Scruggs Nation: June 27, the sentencing
Judge "Maximum Neal" Biggers sentenced Dickie Scruggs to five years in prison, the most Scruggs could receive under his plea agreement. According to this story in the Sun Herald, Scruggs finally came forward with an apology:
Before sentencing, Scruggs told the judge, "I could not be more ashamed to be where I am today. I realized I was getting mixed up in it and I will go to my grave wondering why. I have disappointed everyone in my life - my wife, family and friends here to support me today. I deeply regret my conduct. It is a scar and a stain on my soul."
Scruggs had asked for a sentence of only 30 months, but Biggers, solidifying his reputation as someone who is not to be messed with, called Scruggs out and knocked him around pretty good, as the story says:
He said, "There is no question in the court's mind that Mr. Scruggs, Mr. Richard Scruggs, was a leader and a planner (in the conspiracy). He has said he came into the scheme late. Regardless, he was the leader, he was the money man."
In fact, Biggers said Scruggs had entered into the scheme so easily that it made him wonder whether Scruggs had done such a thing before and indeed evidence indicates that he may have.
Biggers found that at least five people, including Scruggs' son Zach, participated in the conspiracy. He said Scruggs will have a chance to study a copy of the pre-sentencing report while he is in prison. He said one of the conspiracy participants, Timothy Balducci, "said you know where a lot of bodies are buried. It might do you some good to uncover some of those bodies."
That second paragraph, and the end of the third, are key. At a time like this, where someone is facing the music, it's always tempting to say enough is enough, let's just forget about it and move on. But what about all those buried bodies? And what about what Maximum Neal Biggers said -- doesn't it appear from the casual way Scruggs participated in this bribery scheme, with as little moral struggle as if he was taking a drive to the grocery store, that it was a part of his existing psychological montage?
Legal Newsline also has a good story on the Scruggs sentencing. Check out this excerpt:
Biggers said he was "personally shocked" when he first heard of the case, a shock that was sustained when he first saw the Government's evidence.
The harshness of the sentence -- which includes a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised release and the price of his incarceration -- can be traced to Scruggs' motives. Biggers said there is a difference between a criminal stealing out of necessity and what Scruggs did.
A 2003 audit of Scruggs in an asbestos fees dispute showed a net worth of approximately $200 million.
"The justice system has made you a rich man," Biggers said.
Hey, let's be fair here! The justice system gave a lot to Scruggs, so maybe he just decided it was time to give some back! In $40,000 increments, apparently.
I'll be out of the office until Tuesday, but Marjory Morford will post updates as appropriate.
UPDATE: Sid Backstrom gets less time. Judge Biggers sentences him to two years and four months in prison and fined $250,000. He is to report on August 1 also. According to the Sun Herald:
Biggers said he was impressed that Backstrom seemed remorseful about his role in the case. He was ordered to report to prison on Aug. 4.
"I cannot say that I have seen that kind of remorse from your co-defendants," the judge said.
Zach Scruggs will be sentenced on July 2.
Scruggs sentenced to five years, maximum possible under his plea deal [YallPolitics and huge link-o-rama, Rossmiller, Folo noting the odd takes of Jim Hood and the NYT, Ted at OL, WSJ law blog (some, but not enough, press access to...
One more brick in Mississippi's constructive efforts to rid itself of the "judicial hellhole" mantle. And, it drives home the point that judges are off-limits to excessively aggressive plaintiff lawyers' over-reaching. Speaking of which (driving home the point), Dickie (great name under the circumstances) is likely to see some of that where he's going.
Hurry back, the first state jury to hear a case just slapped Admiral Lisanby's ins. company the full value of their policy, plus $86,000 each for the Admiral and his wife for pain and suffering. $910,000 total so far, and punitive damage issue to be decided on Monday. Congrats to former SKG attorney Don Barrett and Tom Thrash.
A future congrats to the Fifth Circuit for overturning the Lisanby verdict. Does anyone truly think an insurance company can get a fair jury trial in Mississipi? It is almost comical. Look at the picture of the house...first story completely gone due to surge and no shingles missing from the roof. Any rational jury would have held for USAA after 15 minutes of deliberation. Rationale when it comes to insurance companies does not exist in Mississippi.
Good one, Thick. The type of rogue wind capable of blowing out the first floor without removing shingles is apparently one only Mississippi residents can understand. Maybe this absolutely outrageous result will finally give judges a reason to change venue for future trials.
Thick, the 5th Circuit will never see the Lisanby case. You do realize it is in state court and not federal do you not?
Randy,
My bad. Thanks for the correction.
Who knows? Even the Mississippi Supreme Court may be capable of reaching a Fifth Circuit type conclusion regarding these bizarre Mississippi microbursts of air that arrive just before the water. As a USAA member, I'm urging my carrier to take this one as far as it can go in pursuit of judicial sanity for the benefit of every USAA member who would like to still have a company left that can pay legitimate claims when they arise.
