NMC – DeLaughter’s polygraph motion, letters from Frisby’s attorney to AUSA Norman
The purpose of the meeting was to show DeLaughter had been truthful and “had never been influenced in the Wilson case by any conversations with his long-time friend and colleague Ed Peters.” Present at the meeting were Dawson, Bob Norman, David Sanders, and Tim Kelly from the Justice Department’s public integrity office, along with John Quaka, an FBI special agent. Footnote 1 notes; “Mrs. Speetjens was told prior to the meeting that while the U.S. Attorney’s Office was ‘looking into’ the matter it was not sure that ‘a crime had been committed.’”
The polygraph was by Wayne Humphreys of Bandon. He did the polygraph on December 21st at the request of Cynthia Speetjens, then DeLaughter’s lawyer.
The motion contains a couple of more shots at Ed Peters:
Peters is the former long standing District Attorney for Hinds County and has been, according to the press, a rather perennial target of federal corruption investigations. In this instance, Peters astonishingly admits to receiveing $1,000,000.00 from Dickie Scruggs and his lawyers primarily to make sure that Judge DeLaughter is not “out-influenced” by one of Wilson’s lawyers, Bill Kirksey, a former law partner of Judge DeLaugher. Not one red cent of Peters’ million dollars was passed, or even offered, to Judge DeLaughter. Nevertheless, Peters was given transactional immunity… in exchange for his testimony against DeLaughter.
The letters are pretty interesting. On June 9th, Edward Sitarchuk of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, representing Frisby, wrote Bob Norman, saying he’s writing at Norman’s suggestion, that the writer views his client as a victim of Peters’s action, that the U.S. Attorney’s office “shares these concerns” and that the government was going to offer the events in Eaton as 404(b) evidence in DeLaughter’s trial. He notes that he and local counsel Chase Bryan had “first met with” Norman on November 18, 2008, and “shared our significant concerns regarding Ed Peters’ conduct with Judge DeLaughter….”
At that time, both Mr. Bryan and I understood you to commit to us that any plea or other agreement reached between your office and DeLaughter would require as a condition DeLaughter’s full, complete and truthful cooperation with respect to Eaton v. Frisby.
It is my understanding from our recent telephone conversation, however, that you are leaving open the possibility that a plea agreement with Judge DeLaughter may not require this cooperation. …
[A]bsent such a plea agreement provision, my clients’ ability to secure Judge DeLaughter’s truthful cooperation is doubtful at best. Ed Peters is evidence enough. As I understand it, in adhering to the commitment your office made to him early on, Peters was granted immunity but not required to cooperate in our matter. In the absence of that requirement, Peters has fought every effort to cooperate with us, refusing to meet, attempting to duck service of process and, when served, asserting his right against self-incrimination. …
We continue to believe that Judge DeLaughter should be prosecuted criminally for his misconduct in Eaton v. Frisby.
On June 15, Bob Norman replied. He noted that Sitarchuk and Chase Bryan had announced they represented the Eaton v. Frisby defendants in November, 2008, and asked to come to Oxford to meet with Norman.
It was apparent to me that you were interested in learning whatever you could about the government’s case against Mr. DeLaughter. In return you were kind enough to offer us your assistance. I declined your offer of assistance and expressed my belief that we should continue to keep our interest and our efforts separate.
I do not agree with the premise of your correspondence. I did not promise Mr. DeLaughter’s complete and truthful cooperation. I told you that I thought the case would go to trial, but in the event Mr. DeLaughter pleads guilty, I would like to see him ‘make things right’ with the people of the State of Mississippi by cooperating fully with other investigations. However, it has never been my intention to use the criminal process for hte purpose of advancing your position in civil litigation.