We were awaiting rulings on the motions to sever by Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstom, the motion to exclude other crime evidence, and the motion to suppress.
Judge Biggers has entered an opinion denying the motions to sever. In it, he notes that he has also denied the motion to exclude other crime evidence, although we’ve not yet seen an order on it.
Here is the Order denying motions to sever.
Dang, what a time for a thick red line to march in on my local weather radar — well, see y’all later, I hope.
DJ is reporting:
Judge Neal Biggers just ruled on the four pre-trial motions. Watch djournal.com or read The Daily Journal for more.
If it is four then he must have ruled on the jury motion as well.
2/26/2008 4:17:25 PM
Djournal.com
€¢ No … Separate trial for Zach Scruggs
€¢ No … Separate trial for Sidney Backstrom
€¢ No … Government can use info from wiretaps, searches
€¢ No … Government can introduce information alleging bribery of another judge
It sounds like the “The Scruggs Bunch” had a bad day……
Think it is about plea time?
At least so far. If he denies the motion to suppress then it will be a real bad day at black rock, so to speak…………
But won’t an appeal to these just put off a plea?
and/or trial?
MT
No. Generally cannot be appealed until after the trial.
What about an interlocutory appeal?
MT-
Would bet the rent that will not happen.
Even if there was an interlocutory appeal it doesn’t automatically stay the case.
What’s your thinking on that TL… the opportunity for a plea has a short window and if they’re going to take advantage, better get it now while the getting is good?
Jim, I’m hoping now that the feds have shown their hand the plea would be off the table. See I keep hearing Pal Joey was given 15 minutes to cooperate or face the same fate. This is why Tony Farese was called out of another courthouse to advise and take control because Pal had a melt down. This is serious business taking a long time in coming.
My thinking is that I am hearing Dandy Don Meredith singing in the back ground….. for all of you football fans that are old enough to remember such.
Winners tell jokes and losers hollar deal?
“Turn out the lights, the party’s over, they say that all good things must end.”
Judge Biggers is sending a very clear message in this case. His rulings are straight forward and I keep thinking back to Mr. Greenlee when he told the court that this case was very simple. I think the Judge believes that also. His rulings are sending a very positive message to the rest of our state. These guys will be dealt with. No amount of grease will stop the squeaky wheel (Biggers). Kudos to Judge Biggers!
Rarely do I regret not being “old enough to remember” something… this may be a first
Sounds like this deal is really getting deep fast and some folks may need to think about swimming!! Maybe Kerker needs to give Tony a call and see how it is done.
At least Mississippi’s attorney general feels sorry for him.
For those who are wondering, the deadline for pleas pretrial is 3/17
Predictions??
MT: Obama beats McCain.
(No idea on veep-candidates.)
Heh.
I predict Dickie still tries to work a deal to lessen the damage for Zach. I don’t think he would have rode it out this long with his son’s life at stake without a few BIG cards yet to play.
I think those cards have something to do with P.L. Blake and has to be info. that even P.L. may not be able to completely give the Feds.
What do I know?? It’s just a pull it out of my arse guess.
Predictions for the Scruggs and Backstrom? It’s hard to say. A smart man would probably be trying to restart the plea negotiations about right now.
However, nothing we have seen so far indicates that course being taken.
I suspect that the government will attempt to insert its first wedge at Backstrom. Divide and conquer. Isolate the Scruggs further. In my mind he would be the first place to start. But negotiations are on something of a first come first served basis. So to a certain extent the government will be asking Sid, what can you do for me? Unless he has some knowledge to deal with, the government may take the position that Sid wouldn’t make their case that much stronger and they would still have to go through the same trial with or with out him; saying basically, give me a reason, Sid.
I’m not sure that Dickie’s ego would ever let him plead guilty. Unless, he could get Zach out of the line of fire, which I don’t think is a doable deal.
tiredlwyr, I agree — I just can’t see Dickie pleading guilty unless he could keep Zach out of prison. After reading the transcripts, I just don’t see how that would be possible.
(a) You’re John Keker. What are you saying to Dickie Scruggs right now?
(b) You’re Todd Graves. What are you saying to Zach Scruggs right now?
(c) You’re Frank Trapp. What are you saying to Sid Backstrom right now?
