folo

UPDATED BELOW  

I’ve said before that I don’t envy the lawyers who’ve taken on the defense of the Scruggs accuseds. Even before we know the whole case they’re up against, confirmation that it includes a 90-minute group conversation (presumably captured by Tim Balducci’s body mike) and 124 wiretapped phone conversations is daunting enough. But keep in mind that neither they nor we know to a certainty what further evidence to expect from Judge Lackey’s audio/video-wired chambers, or what the other records, transcripts, and/or photos the prosecution hasn’t yet delivered to them may include. (Well, as someone around here (NMC?) I think said, they probably do know p r e t t y well what else is on tap, but they can’t be 100% sure.)

Of course John Keker yesterday wouldn’t discuss what conversations the recordings captured or how often the voice of Dickie Scruggs chimes in on them, but he did claim, “It’s not going to be many and it’s not going to be much. It’s not going to matter” — as Hiram Eastland happy-talked, “I’m very encouraged on behalf of my client [Steve Patterson] by what I’ve seen and heard so far about this case.”

Rather more convincingly, Zach Scruggs’s lawyer, Tony Farese, told the AP’s reporter, “The government is working diligently to make sure we receive discovery on time. It’s a lot of work on their end ” [emph. mine].

Recall that the defense motion (pdf) filed yesterday also mentions a “taint team” still processing evidence gathered during the FBI raids on the Scruggses’ and Joey Langston’s law firms on November 27 and December 10. Today David Rossmiller helpfully links to wilmerhale.com for an explanation of that term:

The [Department of Justice] appoints prosecutors and/or agents who are not otherwise assigned to the case under investigation and directs them to review all the electronic records first and identify the portions of those records that their colleagues who are handling the case should not see. These groups of reviewing prosecutors and agents are referred to as “taint teams” because their purpose is to shield the government from a defense motion to suppress electronic record evidence based on an argument that the prosecution and investigating team was “tainted” by viewing electronic records it had no right to see.

Accordingly, yesterday’s motion gives notice that

While Defendants have only begun to analyze the discovery provided to date, Defendants anticipate the possibility of filing suppression motions directed to the November 26, 2007 search, motions directed to the applications for, and the request for extension of, the Title III wiretaps, motions to dismiss some or all of the counts in the indictment, and discovery motions. In addition, Defendants anticipate that there may be motion practice related to the “taint team’s” review of the material seized from The Scruggs Law Firm as well as motion practice regarding jury selection and voir dire. In addition, these motions may well necessitate that the Court schedule pretrial hearings, including possible evidentiary hearings.

Shorter Defense: We’ve got a world of things to fight, and at this point, Judge, we’re asking you to give us three or four months to arm ourselves for, and then conduct, many a pre-trial battle.

Meanwhile, David Rossmiller’s been thinking about the indictment‘s (pdf) allegations of the events of November 1.  

On that day, Balducci supposedly delivered the last $10,000 of the agreed upon $40,000 to Judge Lackey, and allegedly Dickie Scruggs had already given Balducci a $40,000 to cover this. On that same day, Balducci allegedly had the conversation with Zach Scruggs and Balducci were he said “we paid for this ruling, let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” And also on November 1, Balducci allegedly had a conversation with Dickie Scruggs where Scruggs agreed to pay an extra $10,000 to Lackey. These last two items tend to support a theory that Balducci was already cooperating with the government at this point — the statement to Zach Scruggs and Backstrom smacks of one made to obtain their reactions on tape, and there is no reason to ask for a fake extra $10,000 payment from Dickie Scruggs unless to further implicate him and get documentary and audio recording evidence against him. However, if Balducci was cooperating, why deliver the last of the $40,000 to Lackey? What would be the purpose of delivering alleged bribes when both the bribee and the briber knew the transaction was fake? Maybe readers can supply the answer.

Since the indictment is silent as to whether Balducci did deliver that $10,000, I’ll borrow Occam’s Razor to slice off a piece of he-didn’t. I bet, rather than cashing it, he handed over Dickie’s check to the FBI and it’s now sitting in a nicely-iced-down evidence locker with his other $40,000 in cash that Judge Lackey turned in.

Also prominent in the Folo Department of Loose Ends — but I hope not iced-down — are questions about what happened between Ken Coghlan, Hiram Eastland, and Steve Patterson that meant Coghlan — a defense attorney seemingly highly-respected among folo’s local legal cognoscenti — bowed out to be replaced by someone whose only supporter here (so far) made claims that at least one other, more folo-established commenter had trouble believing.

“Orchid” (the commenter formerly known as “MSLawyer”) heard a couple of theories about that parting-of-the-ways and kindly shared them here today — but if any of y’all who-live-where-I-don’t know, or know where to find, definitive information on this guy Eastland (among other things, whether we’re talking about Hiram Jr. or Hiram III), please either say so on the blog or email me at lotusflowah@widouta.net.

Much obliged.

lotus

P.S. Oh, meant to remember to tell y’all this too: Rossmiller pointed out that there are now two United States of America v. Scruggs cases — the Mississippi alleged-bribery and the Alabama criminal-contempt-of-court. To keep them straight, I’ll be referring to the former as U.S. v. Scruggs and the latter as U.S.A. v. Scruggs.

UPDATE: Will the person who signed on for the first time this afternoon as “observer” please check your email? We already have one “observer” (sorry, I thought the software would alert you to that, but apparently it doesn’t). Anyhow, please pick another handle (the shorter the better) to avoid confusion. I want to release your two comments ASAP, but first we need to solve this leetle problem. (If you don’t remember what you said, I can copy and email those to you.) Thanks.