There is little irony in W.C. Fields providing the title quote as the line between comedy and tragedy is thin. The extent to which the wealth of Dick Scruggs was considered in his sentencing was nothing short of a tragic violation of his Constitutional right to equal justice – and that’s far more reprehensible than anything Scruggs did.
And yet you – – you neither thought you needed money or did need money; yet you committed a reprehensible crime which, in my opinion, is one of the most reprehensible crimes that a lawyer can commit, the corruption of the rule of law which he’ s sworn to uphold…
Another thing that doesn’t make any sense – – well, it makes your crime more reprehensible is the justice system has made you a rich man; the court system has made you a rich man. And yet you have attempted to corrupt it…
The concept of equal justice is the bedrock of democracy, articulated as early as 430 B.C. by Pericles.
Our constitution…favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences…
Embodied in the Constitution of these United States in both Article Five of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, equal justice is so fundamental to our system of justice that it’s engraved in stone at the Supreme Court. It is this Court that has, in turn, affirmed every citizens right to equal and impartial justice under the law.
Consequently, Judge Biggers’ decision was prejudiced by his reliance on Scruggs’ wealth to gauge the severity of the crime and the extent of the punishment.
It’ s further ordered that you should pay a fine in the amount of $250,000 to the court clerk’ s office, a lump sum payment of $250,000 will be due in 30 days. And that will be for the purpose of – – as one person who wrote a letter said, he thought sending you to prison would be a waste of the taxpayer’ s money. To alleviate any concerns for that person, the taxpayers won’ t have to pay for your incarceration; you’ll pay for it yourself…
Biggers’ prejudice was so pronounced during sentencing, it finally took a toll on Scruggs.
Scruggs, a former Navy pilot, is tall, slender and appeared composed as he entered the courthouse. But he caved when Biggers brought up his family. His wife, Diane, has been gravely ill.
At the mention of her and his daughter, Claire, Scruggs began to shake as he stood before the judge. His attorney, John Keker of San Francisco, put an arm around Scruggs, whose knees buckled before another attorney slid a chair forward so he could sit down.
I can imagine anyone whose knees wouldn’t buckle at the thought of a judge using their wealth to deny them equal justice.
Your wife, I understand, is a fine lady; and her health is very delicate. But there’ s no question that your wife and daughter are going to be better provided for in your absence than anybody else I’ve ever heard that has come before the Court.
What makes Biggers prejuducied decision even more reprehensible is that it not only denied Scruggs equal justice but his co-defendant Sid Backstrom as well – and, no doubt, will do likewise, to his son and law partner Zach when Biggers issues his sentence this coming week.
In fact, Judge Biggers’ prejudice is so pronounced it calls into question his other decisions – none more than his denial of the motion for change of venue. That said, the appropriate remedy would be to order a new trail and a change of venue – somewhere wealth is not a basis for denying anyone the right to equal justice.
A rich man is just a poor man with money and denying either equal justice is not just reprehensible, it’s unlawful.
The man used his wealth to try and bribe a judge and to corrupt the basis of our great country – the rule of law.
Could it be that Judge Biggers believed Mr. Scruggs had done something that embarrassed the entire legal system? I find Mr. Scruggs’ actions reprehensible, not his sentence. The people of Mississippi will pay for Mr. Scruggs’ actions for a long time.
supsalemgr, my point is that the basis for the rule of law is that a man’s wealth – or law thereof – is not a factor.
Consequently, under the rule of law, a crime is no more or less reprehensible when committed by a wealthy man than by a poor one.
A related point that I didn’t raise is that under rule of law, there’s reason to consider how Judge Lackey’s conduct was an “embarrassment to the legal system” described here by someone with no loyalty to our anyone involved or our State.
Does this mean that Judge Lackey used entrapment on Scruggs and if so for what purpose?
Ms Supsalemgr brings up an interesting point in her last two comments that I’d like to address regarding the impact of the Scruggs guiilty plea on ordinary Mississippians and the myth that our judiical system is biased against business and inherently corrupt.
I’m unclear whether she was buying into the myth or speaking to the effect the myth on perceptions of outsiders. However this subject deserves a post all on it’s own but the short answer is to consider how the Chamber of Commerce still has our court system ranked 48th despite the documented track record of our Supreme Court tells us something about both how the National Chamber has lost it’s way and abandoned 99% of it’s members (myself included as I am a member) and why there will be a big backlash against the pro business members of the Supreme Court in judicial elections to come.
This quote left on the CL today sums it up best IMHO:
sop
Even tho Scruggs received the maximum under the agreement, it is not enough to punish him for the crime he committed nor for the damage he has caused to the industry and state
Excellent way to bring the concept of equal justice full circle, Sop. It’s as simple as “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”. Names don’t matter – the sentencing guidelines assign points based on prior convictions and nature of the crime.
The value of the money in question was a major issue in that regard. All of the evidence considered assumes the money Scruggs gave Balducci the money to bribe Judge Lackey.
