Mississippi Churning, Part XIV

I suspect that many people who followed the Paul Minor case accept that the trial was handled correctly. There are a couple of reasons for that, I think:

* The "Show Me the Money" reason--Many folks hear that an attorney was helping guarantee loans for judges before whom he had cases, and they say, "Hey, that's bribery."

* The "Jury of Their Peers" reason--Americans tend to think of the jury system as sacrosanct. "If a jury of his peers found him guilty of belching after supper, well he must have belched after supper." (Based on my own experience before a jury, I take a more critical view. I don't think it would be terribly difficult for someone in power to manipulate the jury pool or even taint the jury itself. But that's a subject for another day.)

Many Americans might not fully grasp the following notion: A jury is only as sound as the judge it serves. The judge's demeanor, the evidence and testimony he allows, his jury instructions . . . all of that has a profound impact on the verdict a jury renders.

So how did U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate perform in the Paul Minor trial. A charitable view would hold that Wingate's actions were strange, even flaky. A less-charitable view would hold that Wingate, a Republican appointee, took affirmative steps to ensure that the defendants--all with strong connections to the Democratic Party--were found guilty.

Let's examine Wingate's handling of the Paul Minor trial in several key areas:

Expert witnesses
The critical point in the trial came when Wingate ruled that expert witnesses for the defense could not testify. This essentially ensured that Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield could not defend themselves. And Wingate's ruling is not grounded in law--or common sense.

The two key charges against the defendants were federal-funds bribery (18 U.S. Code 666) and honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346). And recall these key points from our previous posts: (1) The loans Minor helped guarantee for the judges were allowed under Mississippi law; (2) Such "things of value" can only become a bribe if they are given corruptly, meaning that a quid pro quo is involved--the thing is given in exchange for influencing the judge's lawful duty; (3) Mail fraud cannot be present unless the public actually is deprived of its right to honest services.

The "things of value" (loan guarantees), in and of themselves, were legal. So the key question became: Were the judges improperly influenced in performing their lawful duty? And the expert witnesses were to testify that the lawsuits at the heart of the government's case were decided correctly, based on the facts and the law.

The defense tried to call two experts, one for each lawsuit that was at the heart of the government's case. One expert, Jim George, was to testify about admiralty law, which was the focus of the Archie Marks case. The other expert, Al Hopkins, was to testify about bad-faith insurance law, the focus of The Peoples Bank case.

Were the experts qualified? You be the judge. According to court documents, George had practiced in the area of admiralty law for about 35 years. As a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, he had certified some 50 admiralty trials to verdict. He had published 41 articles in the area of admiralty law. He had been appointed as an expert in admiralty law by the federal district court in New Orleans. Hopkins was no Johnny-come-lately either. He had been practicing insurance law since 1965. He was a member of the Defense Research Institute and had lectured on insurance-coverage law.

Why did Wingate disallow two experts of such stature? The reasoning he gave in court documents was essentially the same for both. Even though George and Hopkins had an almost combined 80 years of experience in their specialty areas, Wingate found that they used improper methodology.

Regarding The Peoples Bank case, Wingate found that Hopkins' testimony would conflict with the findings of the Mississippi Supreme Court in a related case--even though the Supreme Court ruling in question came well after the time period, and the case, Hopkins was to testify about.

Strangest of all, Wingate found that the testimony of both experts would conflict with Rule 704 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. As a layperson, it's hard to sit here and state that an experienced federal judge is wrong. But that is the only conclusion I can come to on this one.

Rule 704 (b), in layman's terms, holds that an expert witness may not state an opinion as to whether a criminal defendant did or did not have the mental state constituting an element of the crime charged.

Regarding The Peoples Bank case, Hopkins was to testify that Judge Wes Teel's rulings were correct based on the facts and the law. In other words, Hopkins was to perform a legal analysis of the underlying lawsuit. Seems pretty simple, exactly the kind of thing an expert witness is supposed to do. But the government argued that this would involve Hopkins' interpreting Teel's state of mind. Unbelievably, Wingate bought the government's argument. And he gave no explanation, other than to say that Hopkins' testimony would "run afoul of Rule 704(b)."

Wingate's reasoning on George's proposed testimony was even more strange. George was to testify that Judge John Whitfield's rulings in the Archie Marks case were correct based on the law. He also was to note that the Mississippi Supreme Court had upheld Whitfield on 12 of 13 issues raised on appeal. The only difference? The Supreme Court reduced the damages, although it stated that Whitfield had ample evidence to support a large damages award.

