Scruggs wiretap transcripts, cont’d

by Walter Olson on February 24, 2008

Alan Lange and commenters are jumping in to excerpt some of the more damning excerpts (YallPolitics Feb. 19; more). And in the department of curious wordings, from the Jackson Clarion Ledger: “Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter has told federal authorities he became aware in 2006 that some people were trying to improperly influence him to rule in favor of lawyer Dickie Scruggs in a Hinds County legal-fees dispute. DeLaughter told authorities he didn’t know whether he was influenced [emphasis added] but says he’s followed the law in all his rulings.” (Jerry Mitchell, “Judge: Efforts to sway made”, Feb. 24).

{ 1 comment }

1 OBQuiet 02.24.08 at 9:09 am

I’ll agree the wording is curious. But it could be honest. If you know someone is offering you something to rule one way, can you be sure that you didn’t rule against them just to prove you were not being influenced? In that case you might have been negatively influenced.

The mind is pretty good at finding justifications for what it wants to do. It is almost impossible to know what would have happened if things had been different.

Comments on this entry are closed.