However, there was evidence suggesting that was not the case that wasn’t considered. IMO, the Court had a responsibility to question Scruggs more when he entered his plea and said he was guilty of what the government said it could prove – particularly when Backstrom’s attorney made a point of entering that in the record as well.
Blind Justice can not be construed to mean it’s acceptable for a judge to close an eye when such comments are on the record and ignore the possibility of a different truth.
However, the article you cited in the CL today suggests that’s exactly what’s happening at the Supreme Court and the treatment of the Rigsby sisters and others suggests it’s happening in other courts as well.
Trading one injustice for another is not tort reform – nor does it improve the reputation of our judicial system. As long as it lacks evidence of equal justice we just exchanging one bad reputation for another.
What “industry” did Scruggs damage, flash?
Dickie didn’t cause Katrina nor did he cause the insurance companies to defraud the policyholders and the taxpayers of this whole country. He did go against the hugest corporations for defrauding Americans and saw how these huge corporations work. He saw the greedy. He saw what people would do. He saw it all. It was probably more than one man could sustain. He had a lapse in judgment. Maybe he learned how others lawyers wanted his money no matter what — just like Judge Lackey. I want Scruggs’ money, I want Scruggs’ money. He’d give money away to help many, many people, but it seems he wasn’t so generous to people who thought they were entitled to his money.
P.S. Even the court in Alabama did this to him. Made him pay an extra $5000 while they wait on an appeal, even though he paid the money in cash before it was due on July 5th. Nowdy is right. There is nothing under the law that says “because you’re rich….” you have to pay more.
There is nothing under the law that says
In response to Mr. Sop’s post as to the impact on the citizens in MS. It is well docummented that there are certain states, and/or cities or counties, that businesses decline to do business in as those locales have proven to be an unlevel playing field from a plaintiff bar standpoint.
There is a county in SC where WalMart will not build a store due to a particular law firm in the county. This is just one example. To have businesses choose not to do busines in a locale hurts the citizens. It removes competition and subsequently prices will be higher. This was the point of my comment.
It’s an excellent point, supsalemgr, and I’m familiar with that practice. My question to you is do you consider that a form of extortion?
The wheels are coming off the concept of equal justice and instead of a cooperative effort to ensure this fundamental right is maintained, we have allowed a situation to develop that is basically a contest to see who can stack more in their favor.
There has to be a way to level the playing field.
Man, can we get a franchise of that law firm? I bet some towns would pay to have their name listed in town. There are businesses that choose not to do business in a locale because Wal-mart is already there.
LOL Belle. OTOH Walmart is the only grocery that came back to Hancock County.
I understand what you are saying Ms Supsalemgr and there is more than a kernel of truth in it. But if we are good enough for Toyota, and Nissan certainly we are good enough for the rest of corporate America.
The flip side to the Scruggs mess is we took care of our own problem. We curbed the worst judicial system abuses such as magic jurisdiction plus said 10 Hail Marys, 5 Our Fathers and an Act of Contrition. If that doesn’t change the mistaken perceptions nothing will.
sop
If the insurance companies did in fact defraud shouldn’t they be made to pay treble amount? The reason I am asking that I thought that I might read it some where.
I do not believe it is extortion whatsoever, it is a business decsion. Business entities are designed to be “for profit” organizations. They do not have to do business where the potential for loss outweighs the opportunity for profit.
The argument as to WalMart being good for a community is a whole different subject. However, one cannot say consumers feel having a WalMart is not good for their community. They prove that point with their dollars everyday.
Jane that depends on the type of case. There is a damage multiplier in RICO and Qui Tam. Not applicable to Mississippi but noteworthy is the Insurance Fair Conduct Act passed by Washington State voters last November which allows treble damages in certain cases involving frist party bad faith.
In a first or third party insurance case in Mississippi there is no trebling of damages though claimants can recover extra contractual damages (mental anguish and pain & suffering) and punitive damages provided they can prove bad faith.
There is a case right now in Picayune involving a widow lady and AIG where AIG screwed her on her late husband’s life insurance that will be an exemplary bad faith case from what I’m hearing. It happens way more than you’d suspect but generally these cases never see the light of day in the media because they can’t cover them all.
Unfortunately I’ve been fed more cases like that widow lady than we can physically cover.
supsalemgr, I don’t think we are that far apart. With “equal justice” a right for all, there would be no need for a business decision to consider exposure to legal action when deciding where to locate. Of course, the converse to that is they must also operate in a way that does expose them to increased risk.
That so do is what’s creating the situation Sop described – more bad faith cases than the media can cover – and not the legal climate.
Guys, I hate to burst the Slabbed bubble, but Biggers didn’t do a single thing wrong by imposing the cost of incarceration.
The bottom line was that Biggers as the sentencing judge had the discretion and he used it. It isn’t wrong and it won’t be overturned.
It appears that many case’s loss or over turned involve Plaintiffs from all over the state joined to the same claim. aren’t there giude lines on joinders of claims? It seems a run away system.
The “bubble” is larger than the cost of incarceration; and, had there had been no other remarks about Scruggs wealth, I would not have made this alone an issue. However, as it stands, this is just but one example.