But Wingate rejected George's testimony because it was "an effort to provide mental impressions of the Supreme Court." Now remember, Rule 704(b) has to do with expert testimony about the mental impressions of defendants. The Mississippi Supreme Court was hardly a defendant in the Archie Marks case.

One can only why and how Judge Wingate came up with this line of reasoning.

But that's not the only screwy ruling Wingate made. In fact, we're just getting warmed up. More to come.

The Siegelman Prosecution Unmasked

Time magazine today is breaking a major story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and it should have profound implications for the Congressional investigation of the Bush Department of Justice.

Adam Zagorin's story focuses on Lanny Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer who was the central witness in the case against Siegelman. Time has obtained investigative records showing that Young not only presented damning evidence about Siegelman (a Democrat), but also fingered Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor.

While Siegelman wound up being prosecuted and convicted on corruption charges, Justice Department officials evidently never looked into Young's allegations against Sessions and Pryor.

Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has this take on the breaking story.

Sessions, a U.S. Senator, and Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general and now a federal judge, were deeply involved in wrongdoing, according to Young. Records show Young telling prosecutors that he had used intermediaries to arrange gifts of $5,000 to $15,000 to the Sessions campaign.

"If true, Young's statements describe political money laundering that would be a clear violation of federal law," Zagorin writes. "In 1996 when Young said he had made the contributions, it was illegal to give a candidate more than $1,000 for a primary or general campaign."

Young also offered details about donations totaling $12,000 to $15,000 to Pryor's campaign for state attorney general. Again, Young used intermediaries to disguise the contributions.

Zagorin quotes Laurie Levenson, an expert in legal ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Certainly prosecutors would face a professional obligation to check out or verify the allegations in this case," Levenson says. "Not doing so would represent a potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion." The key, she says, is whether prosecutors chose not to pursue evidence of criminal activity by Republicans because of political bias or a conflict of interest.

The Time article makes the political bias abundantly clear. And the Siegelman case is not the only example of such bias out there. We will lay out a similar scenario here at Legal Schnauzer, although our case will cover two states (Alabama and Mississippi) and a different branch of government (the judiciary).

For the past two weeks or so, we've been laying out a series of posts about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Minor and two judges (all with Democratic leanings) were convicted on corruption charges, but we've shown that the case was wrongly decided and probably pursued for political reasons by the Bush DOJ. And we've shown that U.S. Circuit Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee, played a critical role in ensuring that the defendants would be convicted, contrary to the facts and law in the case.

Meanwhile, in Alabama, yours truly has a case involving attorneys and Republican judges who truly did act corruptly. The evidence is overwhelming that the judges violated their duty under the law, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.

So far, the Bush DOJ's level of interest in the Legal Schnauzer case has been about the same as it was in the Sessions and Pryor cases. Zero.

But we will show how Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to try to keep our case below the surface. Does Alice Martin meet the level of ethics for prosecutors outlined by Ms. Levenson above? Not on your life. And we will be laying out the case against Martin in the weeks and months ahead.

Thanks to Time magazine, the Bushies' skulduggery regarding Sessions and Pryor has been exposed. The mission of this blog is to expose similar GOP skulduggery in the Legal Schnauzer case.

Judging the Judge

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in determining the outcome of the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.

Yes, this was a jury trial. And yes, the jurors found Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield guilty on all counts. But Wingate's footprints can be found all over the path that led to conviction.

And keep in mind this was the second trial on the corruption charges, both overseen by Judge Henry Wingate. In the first, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted on all charges, while the jury acquitted the other three defendants on some charges and was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on others.

So who is Henry Wingate?

For one, he is a historic figure in Mississippi. He became the first African-American appointed to the state's federal bench in 1985. He was nominated to his seat in the Southern District of Mississippi by President Ronald Reagan.

Wingate was born in Jackson, MS, earned his undergraduate degree at Grinnell College and his law degree at Yale University. He served in the U.S. Navy, worked in private practice, served as both an assistant district attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney, and taught at Mississippi College School of Law.

The Wingate nomination was not greeted with wholehearted support. Critics noted that, prior to his appointment on the federal bench, Wingate never had served as a judge at any level. Critics noted that Reagan passed over numerous veteran state judges in order to appoint Wingate.

Let's see: An African-American with thin credentials, appointed to the bench by a Republican president. A similar storyline would play out on the national stage when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.

