Neil Lewis of the New York Times writes a lengthy article on his review of the documents in the cross-burning case involving Bush judicial nominee Charles Pickering of Mississippi.

While we wrote a long post on this yesterday, Lewis's article contains some new information, so we recommend you read the whole thing.

The prosecutors, documents and interviews show, agonized over how to deal with a hostile federal judge.

Among other steps Judge Pickering took, he threatened to order a new trial. When prosecutors asked him on what basis he could do so, he replied, "Any basis you want."

When federal prosecutors from the same Jackson, Miss., office came before him in other unrelated cases, he hectored them, asking them repeatedly what their office was doing with regard to his request to reduce the sentence in the Swan case. Justice Department officials at the time said Judge Pickering was making it especially difficult for Mr. Lacy, a senior trial lawyer in the office who would have to appear many times before him.

In a sealed order, Judge Pickering ordered the prosecutors to take up the Swan case with Attorney General Janet Reno, an unusual demand they did not comply with and one he did not enforce.

Judge Pickering also telephoned Frank Hunger, a friend who was then a senior Justice Department official, to complain. His call may have violated the canons of judicial ethics, several legal experts say. Mr. Hunger said he listened but did not take any action on the complaint.