Tag: USA v Minor

Mississippi lawyer turned convict Paul Minor recommended for permanent disbarrment in Louisiana

This is a post script to Slabbed’s coverage of Paul Minor’s conviction and subsequent appeal dating back to our earlier days.  My former partner in blog Nowdy had a deeper understanding of what drove some of the events behind the prosecution and while her coverage of same marched to the beat of a different drummer, there is no doubt she well added to the knowledge base of the first Mississippi judicial bribery case to be tried in federal court that would ultimately culminate in USA v Scruggs.  In what would be a sign of the future direction of Slabbed as a community sourced blog, that deeper understanding of what made Paul Minor tick garnered some some quality comments from high quality people.

Without further adieu the LADB motion, made almost 5 full years after Minor’s conviction as the wheels of justice indeed turn very slow. (Hat tip to a long time reader) Continue reading “Mississippi lawyer turned convict Paul Minor recommended for permanent disbarrment in Louisiana”

Judge Wingate gets it – will Judge Biggers? UPDATED

“Minor and former Harrison County judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield must be resentenced because a federal appeals court vacated their bribery convictions in 2009. The appeals court upheld other convictions, including honest services fraud convictions against each of the men and Minor’s racketeering conviction. Now Wingate is considering motions to vacate the remaining convictions because higher courts have limited the scope of honest services fraud.”

The Sun Herald reports, “U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate delayed the resentencing Monday in Jackson so he can take more time to consider pending motions seeking to throw out all of the convictions in the case.

Judge Wingate gets it! I suspect a lot of others, including a lot of lawyers, don’t – or, more likely, don’t want the law applied in USA v Minor or USA v Scruggs. Minor’s attorney, David Debold of the Washington, D.C., law film Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher…said he knows it’s not easy for a judge to reverse a case this late but it’s the right thing to do in the wake of the high court decision limiting the honest services statute”.

Initially, Minor et al were also convicted of federal funds bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666. Former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson cited the reversal of those convictions in a brief recently filed on behalf of Zach Scruggs:

…contrary to the Government’s naked assertion, the fact that Judge Lackey was not an agent for federal grant is properly before the Court because that means that Petitioner is “actually innocent” of the 18 U.S.C. § 666 crime alleged in the Indictment See Petition, D.E. 303 at 10-11 (discussing Whitfield v. U.S., 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir., 2009)).

Both of these cases were very painful for members of the legal profession.  However,  the legal profession’s deafening silence in the face of the 5th Circuit and USSC decisions is painful to those up us who believe none are above – or below – the law.  Equal justice is not a popularity contest!

 

UPDATE 3-24-11

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Paul S. Minor’s Motion to Vacate Convictions (12/17/10)

Defendant Paul S. Minor’s Submission of Supplemental Authority Regarding Motion to Vacate (3/14/11)

Government’s Response to Defendant Paul S. Minor’s Submission of Supplemental Authority Regarding Motion to Vacate (3/17/11)

 

just in case hell really does freeze over – a mention of USA v Minor, Van Heerden v LSU and a strange Louisiana ruling in Katrina litigation

Some thought hell would have to freeze over for the Who Dat’s to win a Super Bowl – but they did and, lo and behold, snow may cover what looked like the gates to hell after Katrina.

Just in case hell really does freeze over.  USA v Minor co-defendant,  John Whitfield filed a Motion for Release Pending Resentencing and Appeal the very day SLABBED reported the Government’s opposition to the requested release of Minor co-defendant former Coast judge Wes Teel.

Both co-defendants are requesting release on the same general basis – the 5th Circuit’s recent decision reversing part of their bribery convictions and the pending USSC decision on the constitutionality of the honest services statute, the likely-to-be-tossed basis for the remaining portions of their sentences.

The news of the day, so to speak, is Paul Minor is the only defendant that has not filed a motion for release pending appeal with Judge Wingate.  In light of these apparently very significant developments, why not?  Minor has hasn’t hesitated to file for a lawful get out of jail free card in the past.  If his case is as strong as he keeps saying it is, why does he appear fearful now?

Could Minor’s behavior be another indication that hell may indeed freeze over?

Over at the Ladder, Editilla’s update on Ivor van Heerden’s wrongful dismissal lawsuit included the story appearing in the NYT.  A recently posted update to the update calls van Heerden’s case a whistleblower lawsuit! Continue reading “just in case hell really does freeze over – a mention of USA v Minor, Van Heerden v LSU and a strange Louisiana ruling in Katrina litigation”

Do, Did, Dunn and the new math of Teel’s resentencing in USA v Minor

After five on “Super Friday” and what do I see but a copy of what the Government did file in opposition to the Motion for Release Pending Resentencing of former judge Wes Teel, a defendant in USA v Minor.