Is Henry Wingate a Clarence Thomas wannabe? Sources in Mississippi tell me that Wingate was considered for a position on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. President George W. Bush chose someone else this time around, but one must wonder if Wingate still wants that job. And that position is just one step below the U.S. Supreme Court.

Could Wingate solidify his conservative bonafides by seeing to it that a prominent trial lawyer and two "pro-plaintiff" judges wound up in federal prison? One might think that could enhance his status with the Bushies.

So did Judge Henry Wingate act corruptly in his handling of the Paul Minor trial? A strong case could be made that he did. Wingate left behind a litany of strange rulings, enough to make one wonder if political considerations, more than justice, seized the day.

Indications are that the Minor case is attracting the attention of Congressional investigators who are looking into possible selective prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice.

We already know about Congress' interest in the Don Siegelman (Alabama), Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin), and Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania) cases. Don't be surprised if the prosecution of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield joins them.

Bribery: A Primer

Before we look at U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate and his numerous strange rulings in the Paul Minor case, let's examine the subject of bribery.

Bribery is one of those words that is easy to throw around without really knowing what it means. At the risk of stepping into a social minefield, I would compare it to the way people sometimes say, "Abortion is murder."

Regardless of how one feels about the abortion-rights debate, the above statement is demonstrably incorrect. Murder is a legal term that involves specific elements that must be present in order to add up to a criminal act. Those elements are not present in abortion.

But back to the question at hand: What is bribery at the federal level?

First, a little history. Prior to 1984, the primary federal bribery statute was 18 U.S. Code 201. That statute came to be viewed by many courts as prohibiting only the bribery of federal officials. So Congress enacted 18 U.S. Code 666, which is titled "Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds."

With the new statute on the books, federal prosecutors could tackle corruption cases that did not involve federal officials. The case could involve state and local officials--governors, judges, mayors--as long as it involved a program receiving a certain level of federal funds.

The authors of one article referred to 666 as "the mark of the devil in the federal criminal code." Many who side with the defense bar consider 666 to be dangerously, and perhaps unconstitutionally, vague. But the statute has held up, becoming a potent weapon for prosecutors in corruption cases.

The 666 statute was at the heart of both the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.

So how do we come to grips with this little booger? In a nutshell, the four elements of bribery under 666 are:

1. A corrupt act;

2. The offering of something of value;

3. The intent to influence or be influenced in a transaction "involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;" and

4. Federal funding to the entity involved exceeding $10,000 within the year surrounding the corrupt act.

Numbers 2, 3, and 4 don't sound so hard. I imagine those are pretty easily proved in most cases. But the toughie is Number 1.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have learned this: When the statutory language gets murky--and it often does--turn to the case law. And what do we find there?

One of the best cases I've found is United States v. Mariano, 983 F. 2d 1150 (1993). First, it notes that the fundamental elements in the two bribery statutes--201 and 666--virtually mirror one another. And it states that corruptly giving anything of value involves "the intent of 'influencing any official act' or 'inducing the official to violate his or her lawful duty.'"

So there you have it: Giving an official "anything of value" can only be a bribe if it is done in exchange for the official being influenced in his or her duty.

This is what legal types call a "quid pro quo." And it must be present for an act to constitute federal bribery.

The Battle of Mississippi

A superb piece today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, about the forces that led to the prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and three judges in Mississippi.

Horton lays out the role pro-business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the tobacco industry, played in a struggle to reshape Mississippi courts. He compares this to Karl Rove's highly successful 1990s campaign to put pro-business Republicans in charge of Alabama courts.

The plan, Horton writes, was to replicate that strategy next door in Mississippi. "But after the effort failed, to the great surprise of its proponents, a desire for revenge seems to have taken hold," Horton writes. "It was not revenge for revenge's sake. Rather its objective was unmistakable: punish the Mississippi trial lawyers who took the Chamber on and won. Humiliate them. And dry up the campaign funding resources that were fueling the opposition to the Chamber. And suddenly the Mississippi trial lawyers and their judicial allies found themselves facing an even hungrier and more powerful foe: the Bush White House's Department of Justice."

The No. 1 target of the Bush DOJ? Paul Minor, who had become a wealthy Democratic benefactor through successful litigation against the tobacco and asbestos industries, plus personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. The method? Charge that Minor and plaintiff-friendly judges were corrupt.

Judicial targets were Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Circuit Judge John Whitfield, and Chancery Judge Wes Teel. After a first trial resulted in no guilty verdicts (and a clean acquittal for Diaz), the Bush DOJ pursued a retrial that ended with convictions of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel.

