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.


Jerry Mitchell reports on a hearing on the state court Wilson v. Scruggs

The Wilson v. Scruggs cases have always been a multiple front war.  Pieces of the litigation have been in more than one federal court district and in state court in Hinds County.  This is the case in which Scruggs and Joey Langston have entered guilty pleas to bribing Judge DeLaughter, and about which DeLaughter […]

Some notes on Judge DeLaughter’s reply on his motion to to dismiss

The Defense motion to dismiss the indictment had what I described as clever arguments, but I thought went off the cliff trying to argue that no one would attach any value to a call from a United States Senator that they were being considered for a position on the federal bench. Thus, the argument […]

Judge DeLaughter also replied in support of his motions to dismiss

In addition to the pleadings just noted, last night Judge DeLaughter filed a reply on his motions to dismiss the mail fraud and the bribery counts of the indictment.  I don’t have time to comment on that one right now (it’s more complex than the other two) and will try to get to it […]

Judge DeLaughter asks (with Government agreement) to put off his motion about the grand jury…

Judge DeLaughter has asked to put off his reply on the motion about inspection of the grand jury minutes.  The motion notes that the Government has agreed to this, and that counsel are all going to meet in late April and may resolve some part of this.

The motion states:  “In light of certain […]

Judge DeLaughter’s (relatively persuasive) last word on a hearing about coconspirator statements

The DeLaughter reply on the co-conspirator statements issue is pretty convincing to me.  The original motion and my comments on it can be found here.

This motion is about making the Government prove pretrial the existence of a conspiracy in which Judge DeLaughter participated so that co-conspirator statements come in.

DeLaughter’s reply argues that […]

In another motion response, the Government previews that it will be bringing up other cases involving DeLaughter and Peters

One of Judge DeLaughter’s motions asked to dismiss the bribery count of the indictment (count one) for failing to allege a crime.   I wrote about the motion here.  As I stated, the motion notes that the indictment does not allege DeLaughter knew that Peters was getting $1M from the conspiracy and therefore does not […]

Judge DeLaughter declines to talk about Eaton, while Ed Peters hides.

There was a closed hearing in the Eaton Corp. v. Frisby case yesterday in Jackson at which both Judge DeLaughter and Ed Peters were sought to testify.  This was one of the cases before DeLaughter where Peters was working off the record for one side; the defendant Frisby has filed motions to set aside […]

Judge DeLaughter’s Motion Barrage, Part Four: a bill of particulars, and make time for motions

This post is about 2 of the remaining 4 motions filed yesterday I’ve not yet discussed.

Judge DeLaughter filed a motion for a bill of particulars– it’s here — that complements his motions to dismiss.  He is saying in effect “make the Government tell me what this stuff in the indictment means:”

What is […]

Judge DeLaughter’s Motion Barrage, Part Three: What’s in the mail fraud motion

I previously wrote a long post about what I saw as the mail fraud issues present in the DeLaughter indictment.  One side (the defense side, obviously) of a lot of the issues I thought present are raised in the motions Judge DeLaughter’s lawyers filed yesterday.  You might want to read that post to get […]

Judge DeLaughter’s motion barrage, part one: There is no quid pro quo

Tonight, while I was eating at the Mayflower and driving back from Jackson, Judge DeLaughter’s lawyers unleashed their first fusillade of motions.  I’ll post some thoughts tonight and more tomorrow.

The first motion Judge DeLaughter filed raises an issue near and dear to me:  That Count One fails because it omits “the required exchange […]