Grady Tollison described Judge Lackey’s account of the bribe attempt in court today. The details of Grady Tollison’s description of Judge Lackey’s account presents the first and best look inside the bribe attempt since the indictment. A number of reporters were present in the courtroom, and so there are a lot of first hand accounts, but they have varied somewhat in detail. Here’s another firsthand account that looks pretty complete.
Grady Tollison asked to call Judge Lackey and Scruggs’s lawyer objected. This caused a very odd push-pull. Tollison said that he wanted to proffer (put into the record for an appeal) into evidence Judge Lackey’s account of the bribery attempt. Here’s where it went oddly: Normally, a lawyer making a proffer wants to do it himself by describing what the testimony would be, and his opponent (who objects to the evidence) wants to force the proffering attorney to put the witness on. This for the obvious reason that the witness could go squirrelly and not say what the lawyer expects (or needs) the witness to say. But this time it went the other way around –Tollison wanted Judge Lackey on the stand, and Scruggs’s lawyer did not.
For some reason, the Scruggs side did not want Judge Lackey to tell this story in front of the assembled multitude.
Judge Coleman told Tollison to do the proffer himself, which happened next. Tollison stated that if Judge Lackey testified, he would state, based on an interview Tollison conducted last Thursday when it was clear the hearing was to occur (with my comments added in brackets to clarify):
Tim Balducci called Judge Lackey and asked to meet with Judge Lackey in Calhoun City [where Judge Lackey has his chambers]. Judge Lackey agreed to meet and was concerned because he thought Balducci may have had a personal or family problem he wanted to talk about. Lackey had known Balducci when he had practiced briefly in Oxford and had been a public defender there for a time. Balducci arrived and announced that he was there to talk about the Jones case. Balducci began with very "unfavorable comments " about Grady Tollison, and then said he was there for "his good friends Nutt and Scruggs.” Grady Tollison spoke David Nutt’s name with great emphasis. He said that the best thing that could happen for Nutt and Scruggs in the case was a summary judgment for them.
Lackey thereafter approached the U.S. Attorney.
In early May, Balducci faxed to Judge Lackey a draft order sending the case into arbitration.
Thereafter, Balducci contacted Lackey and said there had been a change in strategy, that they had heard Jones was in a financial bind, and that the best thing to do was delay the case, just hold it up. Lackey did delay for six weeks, for two reasons: The request, plus the fact that the F.B.I. agent in charge was on six-week leave for military service and wished to be involved on his return with the next phase.
At the next meeting, Balducci said that when Lackey "got ready to put down the robe " he could have a place in Balducci’s firm. [I have a reaction of visceral outrage at the arrogance of much of this. Here is one of those moments.] Later, Judge Lackey said that he was just a country judge and named a $40,000 figure [at least some folks have reported this as poor-mouthing by Judge Lackey, but it does not read that way to me -- I read it to be him saying he was a country judge and naming a low figure. It is clear from these notes that this conversation occurred after the FBI was brought in, and clear Balducci brought up inducements first]; this was Judge Lackey’s figure. Balducci stated that this was no problem, but it would have to come in payments.
The payments were made in cash. They were in envelopes which Judge Lackey opened so that the video camera could show the envelopes when opened. [The implication here is that the envelopes themselves evidence something?]
Judge Lackey later received a second order from Balducci, which was also proffered into evidence.
Judge Lackey was listening in with the F.B.I. when Balducci was stopped and arrested by the F.B.I [which I take to be further confirmation that Balducci was arrested after leaving Judge Lackey's office on November 1st].
Thanks, NMC. You are doing a great job reporting on this. Much better than the Daily Journal.
Now you see.
What I see most clearly is that if I were defending Scruggs, I’d oppose getting the Judge on the stand in the fee dispute and wait for the appropriate case to deal with some of the “gaps” – for lack of a better word.
I have no doubt Judge Lackey is speaking the truth as he knows it; but, there are two sides to every story – and, times when both are true. I’m not suggesting this is one of them, just that we need to hear and see the other side.
Could one of you lawyers explain what does and does not constitute “entrapment” please?
Generally, entrapment is undercover law enforcement or some other informant under the direction of the gov’t causing someone to commit a criminal act through encouragement, promises of rewards or some other item of value (whatever that may be) when the individual is not otherwise inclined, or predisposed to commit that criminal act. Of course, its a question of fact for the jury.