Horton says 2000 was a key date in the effort to attack trial lawyers and "pro-plaintiff" judges in Mississippi. That's when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign to roll back class-action lawsuits in a number of key states, including Mississippi, Washington, Illinois, and West Virginia.

The Chamber funneled about $1 million into Mississippi judicial races in 2002, using front organizations to hide the source of the funds. (Irony note: The key reason evidently for the conviction of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel was the alleged concealment of their financial dealings.)

State courts ruled that the Chamber's effort violated Mississippi election laws. The Chamber turned to U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, the justice responsible for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and he overturned the injunction and allowed the Chamber's campaign to proceed.

Trial lawyers were forced to develop a counter campaign, even though their financial resources could not match those of the pro-business interests. But when the trial lawyers held off the Chamber, Horton writes, bitterness set in among business groups. They turned to a friendly DOJ in the Bush administration, and as a result, Minor, Whitfield, and Teel now are in federal prison on convictions for bribery, honest-services mail fraud, and related charges.

We have spent the past couple of weeks here at Legal Schnauzer showing that the Minor prosecution was unjustified under the law and the case itself was unlawfully decided. The person at the center of this was U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee who oversaw the trial.

Soon, we turn our attention to Judge Wingate and his curious handling of the retrial in the Paul Minor case.

Mississippi Churning, Part XIII

In the most recent post in our "Mississippi Churning" series, we noted the state has made a serious effort at campaign-finance reform in the wake of the Paul Minor prosecution.

And how has this effort turned out? Well, it's a story that is rich in irony.

Remember that it was a Republican-led justice department that initiated an investigation and charged that Minor, an attorney, had bribed three Mississippi judges in exchange for favorable rulings. Minor and the two attorneys who were convicted along with him just happened to be Democratic supporters (in a state with nonpartisan judicial elections).

As we noted in earlier posts, the loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange for the judges were allowed by Mississippi law at the time in question. They still are allowed, within certain limits.

But with the government alleging that such lawful arrangements were "bribes," Mississippians evidently decided to change their laws. Current law caps donations to judicial candidates at $5,000 by a single donor.

State officials quickly saw the limit was of little use. Political high rollers-including major corporations and wealthy trial lawyers--could sidestep the limit by making donations to special tax-exempt political action committees, known as "527s." Those fund-raising entities then sent money directly to state candidates.

In 2004, Secretary of State Eric Clark and Attorney General Jim Hood tried to close this loophole in Mississippi. But guess who vetoed the campaign-finance reform bill? None other than Republican governor Haley Barbour. He objected because the bill limited corporate donations to political action committees. (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, August 28, 2005.)

To quote that great Alabamian Gomer Pyle: "Shazam!" A Republican supports corporate interests!

Does that remind anyone of Alabama Republican governor Bob Riley, who touts ethics at one moment, and vetoes an ethics bill the next?

Let's review some of the ground we've covered. The loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange were allowed by Mississippi law. So his financial contributions, in and of themselves, were not bribes at all. Under the law, they only become bribes if they have a corrupt purpose--to improperly influence the rulings of judges.

And our research--and the 12 posts leading up to this one--have shown there was no corrupt purpose because the judges' rulings in the underlying lawsuits were correctly decided. In other words, Minor's clients received favorable rulings not because of any "bribes" but because the facts and the law indicated that they should receive favorable rulings.

So with this as background, and knowing of Barber's veto on campaign-finance reform, let's ponder this question: Are Republicans really interested in limiting contributions to judicial candidates?

Answer: They are when Democrats make them.

Siegelman, Minor, and Tobacco

We've noted a number of similarities between the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.

But perhaps the most fascinating connection involves the tobacco industry.

Both Siegelman and Minor, ardent Democrats, have histories of taking on the tobacco industry--and coming out on top. Meanwhile, a number of high-profile Republicans from Alabama and Mississippi, some with national profiles, have been ardent supporters of the tobacco industry. They also have been loyal Bushies.

Did Siegelman and Minor's willingness to fight Big Tobacco--and their audacity to win--make them targets of the Bush Justice Department? Is that essentially the reason both men currently are in federal prison?

Let's look at some history. The national effort to fight the tobacco industry, and force it to help pay for the costs associated with smoking-related illnesses, started in Mississippi. Mike Moore, then attorney general of Mississippi, was out front in the battle, and the two most prominent trial attorneys involved in the Magnolia State were Paul Minor and Richard "Dickie" Scruggs.

