Scruggs Judge Biggers: Blogger Is Worthy
Simple Justice: While most people who care about the Dickie Scruggs sentence tomorrow are more focused on how much they love/hate the lawyer and the case, Slater at the WSJ Law Blog has pulled a gem out of the middle of the mess for those of us in the practical blawgosphere.
While media outlets were busily trying to get their hands on the letters of support provided by Dickie’s friends (remember the hoopla about the letters when Mel Weiss was on the chopping block?) after the letters were held tight to the vest by the court. This, of course, was totally unacceptable, as it denied the press the opportunity to find out who was backing leniency for Dickie and then make fun of them.
As is often the case leading up to criminal sentencing, letters supporting Scruggs and asking for leniency have been pouring into the chambers of the judge presiding over the case, Neal Biggers. But until today, we had no idea what the letters said; unlike those submitted in the cases involving Bill Lerach and Mel Weiss, the letters concerning Scruggs had been kept private.
That is, until the Mississippi press got involved. Several news organizations filed motions with Judge Biggers, arguing that the letters were of public interest and that they should be allowed to see them.
Fair enough, since that’s what the press is supposed to do. Courts are public. Letters submitted to judges to influence their decision should be public as well. And if you don’t want the press to get their hands on your intimate thoughts about Dickie, then don’t write a letter. Otherwise, whatever you offer a judge in the execution of his public function is part of the record.
But there was a little finger in the mighty fist of the media that merits further…