Wyatt Emmerich: Possible scenarios in the Scruggs case
Posted: 12/17/07 - 11:25:32 am CST
Dickie Scruggs’ indictment is a real head scratcher. How could a smart man who has reportedly made a billion dollars in legal fees risk it all trying to bribe a local judge over a few measly millions?
If Scruggs is indeed worth a billion, as some experts conjecture, then the legal fee dispute involved no more than a few week’s interest on his billion.
How could Scruggs risk his jet, his yacht, his influence and his lifestyle for a small cell in a federal prison? It just doesn’t add up.
The most common explanation is hubris. You may need to look that word up in a dictionary, but it’s a great word. The word is perfect for describing the process by which arrogance and overconfidence lead to catastrophic mistakes in judgment.
Another explanation is greed. Scruggs has battled fellow lawyers over fees before.
A third explanation is corruption. The argument is that Scruggs made his way to the top of the lawsuit business because he had the audacity to bribe judges. According to this theory, he’s been doing it so long it was second nature. Scruggs’ connection to the Paul Minor bribery case indicates he’s not new to using money to influence judges.
Politics on the coast, influenced by New Orleans, has always had the reputation of being seamier than in the northeastern hill country. Maybe Scruggs was just a fish out of water having moved north from the wide-open coast.
Further adding to the weirdness is that the alleged bribe was to get the judge to send the fee dispute to arbitration. Scruggs’ opponents had tried on several cases to force Scruggs to arbitrate. Why would Scruggs bribe a judge to get a decision that his opponents had been wanting all along? (One theory here is that Scruggs belatedly realized it would be easier to bribe a low-level arbitration attorney than an appellate judge.)
Another explanation could be that Scruggs is innocent and that Tim Balducci was acting on his own without Scruggs’ knowledge. Once Balducci was caught, he decided to implicate Scruggs in order to save his own bacon.
This is a real problem with white collar criminal prosecutions. The bad guy, who has already proven his dishonesty, points a finger at his boss in exchange for a lesser sentence. It becomes a “he said, she said” deal in which the accuser has already established a lack of integrity or honesty.
If Balducci would try to bribe a judge, why wouldn’t he lie about Scruggs to get a lesser sentence?
The prosecution of Bernie Ebbers was a classic case of this, relying primarily on the accusations of his subordinate Scott Sullivan.
Sullivan, perhaps the mastermind of the Worldcom chicanery, got off light after delivering Ebbers’ head on a platter to the feds. Could this be the fate of Scruggs?
If Balducci was caught red-handed, and if he is the type of person who would bribe a judge, why wouldn’t he cut a deal with the feds? Balducci is a nobody. Nailing Scruggs could make a federal prosector’s career.
This is a slimy set of motivations and incentives all around.I have read the Scruggs indictment and I believe the case is weaker than many people may think. I say this because all the wired recordings referenced by the indictment involve Balducci. There is nothing concrete on Scruggs.
As an example, item 13 of the indictment states, “On September 27, 2007, Timothy R. Balducci and Steve A. Patterson had a telephone conversation wherein Balducci told Patterson, ‘All is done, all is handled, and all is well.’ ”
Now they may well have been talking about a bribe. But they could have just as well been talking about the completion of a legal brief.
The real link between Dick Scruggs and Balducci is the money. Scruggs conveyed the money to Balducci for “jury consulting” services. The indictment argues that this was a fraudulent means of disguising the bribe. Maybe so. But how are the feds going to prove that Scruggs knew the money was going to the judge?
It’s like when a company hires a lobbyist to influence legislation. The company assumes the lobbyist will act within the law. Can you hold the company responsible if the lobbyist offers a legislator a bribe?
I predict this will be similar to the Paul Minor case, which resulted in a hung jury the first time around, before the feds succeeded a second time. If the evidence on Scruggs is circumstantial, it is very possible that at least one juror will refuse to convict, resulting in a hung jury.
Here’s a frightening possibility: If Scruggs really is a master at bribing judges and jurors, imagine how hard he will work on the trial of his life. If Scruggs has bribed judges at will, how hard will it be for him to bribe one juror out of 12?
Scruggs’ real threat is the complete intolerance of Mississippians toward anything that even hints at judicial corruption. A corrupt cop is much worse than a corrupt crook.
Scruggs’ governmental role and legal prominence means the average citizen will hold him to a very high standard. If that’s the case, circumstantial evidence will be sufficient. Jurors may decide that protecting the integrity of our courts is worth the possibility of sending an innocent man to jail. Guilt by association may prove to be enough.
Certainly that was the case with Bernie Ebbers, who was convicted by a deeply divided jury. You could also argue that Paul Minor was guilty of nothing more than a misdemeanor campaign finance violation.
Great power requires great responsibility. The high and mighty are held to a high and mighty standard.
|
Let us know what you think about this story or topic.
|
Your comment may not
immediately appear on this Web site. We appreciate your patience.
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
