Joint Hearing Of The House Committee On the Judiciary's Subcommittees- Federal Justice System's Selective Prosecution
Interview
Joint Hearing Of The House Committee On the Judiciary's Subcommittees- Federal Justice System's Selective Prosecution
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm concerned about these cases that have been raised, very much so. But I'd like to turn our discussion to a case in Mississippi that Chairman Scott mentioned in his opening statement, a case that raises serious questions of selective prosecutions.
The committee has received letters from Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, as well as Mississippi trial lawyer Paul Minor and Mississippi attorney and former judge John Whitfield, detailing the facts of their prosecutions in Mississippi.
They all believe these have been politically motivated. And once you read their letters -- and it's mentioned in Justice Diaz's letter that John Grisham, a distinguished author, former member of the Mississippi House of Representatives, has written a lot about Mississippi in fiction. But once you read their letters, it looks like something that's even more scary. It looks like a tale of intrigue, of political incest in the highest orders and places of the Mississippi justice department, and attempts to get even with folks on the other side of the aisle.
I would like first to ask unanimous consent that the three letters that we've received from the justice, the attorney and the former judge be included in the record.
REP. SCOTT: Without objection.
REP. COHEN: Thank you, sir.
And what Justice Diaz, a sitting member of the Mississippi Supreme Court, describes as a scheme, quote, "hatched by politically corrupt employees of the United States Department of Justice and elsewhere," in 2003 the United States attorney for the southern district of Mississippi, Mr. Lampton, prosecuted Justice Diaz, Mr. Minor, Mr. Whitfield, another judge and Justice Diaz's ex-wife, based on allegations that Mr. Minor attempted to gain an unfair advantage with the judges by guaranteeing loans in the 2000 campaign, when Justice Diaz was running for judge, a man who was a Republican but had Democratic friends over the years, against a man named Sterrett (sp), who was a good 100 percent silk-stocking Republican with all the things that Republicans do to be in good graces; a loyal Bushie, so to speak.
In that particular election in 2000, Mr. Minor made guaranteed loans to the candidate running for justice, Mr. Diaz, at approximately $65,000. It was legal in Mississippi, perfectly legal under Mississippi law. Another gentleman, Mr. Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, made loans of $80,000 to Justice Diaz the same election.
There are differences, and you start to see the branching of justice and the definite questions which this committee, Mr. Chairman, needs to look into.
After that 2000 election, you got the same set of facts -- two legal guaranteed loans made to this Supreme Court justice and candidate, one by Mr. Diaz and one by Mr. Minor. Yet in 2003, Justice Diaz, Mr. Minor, Mr. Whitfield, then a judge, another judge and Mr. Diaz's wife were all indicted.
They were indicted in July of 2003, even though Justice Diaz had recused himself from every case he'd ever had dealing with Mr. Minor, never voted on a thing, but he's indicted. He's indicted because he guaranteed these loans to this man running for the Supreme Court.
Mr. Scruggs guaranteed a loan at a higher amount of money, repaid those loans himself rather than raising money, as Mr. Minor did. Accordingly, Mr. Scruggs was more ingratiated, so to speak, with the justice than Mr. Minor would have been, but Mr. Scruggs was not indicted.
Well, what's the difference in the two situations, according to these letters? Well, if you look at them, Mr. Minor was one of the largest donors to the Democrats in that state, one of the top 10 donors to the John Edwards presidential campaign, and was known for his support as a trial lawyer and working for the people's interests and against the tobacco interests.
On the other hand, Mr. Scruggs, also a trial lawyer, also a trial lawyer, had, after that election, given half a million dollars to Republican causes, a quarter of a million dollars to the Bush-Cheney campaign and, coincidentally or not, is the brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.
Well, Mr. Scruggs was not indicted and apparently not even investigated. It is this suggestion of politically motivated selective prosecution that raises the question of whether the prosecution of Justice Diaz or Mr. Minor fits in the larger potential pattern of selective prosecution that we're discussing today.
Justice Diaz was not only indicted, but once the jury found him not guilty, acquitted him of charges. Three days later he's reindicted. And when you read through these letters and you see a pattern of relationships and conflicts of interest that are not taken into consideration by the court on the part of Mr. Lampton, who twice ran for Congress as a Republican, was constantly the opposition of Mr. Minor -- he was his foil, his antithesis -- and yet Mr. -- and Mr. Minor had sued a Fortune 500 company, which Mr. Lampton's family is involved in -- Mr. Lampton doesn't recuse himself. He brings a prosecution, looking apparently at the man first and the facts later, and prosecutes. And conflict of interest isn't discussed.
What I would like to ask in this situation is --
REP. : Mr. Chairman, the time has long expired for -- (inaudible.)
REP. COHEN: I would just like to ask the chairman if he could look into and include in this particular hearing discussions of whether selective prosecutions looking motivated happened in Mississippi with these Democratic office holders and include the Mississippi case in any document requests that are made, and ask the committee to make this case a full part of its inquiry. If you look at it, it makes -- it does an injustice to the state of Mississippi, to Lady Justice and to what we know is fair play in America.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. SCOTT: Thank you.
The gentleman's time has expired. We have a committee hearing in this room at 1:00. That will begin at the conclusion of this hearing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source