On April 25, Anita Lee with the Sun Herald ran an interview with Jim Hood that primarily focused on his testimony in Judge Bramlette’s courtroom in February 2008 in State Farm vs. Hood. That case was settled the evening after what most observers deemed as damning testimony from Hood himself on the stand.
Last week, Judge Henry Lackey testified substantially as Balducci did to federal investigators. He testified that Assistant District Attorney Lon Stallings, who worked for Hood at one time, advised him that Hood was receiving political pressure coordinated by Dickie Scruggs and Mike Moore. Mike Moore made his own run to the press to counter Judge Lackey and basically characterized Lackey as either senile or a liar.
Now Jim Hood has followed in his mentor’s footsteps and has made a press push of his own. Hood’s mad dash to the press some two months after his testimony invites a host of very interesting points.
First, why now? Why after two months would Jim Hood feel it necessary to go and clarify a meeting with Patterson and Balducci? If it was all above board, Jim Hood would not need to clarify the content of a meeting (with two now admitted felons). Judge Lackey’s testimony last week in Oxford might have pushed him a little bit, but why would Hood hone in on just this one dinner event? One could now easily surmise that there is obviously more to the story that he’s scared will become public and that Hood is attempting to “get out in front” of whatever he thinks is coming next.
Second, a reading of the transcript and a subsequent reading of his interview about the substance of that dinner meeting would lead one to believe that something happened at that meeting. Balducci testified under oath to investigators that he and Patterson pushed Hood to stop the criminal prosecution of State Farm at the behest of Scruggs (which, eventually, of course he did . . . right on cue). Now, in the article, Hood states . . .
This week, Hood said that he was negotiating the civil settlement with State Farm during the time that he, Patterson and Balducci had dinner. He still says they spent most of the evening talking about Balducci’s plans to start a new law firm with Patterson as a consultant. Balducci was leaving the Booneville firm of Joey Langston, Hood said, but didn’t want Langston to know that yet.
Hood said Balducci and Patterson did ask about the State Farm negotiations – Hood had the impression they were fishing, he said. But Hood says he did not agree to make any concessions and was not threatened.
In Hood’s testimony, he played “rope-a-dope” with Jim Robie about the location of the dinner, then played “peek-a-boo” about what was said. Hood was questioned and answered as follows.
9 Q. Did you have dinner with Mr. Balducci or Mr. Patterson at
10 Crechale’s restaurant where they discussed Scruggs’ desire to
11 settle that case?
12 A. No, sir. I haven’t been to Crechale’s in a long time.
13 Q. You did not have dinner with them where they discussed —
14 A. When are you talking about? And you said “Crechale’s.” I
15 haven’t been to Crechale’s so I know I didn’t have dinner with
16 anybody at Crechale’s.
17 Q. My real question is: Did Mr. Patterson or Mr. Balducci
18 have dinner with you and tell you that if you did not
19 participate or assist Mr. Scruggs in settling that mass tort
20 action which was going to generate a 20-million-dollar-plus
21 fee, that he would fund an alternative candidate to run against
22 you for attorney general?
23 A. If you’re asking me did somebody come to me and threaten
24 me, the answer is no. Now, out of all candor in this, I don’t
25 want to mislead you. I remember having dinner on one occasion
Page 159
1 with Mr. Balducci and Mr. Patterson, but that conversation was
2 about they were leaving the firm that they were presently —
3 that Mr. Balducci was presently with. They didn’t convey any
4 threats to me about settling the case or anything like that.
5 Q. They never suggested that if you didn’t participate in
6 dropping your criminal investigation that Dickie Scruggs would
7 fund an alternate candidate and Mike Moore would support that?
8 A. No, sir. Absolutely not.
One final point about this interview is that Hood maintains his defense of not prosecuting Scruggs, Balducci, Langston & Patterson on two key points.
Hood said campaign contributions from Langston and Scruggs would have prevented him from investigating the two, but the question never came up. After being approached by Balducci, the judge reported the overture to federal investigators because of the relationship between Scruggs and Hood. Hood said those investigators were better-equipped to handle the case because he has no authority to use wire taps.
So, in Hood’s eyes, campaign contributions from the accused and the lack of wiretapping ability are the primary reasons why he could not pursue criminal charges. From my point of view, campaign contributions from people accused of wrongdoing make the urgency to adequately investigate wrongdoing even more acute. Not prosecuting those who have admitted wrongdoing on the basis that they were contributors could give lay people the impression of quid pro quo. Secondly, wiretapping is not a precursor to any sort of prosecution whatsoever and is an absolute red herring that Hood seems desperate to push to excuse his own conduct (or lack thereof). Thousands of public corruption cases have been made without the aid of wiretapping. Another of Hood’s large contributors, Paul Minor, is serving 11 years in prison, and there wasn’t a minute of tape entered into evidence in that case. However, his guilt was clear to a jury.
My analysis continues to be that this whole affair is like quicksand for all involved. Hood continues to inject himself into this everytime he testifies or talks in the press about these events. The more they thrash in the quicksand, the worse it will get for them in the public and legal arenas.
