Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Scruggs' switch catches Journal flat-footed

By Mark Obbie

Is it payback time for the Journal against John Keker? If I were Paulo Prada or Ashby Jones, the Journal reporters whose bylines topped this front-pager on Friday, I would have felt one of two emotions yesterday: self-loathing or Keker-loathing. That's because the story -- a lengthy preview of the upcoming judicial-bribery trial of Mississippi trial-lawyer legend Dickie Scruggs, represented by equally legendary criminal defense lawyer John Keker -- was followed a few short hours later by Scruggs' guilty plea. The reporters evidently were in the dark. Their story didn't even speculate on the chances for a deal. So that means they didn't do a good enough job of working their sources on a story they should have known intimately. Or that it happened quickly, and both Keker and their other sources in the case screwed them by not giving a last-minute heads-up that their story was about to be eclipsed by fast-moving events. Either way, it's not a happy situation for a news operation that has devoted enormous attention to the case (check out WSJ Law Blog's Scruggs archive). At 11:45 a.m. Friday, Jones posted on the blog the news of the plea, crediting it to the wires (ouch). That was followed by two more posts during the day, and then today's story. A competitor, the Times' Jonathan Glater, couldn't resist slyly noting the situation. His story on the plea today points out that the Journal quoted Keker slamming the Scruggs prosecution as a "manufactured crime" on the same day that his client admitted guilt. More consoling was the Clarion-Ledger's acknowledgment that it was a surprise. Which brings us to today, fess-up time with the Journal's readers. So what emotions seem to run beneath the surface of the Journal story on the plea, penitently downplayed on page A3 and carrying Jones' and Prada's bylines? They play it completely straight: no recriminations or bitterness, directed either at lying lawyers or clueless reporters. No snide mentions in graf three that the same lawyers who insisted as late as Thursday that there was no deal in the works were now in court on Friday inking the deal. Same goes for Jones' video report (which he starts by saying, "Quite a surprising development today...."). No fair, guys. Someone has to take the fall for this one!

Full post as published by Lawbeat on March 15, 2008 (boomark / email).