Unlike Opposition to the Minor defendants’ past requests for release during their Appeal, this opposition was filed by the formerly recused office of the Southern District Mississippi USA – and that Dunn surprised me as there has been no appointment of a new USA to fill the position.

In addition to that big surprise, there are more to come as the risen-from-recusal USA details the argument in opposition to Teel’s release.  The first argument is this eyebrow raising claim, Since defendant has no pending appeal, most of the §3143(b) factors governing release pending appeal do not apply to him”:

In United States v. Olis, 450 F.3d 583, 587 (5th Cir. 2006), the Fifth Circuit held that “§3143(b)’s “pending appeal” language envisions a defendant . . .who has a pending appeal on a matter…” The Fifth Circuit in Olis did find that the reduced-sentence provision of §3143(b)(1)(B) would apply to a defendant like Teel who is awaiting sentencing but whose convictions have been affirmed; but that it would not overcome the presumption against release pending resentencing if the defendant had not served all of his possible sentence. Id. at 586-87.

The government apparently misplaced more than just a modifier or two in the rush to oppose Teel’s release.  Continue reading “Do, Did, Dunn and the new math of Teel’s resentencing in USA v Minor”

Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform

The “drafts file” is overflowing (again) and time is short (again) – nothing to do but pull a handful of things I think worth a mention and go for what Sop has called a “round-up” post.

First up is an update on Young v Scruggs – brief because the case is stuck on proper service of the summons issued to Dick Scruggs, a discussion I passed on recenty when reporting Defendant’s Rebuttal.  What’s happened since the, however, is more interesting.  First, the defendants fied a Motion to Strike Purported Summons that basically restated the argument Scruggs was not lawfully served and there was a pending motion to dismiss on that basis.  Next, plaintiffs pop up and file Notice the summons has been reissued – and on that same day, according to the docket,  defendants filed anAmended Motion to Strike that cites and attaches a recent Mississippi Supreme Court ruling on the subject that’s worth a look.

The latest news on USA v Minor (Whitfield and Teel) makes for interesting reading – so did the recently filed Motion for Rehearing that was sitting in drafts when most media had the story up.  Here’s the Motion and here’s the latest:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Paul Minor notifies the Court of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (Jan. 21, 2010). That decision clarifies that the jury instructions in this case, which allowed the jury to convict the defendants of honest services fraud for campaign contributions made with only an intent to influence and without any quid pro quo, violate the First Amendment. h/t Legal Schnauzer (entire letter posted there)

Now, news on the “odds” – the first “odd” appears to be Gerald Nielsen or, more accurately, Mr. Nielsen appears to be odd – long on ego but short on memory.  Continue reading “Scruggs, Minor, and some legal odds and ends (pun intended) – Nielsen, Wilson, Robie and Tort Reform”

We are all captives of the picture in our head… – so, whose head pictured honest-services fraud?

Prosecutors have used the following subterfuge with alarming success: Threaten a terrified white-collar defendant with a long jail term in a maximum-security prison with violent offenders, unless he or she pleads guilty to honest-services fraud. In return, the defendant will receive a much-reduced sentence in a relatively cushy federal prison camp.

In this way, prosecutors are guaranteed a conviction. They also don’t have to run the risk of a trial by jury. Even judges have become irrelevant, because they essentially rubberstamp the prison sentence the prosecutors recommend. Cagily, prosecutors, in effect, have usurped the entire legal process for themselves.

Although the columnist (h/t Huffington Post) used far fewer words, his take on honest-services fraud is a summary of the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Outrageous Government Conduct filed in USA v Scruggs – which, in turn, brought to mind the Lippman quote:

We are all captives of the picture in our head – our belief that the world we have experienced is the world that really exists.

Unflattering pictures of Dick Scruggs and Paul Minor held some very powerful heads captive.  All it took was for each to commit Continue reading “We are all captives of the picture in our head… – so, whose head pictured honest-services fraud?”

The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (part 2 of 2)

As the title indicates, the issue explored in this two-part post is how the recently published Kings of Tort treated the circumstances surrounding the indictment and conviction of Paul Minor and the co-defendants of USA v Minor.  On 10 December when the post was written, there was no Fifth Circuit opinion to distract and confuse readers as there is now that part one of the post has published.

