Peters Immunity Deal Questioned
The Clarion-Ledger contained two stories on Sunday about the controversial decision by the federal government to grant Ed Peters immunity in the judicial bribery scandal involving Judge Bobby DeLaughter. One is an opinion piece stating that Peters got off easy. The other article mentions the fact that Peters could still face prosecution, stating:
But that doesn't mean Peters won't be charged in other districts for his alleged wrongdoings in other cases DeLaughter heard, Mississippi College School of Law professor Matt Steffey said. "Many people are justly concerned that Mr. Peters and Mr. Peters alone escaped criminal liability."
But at this point it appears that Peters will escape prosecution. The article quotes Hinds County D.A. Robert Smith as stating that he will not prosecute Peters:
Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith said his office wouldn't investigate Peters because it's been a federal issue. "They've never called me and asked for our help," Smith said.
Smith said there was not a conflict of interest because of his relationship with Peters, who publicly endorsed Smith for district attorney. The two once were seen eating lunch together in Hattiesburg earlier this year. Smith said Peters was giving him advice on running a DA's office.
That's weak. Smith might as well just admit that he feels indebted to Peters. Smith is letting Peters take a walk not only in Scruggs v. Wilson, but also in Eaton v. Frisby if the facts in the government's 404(b) motion in the DeLaughter case are true. Here is NMC's discussion of that issue. Peters was prepared to testify that he conspired with DeLaughter in Eaton.
As for Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood:
A spokesperson for Attorney General Jim Hood neither confirmed nor denied an investigation by Hood's office.
Many of Hood's prosecutions have been of the shoot first and ask questions later variety. Given this tendency to rush in, I doubt that Hood will prosecute at this late date. His office just will not come out and admit it.
That leaves one person not mentioned in the article who could prosecute Peters: Rankin-Madison County District Attorney Michael Guest. According to Tim Balducci, Peters, Steve Patterson, Joey Langston and Balducci met at the Jackson or Madison airport to discuss Peters' communications with Judge DeLaughter about Scruggs v. Wilson. Both airports are in Guest's jurisdiction. While I am no criminal law expert, it sounds like a conspiracy was committed in Guest's jurisdiction. It is unclear why Guest, who is a Republican, would not be eager to prosecute in this high profile case. It is unclear whether Guest has a personal relationship with Peters or if pressure has been put on Guest to not prosecute in the case. At this point, it looks like Guest is the last hope for those who would like to see Peters held accountable for his role in the scandal. Clarksdale attorney Charlie Merkel expresses the sentiments of many when he states:
"I hope [the investigation] goes forward, and I hope the rest of the culprits get nailed, but I am not optimistic that will happen."
