The first legal argument in the Scruggs Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct is that the crime didn’t exist until the government agents created it, and, because the defendants were passive while the government agents active, the prosecution offends due process. The Scruggs brief notes a conviction that was reversed by a court that noted that “up until the time the government initiated the crime, ‘the defendant was not involved in any prior ongoing criminal activity.’ … Similarly, in Batres-Santolino, the court found that ‘there was no organization until the acts of the [confidential informant] and the DEA persuaded defendant’s to create one.’”
The motion then goes on to define the ongoing criminal activity as the attempt to bribe Judge Lackey. I am sure that the government is going to respond to this by pointing to their “other crime” evidence involving Wilson v. Scruggs.
The motion argues something like entrapment– that there was no thought on Balducci’s side of a crime until the government through Judge Lackey pursued him to create a crime. The central parts of this argument are, first, that Lackey contacts Balducci repeatedly between May and September and not the other way around, and, second, that the September 18th conversation between Balducci and Lackey has Lackey pushing the idea of bribery on Balducci.
I assume the great enthusiasm with which Balducci embarks on then obtaining a bribe for Lackey will be a problem here. The cases imply a lot more passivity than that.
Based on the motion, TB had a long standing relationship with Judge Lackey- which goes to prove that TB knew exactly what he was doing or he is dumber than a rock. Anyone who really knows Judge Lackey would know that it is laughable that Judge Lackey would need $40K to get over a little hump. Judge Lackey is very astute – in business and in evaluating people.
NMC, What was Judge Biggers comments on this crime not being to complicated..Or something to that effect., I believe that was on th efirst motion to extend.
mag, that wasn’t Judge Biggers’ but the prosecutors’ evaluation, that “not very complicated” or “straightforward and uncomplicated” or whatever the exact phrasing was.
Judge sets hearing on pre-trial motions
2/12/2008 7:21:10 PM
Daily Journal
OXFORD … Senior Judge Neal Biggers Jr. will hear seven pre-trial motions Feb. 20 in the government’s judicial bribery case against famed Oxford litigator Richard "Dickie " Scruggs, his attorney son Zach and their legal associate Sidney Backstrom.
The hearing is set to begin at 9 a.m. in the U.S. District Court in Oxford.
According to the order setting the motions for hearing, posted Tuesday, Biggers will consider the defense motions:
1. To dismiss the indictment for reason of outrageous government conduct.
2. To dismiss Counts 2, 3 & 4 of the indictment for alleged lack of jurisdiction.
3. To suppress wiretap info and search warrant results.
4. To exclude evidence offered by the government pursuant to Rule 404(b), about prior bad acts.
5. Of Zachary Scruggs to sever his trial from that of Richard Scruggs.
6. Of Sidney A. Backstrom to sever his trial from that of Richard Scruggs.
7. Of all defendants for a change of venue.
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=265789&pub=1&div=News
Wonder when the gov. response is due?
the 19th, MSLawyer.