Skip to content
Bobby DeLaughter Plea Agreement and...

Bobby DeLaughter Plea Agreement and Fact Basis

By: Magnolia Tribune - July 31, 2009

Here is the DeLaughter Plea Agreement

Here is the Fact Basis.

Here are the guts of the fact basis.

Bobby DeLaughter corruptly attempted to obstruct, influence, impede and confuse the
FBI’s grand jury investigation of his relationship with Peters. Ed Peters would testifL that he was
hired to influence Bobby DeLaughter and he thinks he did. Joey Langston would testify that he
pled guilty in the matter. In his opinion, the influence Peters exerted on DeLaughter was well
worth the million dollars they paid him. Timothy Balducci would testify about speciftc instams
where critical tactical decisions were made by the Scruggs legal team based upon secret
information obtained by Peters from DeLaughter. One example would be the motion for
quantification filed by Wilson, asking DeLaughter to decide the exact dollar amount owed by
Scruggs to Wilson. The Scruggs legal team believed the motion to be improper, as it asked the
court to sit as the brier of fact, invading the province of the jury. However, the Scruggs attotneys
also recognized a unique opportunity to win the case flat out, short of trial. Theirs was a high
stakes, critical decision. They could object to quantification, or submit their own figures asking
the court to find that Scruggs owed Wilson zero additional moneys. They simply had to know
how the judge would rule, so they went to Peters. Peters would testify that it was about that point
in the proceedings when Langston fust mentioned the “reverse contingency fee”, in effect the
offer of an additional $950,000. Peters had 50,000 from Langston; he realized that the additional
$950,000 was to motivate him to influence the judge and he produced. Balducci would testify
that Peters faxed them the fourth page of the judge’s proposed quantification order showing a
zero balance due from Scmggs to Wilson. Armed with that information, the Scruggs legal team
did not object to quantification, but rather embraced it. The result was a huge win for Scruggs.
Peters would testifL that during the pendency of the proceedings he met with Judge
DeLaughter on numerous occasions, lobbying for Scruggs, providing the court with advance
copies of Scruggs’ filings and taking the judge’s concerns back to the Scruggs team for
additional legal resertrch on various points of law. Peters would testify that DeLaughter never
cautioned him that his contacts were improper, and the evidence would establish that the Wilson
legal team was never made aware that Peters was acting as a secret conduit of information
between the Scruggs legal team and Judge DeLaughter.

Peters also conveyed to Judge DeLaughter Joey Langston’s assurances that Scruggs could
help DeLaughter in his quest to become a federal district judge by having Dick Scniggs get his
brother-in-law, Senator Trent Lott, to call him. Peters would testify that he believed if
DeLaughter would help Scruggs, Scruggs would help Dehughter obtain the judgeship he wanted
so badly. Peters would testify he believed DeLaughter understood that agreement. All these
communications between the Scruggs legal team and the judge occurred cormptly and in secret,
and the evidence would show that Judge DeLaughter never made any of that known to the
plaintiffs in the case. DeLaughterYs statement to the FBI that he had only spoken with Peters
twice, by telephone, about non-substantive issues in the Wilson v. Scruggs case was misleading
and dishonest, clearly designed to codbe, obstruct and impede the FBI’s grand jury

About the Author(s)
author profile image

Magnolia Tribune

This article was produced by Y'all Politics staff.