NMC – Ed Peters denies everything in Wilson v Scruggs II, could make for a good cross X

Ed Peters has answered the Wilson v. Scruggs case that was filed in the Northern District of Mississippi, in which Roberts Wilson sued Scruggs and his lawyers (including Peters) for conspiring to bribe Judge DeLaughter to cheat him in the case that had been before Judge DeLaughter.

The most interesting thing in Ed Peters answer is an affirmative defense. Affirmative the Eight Affirmative Defense alleges:

At all times material hereto, the Defendant acted in a manner that was objectively reasonable.

Objectively reasonable.

I realize that perfunctory denials are the rule in answers; the significance here is not in Wilson’s case. The significance is in Peters’s testimony in the criminal case, in which he will most assuredly be cross-examined about this answer in which he alleges that his conduct was “objectively reasonable” and denies each allegation of the bribery scheme. It’s not an answer a lawyer filed on his behalf; he filed it himself, and he signed it.