Judicial candidates shouldn't brag about harsh sentences when seeking office

Click to enlarge

    I recently visited the Jackson Jambalaya website, which is always full of great news, and saw the ad at right for Marlin "Marty" Miller, a candidate for 20th District circuit judge in Madison and Rankin Counties.
    All I can say is that Miller, who is currently a prosecutor, would not have my vote.
    Cannon 5, Section 3, Subsection d of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judicial candidates shall not:

i) make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office;
(ii) make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court;

    Now, to be certain, Miller's ad is not promising that he will as judge impose maximum sentences as a judge. But he is clearly trumpeting the fact that he obtained these lengthy sentences as a prosecutor, and the clear inference is that he will impose these types of sentences as a circuit judge. And for that reason the ad is, in my opinion, unethical.
    I confess that I'm glad that Miller helped put those criminals away for quite a while. They are scary looking guys. I just don't think it ethical to run for circuit judge on a platform of having obtained harsh sentences as a prosecutor. I would rather see a prosecutor run on a platform of being firm but fair, and see him brag about how few of his cases had been overturned on appeal. But that's just me; other people may disagree.
    A major problem with our criminal justice system is that we have far too many judges who go straight from the prosecutor's office to the bench. Many become fair arbiters overnight, but others never set aside their prosecutorial bias. I don't think a law banning anyone from being appointed or elected judge within two years of serving in a prosecutor's office would be unreasonable.
    I don't know Miller and have no axe to grind with him, but if Miller were to be elected and I were to be a poor defendant in his courtroom, based on his advertisement I really don't feel like I would get a fair trial. And that's not healthy for our judicial system.

Company wants DeLaughter rulings examined

DeLaughter subject of new legal wrangling reports the NE Mississippi Daily Journal.

JACKSON - Attorneys representing a North Carolina aerospace company that is being sued in circuit court of Hinds County want the rulings in the case to be examined because of the ongoing judicial bribery investigation surrounding Judge Bobby DeLaughter.

The case - Eaton Corp. vs. Jeffrey Frisby el al - was being heard by DeLaughter.

Former Booneville attorney Joey Langston pleaded guilty Jan. 7 in federal court in Oxford to offering DeLaughter a bribe through former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters in another case.

In motions filed in Hinds County, the attorneys representing Frisby said it has come to their attention through what appeared to be accidental e-mails that Peters was working on behalf of Eaton in the case.DeLaughter was a prosecutor for Peters when he was district attorney.

In Langston's plea agreement, he admits he worked with Peters and former state Auditor Steven Patterson to influence DeLaughter to rule favorably in a legal-fees lawsuit. DeLaughter has denied he did anything wrong.The Frisby attorneys also accused Eaton of "illegal compensation to a fact witness" in their case...more...

A bigger mess than this I have never seen. Does anyone doubt that dozens, if not hundreds, of cases involving these clowns currently named and yet unknown in this unfolding scandal are going to have to be reviewed and perhaps reopened? Normally once an appeal deadline passes that's it and the case is over forever, but surely that won't apply where there is evidence of misconduct by a judge and one party to the suit. It will be interesting to see.

Of course, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, and often what looks like criminal behavior is merely horribly unethical. But we'll see.

Chief Justice knew details but not names in bribery case months in advance

From the McComb Enterprise-Journal:

Justice: Court will ‘get to bottom’ of Scruggs case

Long before the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced the indictments of Dickie Scruggs and other attorneys in an alleged attempt to bribe a circuit judge, Mississippi’s chief justice knew about the case.

“I had known about this (case) for many, many months, because it was reported to me in advance without naming the lawyers,” Chief Justice James Smith told McComb Lions on Tuesday. “I knew everything except the lawyers involved.”

Smith went on to say that corruption was a problem for a very small percentage of lawyers and judges in the state "one-tenth of one percent." That's one in one thousand. Well, my guess is that more than one-tenth of one percent of the lawyers in North Mississippi just pled guilty to judicial bribery and this thing hasn't even gotten started good.

But I get the chief justice's point. Most lawyers are honest, but not 99.9 percent.

New York Times takes note of Mississippi Justice system

The Jan. 20 edition of The New York Times had a long feature on the Mississippi justice system and the saga of Dickie Scruggs and friends. Boy is this a mess. Everyone wondered why Trent Lott resigned suddenly from the Senate, but clearly the mess his brother-in-law is in must have weighed heavily on his mind. Here's the link: The Legal Trail in a Delta Drama.

Scruggs's defense may rely on the fact that the judge who was offered a bribe was repeatedly told that the bribe was not from Scruggs and that Scruggs did not know about the offer. Prosecutors apparently failed to inform the judge of this fact when getting an order for a wire tap, a tap which eventually gave them enough evidence to get guilty pleas from former state auditor Steve Patterson, New Albany attorney Tim Balducci and Booneville attorney Joey Langston. If this is indeed the case, then Scruggs may be able to argue that any testimony by Patterson, Balducci or Langston is "fruit of the poison tree" and not admissible in court.

Nobody wants to see anyone get off for any crime on a technicality, but after watching the Duke Lacrosse case from afar last year, I have little use for prosecutors who withhold information from judges in order to get warrants and wiretaps. I'm sure Scruggs will be well represented by counsel, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Unfortunately, Mississippi isn't going to look very good.

Meanwhile, in the rumor mill, the FBI supposedly sent out at least 51 "target" letters to Mississippi attorneys and perhaps judges last week, informing them that they are a target of investigation. I've heard numbers as high as 100, but 51 is the number that keeps cropping up, so I suspect that number is correct. Also, we need to remember that Dickie Scruggs and some of these other lawyers got rich representing the state of Mississippi in lawsuits, including the famous tobacco suit. Just how were they picked again? This could get really interesting and really ugly before it's over.