Negotiations between states and the tobacco industry ended in 1997 with a $368.5 billion out-of-court settlement proposal involving 40 state lawsuits. Mississippi received almost $4 billion from the settlement, and Minor received fees that helped make him a wealthy man--and a prominent benefactor for Democratic political candidates.

While Minor had the support of Mississippi's attorney general in the battle against Big Tobacco, Siegelman received nothing but interference from Bill Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general. Siegelman helped sue tobacco companies on behalf of the University of South Alabama and initially had UAB, the state's flagship medical campus, also involved. But UAB backed out at Pryor's urging.

Pryor adamantly opposed suing the industry, calling it bad law motivated by greedy trial lawyers, according to a report in the Mobile Press-Register. But Siegelman pushed forward, and Alabama wound up with $3.2 billion to be paid over 25 years.

That evidently did not sit well with Pryor. When Siegelman became governor of Alabama, Pryor wasted little time in initiating a criminal investigation of the administration. Pryor's effort eventually led to an investigation and prosecution of Siegelman by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).

And how did Pryor fare with the Bushies? Not bad. Despite strong opposition from Democrats, he received a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Across the border in Mississippi, the imprint of Big Tobacco remains huge. The state's governor is Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee. And what did Barbour do between his gig as RNC chair and his gig as Mississippi governor? He worked as a lobbyist in Washington--for tobacco companies.

Let's consider the career arcs of Siegelman and Minor for a moment. Siegelman was a remarkably successful Democrat in Alabama, at a time when the state was turning more and more Republican. In fact, it became common practice for the state's prominent Democrats to change parties (hello, Richard Shelby!). But Siegelman remained loyal to his roots, rising to the state's highest office. And where has it landed him? In federal prison.

As for Minor, he was more of a behind-the-scenes figure politically. But in many ways, his financial clout made him a more important figure in Mississippi than Siegelman was in Alabama. Minor took on the tobacco industry and the asbestos industry, and took cases for working-class folks like Archie Marks and Richard Ladner. Where has it landed him? In federal prison.

Now imagine this? What if Don Siegelman had followed the crowd and switched parties? Where would he be now? Finishing up a second term as Alabama's governor? Preparing for a run at the U.S. Senate? Being talked about as a vice presidential, or even presidential, candidate? Anyone think he would be in federal prison?

And Paul Minor? What if he had chosen to represent Phillip Morris instead of Archie Marks? Minor would still be a wealthy man, maybe even a wealthier man. Anyone think he would be in federal prison?

Siegelman/Minor Connections

Thanks to Atlanta-based blogger Dana Blankenhorn for spotlighting our work at Legal Schnauzer on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

Blankenhorn is a veteran reporter and blogger who is particularly well known for his work in business journalism. He has a blog called "Voic.us," which focuses on the work of bloggers in the South, and he spotlights the Minor case in his latest Mississippi roundup.

Blankenhorn does an excellent job of summarizing key points we've made about the Minor case. And he draws parallels between it and the more well known Siegelman case. In fact, you might say the Minor case is the Dave Clark Five to Siegelman's The Beatles.

But Blankenhorn notes that the Minor case appears to show that "the Bush political 'hit' on Siegelman was not a one-off, but part of a concerted--and so far successful--effort to subvert democracy and justice in the Deep South."

As the Siegelman case prepares to take center stage in a Congressional investigation, we've received word that the Minor case will receive significant national attention in the next few days.

Bits and Pieces for $70, Alex

Congress Takes on Siegelman Case
The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be part of an upcoming Congressional hearing into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News and Journal, has followed the Siegelman case closely and has this take on the latest news. So far, the focus appears to be on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania. Let's hope the investigation becomes broader than that. As we are showing here at Legal Schnauzer, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi cries out for scrutiny. And my own case, involving unlawful rulings by multiple Republican judges in Alabama, is a classic case of suppression of a prosecution. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep my case under the proverbial rug. We will be posting more details on that soon.

The Malice of Alice
Speaking of Alice Martin, I thought about her today after reading this story in the business section of The Birmingham News. It's about a local ad agency that has developed a campaign for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The campaign is designed to help raise awareness of various consumer mail-fraud schemes. That's what the postal inspection service does--it looks into consumer fraud. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate white-collar crime, such as honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. But Alice Martin took my detailed complaint about judicial wrongdoing and sent it to the postal inspection service. That's what I mean about sweeping my case under the rug. And I have far more details that I will be posting soon about the malice of Alice.

