that may be, there are some statements in the second one that […]

12-11-07: Ed Peters doesn’t come clean with the FBI

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.

On December 11, the day after the FBI had raided Langston’s law office and visited Bobby DeLaughter, they dropped by Ed Paters’s office for a visit.  He didn’t have a lawyer, but decided to talk anyway.

In his interview, Peters “stated he represented STEVE PATTERSON […]

Scruggs I and II erupt: Some notes on the November 2007-January 2008

During the trial this week, three FBI interview memos surfaced for the first time:  2 interviews with Bobby DeLaughter and an interview with Ed Peters.  All of them occurred in mid-December of 2007.  To fully appreciate the context of these interviews, a timeline of events in late November of 2007 through early January of […]

What Ed Peters said about the judicial appointment in the grand jury

In the hearing this week in Scruggs II, Ed Peters’s grand  jury testimony and one of his four FBI interview statements were placed in evidence in lieu of his testimony. [1]. The interview memo is from an interview of 12/11/07, the day before DeLaughter’s first interview with the F.B.I. and , and would be Peters’s first statement to them.[2] I’ll post later about what I see in that one.

I did an earlier post about the grand jury testimony (and the 9/9/08 FBI interview notes) that summarized them.  While the 9/9/08 interview has lots to say about the judicial appointment,[3]. it’s not in evidence in the hearing this week, and so I won’t focus on in here other than in the footnote.   This post focuses on what’s in evidence  from the grand jury testimony, particularly on the judicial appointment issue.

You learn several things from the grand jury testimony (which was on October 21, 2008).

  • Peters remembers the judicial position coming up in the first meeting with Paterson and Langston.  While he remembers them saying there was no linkage with the help on the case, he made clear that, in his mind, help with a judicial position was one of the reasons that DeLaughter was influenced.
  • Peters remembers DeLaughter saying “you won’t believe this” when he called to tell Peters about the call from Trent Lott.  It sounds like he was both surprised and pleased.

The real argument in the hearing was whether DeLaughter got something, the other end of the exchange.  Scruggs made two arguments:  That the help on the judicial appointment and the help on the case weren’t linked, and that the help on the judicial appointment didn’t mean anything.

Peters says he told Scruggs’s team about DeLaughter’s ambition to be a judge.  He believes he told Patterson.  They gave him the impression they would help on the judicial appointment.

Continue reading What Ed Peters said about the judicial appointment in the grand jury