Good show, THICK. Now we know the story behind the name.
I thought it was interesting how the Judge repeatedly referred to the "evidence indicating that he may have done the same thing before," and interesting how the Judge made such references both before and after the Judge ruled that he would not consider precisely that evidence, since it had not been proven and was irrelevant to these charges.
thick -- maybe this case will give the Miss. a Supreme Court the chance to give the 5th Circuit a little Erie guidance to replace all their guesswork.
I enjoyed this blog much more when insurance coverage was the topic, not gossip about lawyers that have run afoul of the law.
Dick Scruggs "the Smug" thought he was the King of Torts and thought nothing of ruining amuck of the law and ruining countless children and families and lives to extort, bride and steal as usual.
I thought Lisbany would be defense verdict after I saw the photos, but if you look at a breakdown of the jury verdict. only $400k for the house. That's not total recovery but only about 1/2 of property damage. So the jury didn't necessarily find the wind (microburst) blew out the first floor. From looking at photo, the upstairs windows were blown out and with roof damage, (it appeared). So wind and rain were penetrating for hours before any surge arrived (I know that for certain - 6 ft in first floor of my house - but wind damage also from second floor down). The interior and contents of the house would have been ruined/damaged by rain and wind before surge got there and $400k would be about right for that, and USAA would liable under any ruling, 5th Cir or Miss. Supreme Court for damaged caused by wind. The remainder of the verdict was partial contents, living expense, $200k for emotional distress, etc. So those of you that believe the Jury award $900k+ or policy limits bec microburst blew through the first floor (which I don't believe either) may be wrong. I didn't hear the evidence the jury did.
I was quoting from the SunHerald story by Karen Nelson. (Anita was in Oxford for the sentencing). SunHerald states that the jury gave Admiral Lisanby and Gladys "all that their homeowners ins. policy could pay in Katrina damages to their home, plus what they thought wind might have done to the contents, garage and guest cottage." I believe ins. company had already paid $5,000 for contents, based on the 109 page itemization Gladys had prepared, and $41,000 for roof/window repair.
I think the judge is entitled to rely on unproved information in sentencing. So he can look to whether the conduct appears to be isolated or part of a pattern. Not sure what standard, if any, applies to such information.
What I don't get is why judges are so interested in remorse. Some people don't look remorseful, even though they really are inside. Others are talented actors who put up a good show of remorse; even though they're not really remorseful. Anyway, it's unclear to me how remorse is relevant. The sentence should fit the deed and the life led thus far; not how the defendant reacts to having been caught and convicted.
So there's a practical dimension (the difficulty in evaluating the validity and extent of remorse) and a moral dimension (remorse does not diminish or mitigate the criminal act). Is there deterrence value? I suppose a defendant who has demonstrated genuine remorse is less likely to offend again. Except that one must then evaluate the defendant's lesson retention. Remorseful on sentencing day, to be forgotten weeks later. Conversely, a remorseless defendant may discover true remorse after months of incarceration. Anyway, I don't think remorse should be part of the equation.
Not sure if you've heard, but Judge Bridges has reversed his decision on the punitive damages hearing in the Lisanby case for Monday.
No word yet as to why.
Here is a link to the transcripts to Dickie Scruggs' sentencing:
http://www.sunherald.com/280/v-print/story/653064.html
Judge rules that Admiral Lisanby jury will not be allowed to decide punitive damages.
Once judges start eliminating punitive damages in all these cases won't we see a host of settlements for reasonable sums? With plaintiffs getting only 50% or 60% of their recoveries after paying counsel, and with the lure of ringing a big punitive damage bell with a willing local jury no longer possible, reasonable compromises based on good business judgments from both sides are bound to follow.
For decades to come, Richard "Dickie" Scruggs children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will recall a man who had it all and fell from grace- and spent years in jail.
It takes 30 years to build a reputation and 5 minutes to lose it.
Let him be a reminder to all of us that your reputation is priceless, and to be protected at all costs.
A billion dollars cannot buy back one's reputation. Maybe we should reflect upon what "having it all" really means.
Ironic
Tim's post on the Lisanby case makes it seem a lot more reasonable. I don't think one can look at a photo of the house and make a good judgment about the cause(s) of the damage.
As for Dickie... go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 million (oops, you already did, and you will keep it).
Where's Belle on the Lisanby punitive damage ruling? She could help us.
Belle--help us. Boy are you on the wrong website.
Paul Minor filed appeal
http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/story/657072.html
Judge tosses punitive damages in Katrina case
http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/655446.html
An article in the Clarion Ledger - Jackson, Ms newspaper - gives stats the number of times since tort reform that the Supreme Court has overturned jury decisions by Miss. juries. The number is 88 per cent of the cases. I pose this question.
