Edwards: "Slanderous", "Ugly"?
   A front page story in the Baton Rouge Advocate quoted a U. S. Attorney as saying that former Governor Edwin Edwards’ motion for a new trial is "slanderous" and "ugly". I suppose that this depends upon one’s perspective.
  I believe that Edwards’ attorneys not only have the right to determine the physical and mental condition of the presiding judge but a duty to do so in view of the statements attributed to Judge Polozola in a civil law suit he filed against his insurance company where he himself claimed he suffered "mental anguish and "impairment of function".
  According to the record, Polozolo filed prescriptions for Oxy-Contin during the time of pretrial court hearings on Edwards’ case. For those of you who may not know what Oxy-Contin is, a prominent sheriff said that Oxy-Contin is more powerful than Crack-cocaine, extremely additive and favored over Crack-cocaine on the street.
  Edwards’ attorneys want to see the medical records of Polozola because the dope pills he was on may have made him "erratic and even paranoid".
Attorney Small maintains: "their rights (the Edwards’) were violated by Judge Polozola’s decision to specifically assign their cases to himself and to preside over the cases when he was impaired in function and taking narcotic pain killers, including Oxy-contin to alleviate his pain and suffering."
  In a motion filed in Judge Janice Clark’s District Court in Baton Rouge, attorneys for Edwards want copies of Polozola’s medical records and depositions he and his psychiatrist and his psychologist submitted in the 1998 law suit against his insurance company.
  The motion continues: "and his use of powerful addictive painkillers could explain some of the conduct that Edwards challenged on his direct appeal as reflecting a bias against Edwards and his co-defendants. Judge Polozola’s volatility during these proceedings might be attributable to his physical impairment and use of powerful and addictive painkillers. For example, his decision to seal every paper filed by the parties unless he approved of unsealing, without question a unique usurpation of judicial power that protected his own conduct from public scrutiny while interfering with the defendants’ right to a public trial, might have been prompted by his pain and the powerful medication he was taking to treat it."
  "At one point, in mid-1999during the period when the records disclose that Judge Polozola was being prescribed OxyCondin, he delivered the following diatribe, illustrative of his volatility:"
   
    "Let me tell you what. I have been seeing snickeringall morning at me. Okay. And it isn’t a joke. And I am doing the best job I can, and I work hard. And I work hard when everyone else is playing. And if I see one more snicker from any side, any side in this case, you are going right through that door, and I am telling you you are going to stay there until I believe that maybe a lesson has been learned, and I am not sure it is going to be with 24 hours."
   "And I have seen this all morning. I have seen it all
morning, and it is disrespectful. And I don’t care if you hate my guts, every lawyer in this case. You are stuck with me."

  This doesn’t strike me as normal behavior on the part of a rational man for several reasons: one, no lawyer would have the courage to "snicker" at a judge like Polozola in view of his well known reputation for insulting and raking lawyers over the coals; and two, no lawyer is stupid enough to "snicker at a judge" who holds the fate of his client in his hands.
  Judge Polozola allegedly settled the suit against his insurance company for a reported $50,000 in lieu of the $800 to $900,000 he sued for rather than being deposed and having his records opened to public scrutiny.
  I suggest, in order to put to bed any sense of judicial impropriety or misconduct on his part, he should voluntarily turn over the records Edwards’ attorneys seek. If he has nothing to hide, it’s no big deal. Failing to do so creates the impression that he does have something to hide.
   On the other side of the horn, the paroxysmal fervor with which the U. S. Attorney’s office fights any appeal by Edwards’ attorneys gives credence to the wide spread belief that the federal government was out to get Edwards from the get go and that the only conspiracy in the case was between the FBI, the U. S. Attorney’s Office and the Federal Judge.
   Adding to this belief is the conduct of U. S. District Judge Parker of Baton Rouge, who before the trial ever started, got on television and urged other indicted friends of former Governor Edwards to turn against him by saying something to the effect that the train was leaving the station and they had better get on board. It is hard to imagine that any fair minded person, much less a federal judge, who supposedly believes that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, would say such a thing in private much less on public television.
   No, I disagree with the federal prosecutor’s argument that the latest actions by Edwards or his attorneys are "Slanderous and Ugly".
   On the contrary, I believe that a 76 year old man sentenced to a ten year prison term by any judge is entitled to make sure that the judge was not biased against him by reason of impairment, paranoia, addictive painkillers or any other reason.
  That’s my story and I am sticking to it.
  Unless of course, they come after me as they did Edwards. Then I’ll do like the Feds do; lie and deny everything!

 Milo A. Nickel is the former President and COO of Louisiana State Newspapers.