In Mississippi there is something called reverse entrapment, was a case that Dunn Lampton did in Pike County, it should be morgan v. state of miss.
Well, let’s see now. According to Grady Tollison’s proffer today of his interview with Judge Lackey last Thursday, Tim Balducci told Judge Lackey that he “WAS THERE FOR HIS GOOD FRIENDS NUTT AND SCRUGGS’”. David Nutt and Dickie Scruggs made up 1/2 of the four members of the Scruggs Katrina Group that remained after they booted the Jones, Funderburg law firm out of SKG. The other two in SKG were Don Barrett and Sparky Lovelace. Were either of their names mentioned in connection with Balducci at court today?
From everything I have read Barrett is the biggest scum of em all. I wish they find something on him but as of now theres nothing. I posted a letter that Steve Funderburg wrote to Scruggs after they got booted from SKG on the “NMC: Patterson pleads guilty….” post .
Puts it all into perspective.
If the NMC post above is accurate insofar as what Tollison claims that Balducci told Lackey, then was Balducci making the bribery pitch to Judge Lackey on behalf of NUTT AND SCRUGGS, and not just solely for Scruggs?
I am sure it is accurate, Justus.
NMC – Then what are the implications for Nutt- indictment, too?
NMC, are you saying it is an accurate accounting of what Tollison said or that what Lackey told Tollison was accurate? If it’s the latter, is the only evidence Judge Lackey’s recollection?
I trust I’m not the only one exhausted from thinking about all we’ve learned and not learned today.
Justus (12:07), that’s way premature based just on Balducci’s statement.
nowdoucit (12:17), here’s my understanding: This is what Tollison said Judge Lackey told him.
NMC – If I understood the post, it appears to be “Judge Lackey’s statement of what Balducci told him” as proffered by Grady Tollison.
Based upon that proffer of Judge Lackey’s recollection, I don’t care how you try to slice it, it sure looks like Balducci was trying to cut a deal with Judge Lackey for BOTH Scruggs AND Nutt. And, don’t forget that Scruggs and Nutt were both partners in SKG, and would both benefit by the ruling sought to be bought from Judge Lackey. Oh, also don’t forget that Nutt was the “money man” for SKG. So I don’t see what separates Nutt from Scruggs based upon Judge Lackey’s recollection.
The only question in my mind is whether Barrett was involved too, because he was very close to Scruggs and they did a lot of deals together. But, since the proffer of Judge Lackey’s recollection apparently made no mention of Barrett or Lovelace, if they were involved it will have to be proven from another source (i.e. wiretap recordings or Balducci rollover).
There are a lot of reasons entrapment isn’t going to cut it as a defense in this case. They have been hashed and rehashed so many times here I’m not going to do it again.
But, the biggest problem Scruggs attorney would have with claiming entrapment now, (that he wouldn’t have had two weeks ago), is Joey Langston getting on the witness stand and saying they had done it all before. It’s hard to say you only did something because somebody tricked you into doing it, when you had done, or tried to do, the same thing before.
And, the most interesting thing about Tollinson’s account of how they attempted to bribe Judge Lackey, is that up to the FBI having Judge Lackey convert the offer into cold hard cash, it sounds a lot like the way Langston said they tried to do it with Judge DeLaughter.
That makes me wonder if rather than just following the money trail, we shouldn’t be following the job offer trail.
[...] NMC: Judge Lackey’s account of the bribe attempt Grady Tollison described Judge Lackey’s account of the bribe attempt in court today. Â The details of Grady Tollis […] [...]
Wonderful to see such validation of the excellence of the information lotus and NMC post on folo and the hard work so many put into the comments they submit. Thrilled for you lotus – take a bow!
This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirecttoadminor.wordpress.com/indirect-page-to-blog-report/ for more infomation
… the hard work so many put in …
Ah, nailed it, nowdoucit! I’m thrilled too, but it’s not my bow to take. When it was just me rattling on here, hardly anybody knew or cared. When the rest of y’all showed up and started pitching in, THEN it got interesting.
Every day, I wake up thinking, “What’ll we figure out today? Can’t wait to find out!”
Yum.