legalese1115 :
As a fellow criminal defense attorney, but up here in Missouri, I have a few comments: 1) I was incredulous until I saw the picture of the actual truck compared to the picture posted on the auction site. That’s a tough one to explain away. 2) The fact he didn’t disclose he would be bidding doesn’t excite me much. A simple explanation would be he didn’t want to appear like he was putting pressure on the deputies administering the auction. So, unless there’s some regulation prohibiting it, it isn’t necessarily unreasonable not to disclose that. A better practice might have been assigning the task to someone else in his office. 3) Out of the offenses you mentioned, I think the only one (generally speaking, I did not review the GA criminal code) that might fit would be wire fraud. I think any type of theft, conversion, etc. would be tough because, while it sounds like he got a good deal, it amounted to a few thousand dollars. While one can assume the winning bid would have been higher with an accurate picture, that doesn’t amount to much more than speculation. I don’t think any sort of theft of honest services would apply because the truck wasn’t purchased with tax dollars or public debt. 4) Buyer beware certainly applies as motor vehicles are auctioned without warranties or guarantees and as is, but that’s usually related to sellers minimizing issues that would devalue the asset in order to maximize the bidding price. However, that begs the question whether the losing bidders might have causes of action. It strikes me they might have causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent merchandising practices (I assume GA has something like this), or even a quasi contract action based upon bad faith and unfair dealing. 5) I know our Judicial oversight agency up here is cracking down the past year like they never have. Not sure if GA’s is as well. But, it strikes me he ought to have, at a bare minimum, a lot to explain to GA’s judicial oversight agency and, I think the GA Bar. I’m not sure how the picture could be interpreted as anything other than bad faith, unfair dealing, and dishonesty. That would violate both judicial cannons… 1/2
2026-06-24 03:24:12