It’s certainly is an interesting one, Alan, and welcome to SLABBED and thanks for calling it to our attention.
On paper it reads like a good idea; but, with the annual cost of incarceration around $30,000, I would think it impossible to implement. Any idea what percentage of those incarcerated have the education/skills to earn that amount or what happens to those who can’t pay?
Remove Scruggs from the picture and just look at the issue of equal justice.
Although we traditionally associate calls for “equal justice” with the issues such as poverty, the wealthy aren’t excluded. So, my question is do you think they should be and, if so, how would you justify that under the Constitution?
Nowdoucit, that’s not just some uptopian theory I cited . . . it’s caselaw. There is no “equal protection” argument. None. It’s legal, and it just happens to be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, it guts the basis of your post.
Alan, the fact that a judge’s discretion to impose fines is established in case law does not gut the basis of my post.
It does raise an interesting point; however, when considered with data that 80% of federal criminal defendants are indigent and more once they are in prison.
I think Biggers clearly considered Scruggs wealth in making his decision – the fine is one outcome; but, the issue is prejudice. In that regard, it doesn’t matter if the fine is lawful.
Don’t just focus on the fine – that’s too narrow.
As usual, the Slabbies miss the point.
The law can be a little more understanding of a criminal when the crime is committed out of some sense of financial desperation. The thief stealing bread to feed his children gets a little more sympathy, and perhaps an exercise of sentencing discretion in his favor, compared to a wealthy man who corrupts the civil justice system just to put a few more ducats in his pocket.
For a judge to consider those factors in the sentencing process is permitted under the law and it is what we expect of him.
There is no fraud involved from the insurance companies. Read your policy, it pays for direct physical damage to covered property from a covered peril. No direct physical damage, no loss. Take the emotion out and it is simple to see why no payments were provided
As Researcher so eloquently notes:
State Farm tried to use this [ACC] to exclude all wind damage where there was any flooding. But wind damage that preceded the storm surge is not concurrent and is covered and should not become uncovered if flooding comes later. Without ACC, insurers have the burden of prove that damage was caused by flooding in order to exclude. With ACC, they think they can assume flooding was a contributing or concurrent cause and make the policyholder prove wind damage.
Whatever State Farm did or didn’t do is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the Scruggs apologists and how they think the civil justice system is unfair to rich guys.
(Unfair to rich guys! Do you believe it! Has anyone EVER thought the system penalized the wealthy? Did Scruggs have a Public Defender representing him? I don’t think so. He had John Keker, one of the finest criminal lawyers on the planet. Was he in custody during the pendency of the case, the way disadvantaged people usually are? No: he was out on bail. Was he carted off to jail from his sentencing, the way the disadvantaged usually are? No: he was given additional time to attend to his affairs. But Dickie was treated unfairly because he is wealthy. Right.)
And to be clear, Scruggs didn’t get to claim that his crimes were on behalf of any particular downtrodden class: what he did he did on behalf of his own wallet.
But according to the Slabbies, Scruggs is a victim.
I don’t know who is more misguided: Scruggs or his apologists.
OK, we may need to have a poll. Should we call ourselves “Slabbers” per Lotus at Folo or “Slabbies” per Claimsguy?
Also Mr Claimsguy Nowdy’s point is by making the sentencing determination on Dickie Scruggs Judge Bigger’s ruling also impacts Sid Backstrom and Zach Scruggs who do not possess nearly that level of wealth.
Frankly my experiences with federal criminal sentencing are that the rules are extremely arcane which is why there are lawyers that specialize in just that small part of the federal criminal justice system. It is also why I have avoided commenting on the specifics of Nowdy’s post.
I understand her sentiment but I learned long ago the disconnect between the federal sentencing procedures and conventional “right and wrong”.
If there was a Biggers low blow it was referencing concepts from the letters for mercy as a reason for the amount of the fine.
You gotta give Nowdy credit, she sure can write a post that elicits comments.
sop
Claimsguy, I will concur with you that whatever State Farm did or didn’t do is irrelevant to this thread, but flash put it there, so I responded.
No, the post was not about Scruggs’ co-defendants. They were an obvious afterthought.
The thesis of the post was that Scruggs himself was denied equal justice because he is rich. To insist otherwise is to try to re-write the post.
And the thesis of the post is completely, fatally and thoroughly absurd. Besides being simply wrong on the facts (PLEASE find me a real live criminal lawyer who thinks being a rich defendant is a disadvantage) it shows the absurd lengths you people will go to defend the indefensible.
Wrong claimsguy, it should how totally f’*#!ed-up the entire system has gotten. Scruggs was definitely denied equal justice because of his wealth. That “real live” lawyers and judges can’t see that shows how little the Constitution is understood and represented in law.
As to your earlier comment about the law being more understanding of someone who would steal to feed his children, go tell that to all the poor folks in jail.
Suggesting my concern for the impact on Backstrom and Zach was an “afterthought” contrary to your claim “shows the absurd lengths” you will go to defend the indefensible injustice of claiming Scruggs wealth made his crime more reprehensible.