Why go to the expense and time to have a jury trial if the decision is only going to be overturned by a higher court? Do away with jury trials by whatever means necessary - constitutional ammendment, whatever. Obviously the pendulum has swung too far in favor of corporate America and the medical profession. I just do not believe that the jury has been wrong 88 per cent of the time.
That's not 88 percent because a very small number of cases (probably in the 10% range) are appealed -- and almost all of them have merit. And another huge percent of claims are settled before suits are ever filed, so you're talking a very, very, very mall percent.
The answer to your question is that we need trials as a dispute resolution of last resort only, not for the vast majority of disagreements. Compromise is the name of the game, and when folks are so adamant on both sides that they'd rather roll dice than be reasonable, well, the door to the courthouse is always open. And for a tiny fraction of those cases, there's a right to appeal.
Why are Mississippi juries wrong a lot?
I would offer this explanation from none other than Dickie Scruggs:
"What I call the ``Magic Jurisdictions'' is where the judiciary is elected with verdict money. The trial lawyers have established relationships with the judges that are elected. They are State court judges. They are populists. They have large populations of voters who are in on the deal. They are getting their piece, in many cases. And so it's a political force in their jurisdiction and it's almost impossible to get a fair trial if you are a defendant in some of these places.
The plaintiff lawyer walks in there and writes the number on the blackboard, and the first juror meets the last one coming out the door with that amount of money. The cases are not won in the courtroom. They're won on the back roads long before the case goes to trial. Any lawyer fresh out of law school can walk in there and win the case, so it doesn't matter what the evidence or the law is."
Do you think Scruggs had it wrong? He would be in a position to know, wouldn't he?
We've gotten off track but...Attorneys for the Lisanbys filed a motion asking Judge Bridges to reconsider and let a jury decide punitive damages
Interested, while the pendulum may have swung too far one way an 88% figure does not surprise me. Juries are more likely to go on emotion and a philosophy of "The big guys can afford it". The courts are bound by the law.
What was the Admiral talking about when he accused the Judge of being influenced in connection with his decision not to submit the punitive damage issue to the jury?
As someone pointed out on Folo, it's amazing how the jury is always right when they convict a criminal defendant and always wrong when they convict a civil defendant.
Also the article pointed out that when the plaintiff appeals a defense verdict they are batting 0%. When the defense appeals they win 88% of the time. Again, amazing how the same juries are wrong 88% of the time when they rule for the plaintiff, but right 100% of the time when they rule for the defense.
You get the justice you pay for and it's hard to see the difference in buying the judges on the front end versus buying them on the back end. The U.S Chamber of Commerce and the medical profession have plowed millions into the Supreme Court races in Mississippi and justice has been perverted.
I do not place all fault on jurors. Jurors can only see, hear and consider evidence allowed to be entered. Many appeals are taken to challenege whether certain evidence should, or should not have gone to the jury for consideration.
Even if you assume a judge did not decide whether to allow, or not allow, evidence under improper influence from the Scruggs' of the world, the fact that an applellate court has to correct the mistakes is a poor reflection, not on the jurors, but on the LAWYERS or the JUDGE, or both.
If a doctor make a mistake, we call it malpractice, when a corporation makes a mistake, we call it a tort, when an appellate court corrects mistakes made by lawyers and judges, we call it justice.
To ITSABOUTTIME and others: Did you notice the really staggering statistic? You know the one - the % of cases in which Alston and The C-L claimed the Supreme Court got it wrong on appeal. It is a whopping ZERO. The article and the percentages are grossly misleading. The article appears to be driven by Alston's having a big punitive verdict from a "Magic Jurisdiction" reversed just as he retired.
Old Lawyer----good call-and youre correct. HUGE verdict from Judge Kidd's court.
I wonder what John Grisham thinks about his good buddy Dickie Scruggs now?
prefer @12:23: Mississippi has done nothing to clean this up. The Feds had to do it.
Alton: And when the appellate court favors civil defendants and criminal prosecutors to the extent that they never lose -- we call is miscarriage of justice.
folo and NMC have the full story already but for those who follow this misadventure here, Zach Scruggs today was sentenced to 14 months. This in the face of the government's agreement to a sentence of probation only.
Tiring commentaries, boring diatribes, jealous mindset of have-not's, and never will's - enough.
"Tiring commentaries, boring diatribes, jealous mindset of have-not's, and never will's - enough."
Nice condescencion from someone with an elitist attitude.
"folo and NMC have the full story already but for those who follow this misadventure here, Zach Scruggs today was sentenced to 14 months. This in the face of the government's agreement to a sentence of probation only."
It was not an agreement but a recommendation. There was nothing binding on the court when it came to sentencing.