Although the Fifth’s opinion has already answered the title question for some, the set of documents linked in part one – a Letter to Attorney General Holder and Minor’s Appellate Brief – provided a start point for developing a detailed and more easily documented response.   The differing jury instructions and the evidentiary issues documented in the Letter and Brief had a significant impact on the outcome of Minor’s second trial; but, there were other equally significant distinctions between the two trials:

…on August 12, 2005, after deliberating for one week, the jury announced a partial verdict, acquitting Mr. Minor on six counts (four mail fraud counts, one bribery count, and one extortion count), partly acquitting Judge Whitfield, and fully acquitting Justice Diaz. (D431 at 1453-58.) The district court declared a mistrial as to all other counts, including eight against Mr. Minor. (Id.)

Despite this failure to obtain a single conviction, the government decided to retry the remaining pieces of the case. On December 6, 2005, it filed a Third Superseding Indictment against Mr. Minor and Judges Whitfield and Teel, recharging those counts subject to the mistrial-racketeering, fraud, and federal program bribery-and adding three new charges: one against Mr. Minor and Judge Whitfield for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and honest services fraud and federal program bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666; a nearly identical conspiracy charge against Mr. Minor and Judge Teel; and a charge against Mr. Minor and Judge Whitfield for mail and honest services fraud. (D454.) Continue reading “The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (part 2 of 2)”

the intersection of federal $$$$ as the basis for prosecuting on honest services -from SLABBED archives May 18,2008

(Text  of archived post)

In the interest of we’re all in this together, I recently re-read the indictment in USA v Scruggs. However, it wasn’t until I re-read the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defense on counts 2, 3, and 4 and the Government’s response, that I began to understand the implied authority in these counts that gave them added significance.

In that regard, however, there is a piece of the puzzle missing in both the motion and the response – the audit trail “when such state or local government or agency received in any one year period benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program”. Continue reading “the intersection of federal $$$$ as the basis for prosecuting on honest services -from SLABBED archives May 18,2008”

The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (Part 1 of 2)

For me, on Minor, the different jury instructions given on the same charges doesn’t sit well…

Comment to White Knight takes issue with author of Kings of Tort

The question posed in the title is not rhetorical but, instead, one for readers to decide – preferably after reading the information in this post. As Sop’s comment suggests, the hallmark of Minor’s second trial was same charges with different jury instructions.

The district court required quid pro quo for the same bribery charges in Mr. Minor’s first trial in 2005. As described by the April 17,2008 House Judiciary Committee Majority Staff Report for Chairman Conyers, in the first trial “Mr. Minor was acquitted of most charges while the jury hung on others. On retrial. after the presiding judge revised his evidentiary rulings and relieved the prosecution of the need to prove certain elements of the alleged [bribery] crime, Mr. Minor was convicted of what have been described as ‘vague’ charges based on alleged efforts to obtain an unfair advantage from the two lower court judges, again through loan guarantees, and again despite the fact that Mississippi law allows such guarantees.” Continue reading “The Kings of Tort: Did Chapter Four (Paul Minor) provide honest service to the book’s readers? (Part 1 of 2)”

Breaking: 5th Circuit Vacates Bribery Convictions for Teel, Minor and Whitfield, Affirms Other Counts

So while this case winds its way to the Supreme Court Teel, Whitfield and Minor get new sentences for the remaining counts.(H/T Bellesouth for the order.)

As to Paul Minor, we REVERSE his conviction for conspiracy to commit federal program bribery under Count Two and his convictions for federal program bribery under Counts Twelve and Fourteen. We AFFIRM his convictions on all other counts. Because of our reversal as to Counts Two, Twelve, and Fourteen, his sentences on all counts are VACATED and the cause as to him is remanded for resentencing on all the remaining counts of conviction.

As to John Whitfield, we REVERSE his conviction for federal program bribery under Count Eleven. We AFFIRM his convictions on all other counts. Because of our reversal as to Count Eleven, his sentences on all counts are VACATED and the cause as to him is remanded for resentencing on all the remaining counts of conviction.

As to Walter Teel, we REVERSE his conviction for conspiracy to commit federal program bribery under Count Two and his conviction for federal program bribery under Count Thirteen. We AFFIRM his convictions on all other counts. Because of our reversal as to Counts Two and Thirteen, his sentences on all counts are VACATED and the cause as to him is remanded for resentencing on all the remaining counts of conviction.