Dollars and Scholars
In earlier posts, we cited the ongoing investigation at Hoover High School as an example of how expensive a problem can get when lawyers get involved. The Hoover School System hired former federal judge Sam Pointer Jr. to investigate allegations of grade changing related to Hoover's renowned football program, the focus of MTV's Two A Days. So what's the latest legal tab for the Hoover folks? We learn today that it amounts to $151,153, based on 757 billable hours. Don't know about you, but that would put a serious ouch in my pocket book. And don't you think that money could have bought an awful lot of textbooks or computers or band outfits--or shoulder pads and helmets, for that matter?

A True Shocker
The most shocking news of all today is that the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission is actually doing something. This most worthless of Alabama agencies has been investigating Mobile circuit judge Herman Thomas for a variety of ethical violations. Among the charges against Thomas are claims from prisoners that he spanked them. Thomas must have really been a bad boy if he actually screwed up enough to draw the JIC's attention. I've filed multiple complaints regarding corrupt judges in Shelby County, and the JIC never lifted a finger to look into any of them. I figured the commission made the Maytag Repairman look like an overachiever. But it turns out the JIC actually does something once in a while. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo! And get this: Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson is pursuing a separate investigation into whether Thomas issued biased rulings favoring certain friends. Well, snip my pickle again! That's the way things are done on a regular basis in Shelby County. You mean there's something wrong with that? What's with this Tyson character? Why is he actually doing his job? What are the chances that Shelby County DA Robby Owens will look into wrongdoing by judges in his district? I would say Britney Spears has a better chance of being named Mother of the Year.

Mississippi Churning, Part XII

The Paul Minor case in Mississippi has helped shine a spotlight on the issue of campaign contributions to judges. And more litigants are questioning the impartiality of judges, asking them to recuse themselves.

From January 2003 to August 2004, when the Minor case was very much in the news, 110 motions were filed asking justices on the Mississippi Supreme Court to recuse themselves. A variety of reasons were cited, including campaign donations. Justices approved seven of the 110 requests.

The Minor case focused on contributions and loan guarantees from a lawyer to judges. But the issue goes beyond interactions between those in the legal community. Here are a couple of examples where litigants called into question the impartiality of judges:

Edwin Welsh of Madison, MS, saw the state high court rule against him in a dispute with his former employers, the owners of a wireless company. In seeking rehearing, Welsh stated that the opposing party had made more than $16,000 in campaign contributions to two members of the Supreme Court.

In another case, Ellisville, MS, plumber Archie Wayne Courtney won a court judgment of $1.8 million from a bank, but a Supreme Court decision reduced the amount to $45,000. Jim Smith Jr., chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote the opinion. But Courtney's attorney filed a motion for rehearing after learning that Smith's campaign committee borrowed $55,000 from a bank that is part of the same chain Courtney sued.

Brant Brantly, executive director of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, said such conflicts involving judicial campaigns are likely to increase in number because of the high costs of seeking such posts. "It's a natural by-product of campaigns," Brantley said. "They have become so costly and more organized." (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, August 22, 2004.)

The Schnauzer take: Mississippians probably are correct to question the fairness of their courts. But the Minor case is not a good reason to do so. My research indicates that the lawsuits at the heart of the government's case against attorney Minor and three judges were correctly decided. While an objective observer might think it unseemly for an attorney to be guaranteeing loans for judges before whom he has cases, Mississippi law allows such loans, contributions, etc. You could count me among those who think such activity should be outlawed. But it wasn't at the time, and loans/contributions to judges still are legal within certain limits. So the financial activity between Minor and the judges was legal, and my research indicates that the judges' rulings on Minor's cases were properly grounded in law--and I don't think it's even a particularly close call that the underlying lawsuits were correctly decided.

So what should Mississippians and residents of other states be concerned about? First, they should push for changes that will do away with contributions to judges, not only from trial lawyers but also from business interests. I find it revealing that the Minor case focused on contributions by a trial lawyer and lawsuits where working-class folks or small businesses filed claims against large businesses.

What about a case where a regular person has a legitimate claim against a business--perhaps for personal injury, wrongful death, fraud, etc.--and has that case dismissed (summary judgment) by a Republican-leaning judge who has received contributions (and maybe loans) from business interests? What if the Republican-leaning judge's dismissal was not well grounded in law, or supported by the facts? Will the Bush Justice Department look into such cases in Mississippi, Alabama--or any other state?

And what about efforts to reform campaign-finance law? There has been a serious proposal to do just that in Mississippi. And you will never guess who was opposed to it--and wound up killing it.

More on that coming up.