I am not qualified to predict, but methinks Dickie would have to turn over some darn fine evidence against current and/or recent Very High Profile elected officials (bigger than Jim Hood/Mike Moore) to save his son some time at this point. But that would require his ego to get out of the way (in a previous comment I stated I don’t think that’s possible). I honestly don’t know why/how he’s stomached leaving Zack in peril for this long (not that Zack is an unwilling participant, if recent testimony is to be believed).
As for Scruggs himself, I can’t imagine that he won’t spend most – if not all – of his remaining years at ClubFed.
I suspect Backstrom is crawling to Jim Greenlee’s office as we speak.
The judge has definitely made his mind up that these men are guilty. There was plenty of good evidence to say that severing would not only be prudent in such a high profile case, but particulary smart in this case since we all know the Gov. is after Dickie and not Zach or Sid. As for the evidence with Langston, look at the situation. Tim ratted on Langston because he had a bone to pick. We all know that (MCI deal). Joey flipped faster than a pancake on a griddle because he was scared to death that his precious property and other holdings would be yanked if he didn’t plead on something, anything. Both men are saving themsevles, and seems to me throwing everybody in their path under the bus.
Sid I hope we can find who appointed Judge Biggers to the bench , he’s a criminal attorney, and related to you.
Ooops, Jane just scored her second Pith & Vinegar.
It doesn’t surprise me that Dickie has let his son dangle. Greed and arrogance control him.
Edwin Edwards was in the very same position a few years ago in Louisiana. Everyone bet that he would plead so his son could stay out of jail.
Well, his son was left to fend for himself. Both are serving time in different prisons.
But…guess what? Former President George Bush and others have requested that the elder Edwards be released from prison early. Nobody has said a word about his young son.
Nope, I think Dickie is focused on Dickie.
NAAS, I’m in your camp on that one. Not one thing I’ve seen or heard argues contra.
pageturner-
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sitting judge. Perhaps I misinterpret your comment, but it reads to me that you are making an accusation that his rulings are biased. Perhaps we will never agree, but I assure you that you will never convince me otherwise. I truly think that the judge made rulings without regard as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Further, I disagree that the government is “after” Dickie and not Zach or Sid. The government is pursuing everyone implicated and doing so in a professional manner. Perhaps where you and I differ is that in my mind all of them jumped under the bus by engaging in a course of conduct which corrupts the entire court system. As far as their motivations, what of it? Surely you are not suggesting that the cooperating defendants are manufacturing evidence? If so, then we certainly have larger disagreements than our opinions of the judges rulings.
As far as your prudence and good evidence argument, having fought this battle over a severance more times than I can remember, I have no question that the ruling will be affirmed on appeal should things progress to that level.
PT -
I also disagree with your interpretation of the judge’s rulings. The judge is simply applying the law to the facts presented to him. It is not his fault that they are BAD facts, leaving the defendants little room to manouver. Additionally, his well written order delineates why severance was not appropriate here, and can be reviewed on appeal.
The government is after everyone equally because they tried to bribe a judge, a heinous act. And I I would note is going on in spite of the Scruggs’ high level connections.
As for Balducci’s motivations, I don’t know what makes him tick, but I’d venture a guess that his entire current motivation is self-preservation.
Remember that if these people hadn’t (allegedly) committed these acts, they wouldn’t be in the position they are in.
pageturner, I hate to pile on, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Judge Biggers as well. I have no doubt whatsoever that all of his rulings are based on the evidence and the law. He is an honorable man and a credit to the federal judiciary as well as the legal profession in Mississippi. And no, I don’t practice before him and am not related to him.
Time for Sid to cut a deal. I am sure that Trapp knows what happened to Wes Teel in a similair situation . They really didnt even bother to put any evidence on agianst him. He was guilty by association and in jail for rest of this decade. They have a lot of evidence against Sid.
Pageturner seems to have the same opinion that Scruggs and company have- that this case is a bigger deal than it is, because they are in it. It really does seem to be a very simple case, with a very simple criminal charge, and a very simple set of facts.
The only thing that sets it apart from hundreds of other cases just like it, is that Scruggs is so rich. Lots of other people in conspiracy cases all over the country, get tried together, regardless of the fact that some of the evidence is more damaging to some members of the conspiracy than to others. That’s the way conspiracy works.
And, to say a judge doesn’t have a duty to come to conclusions about the guilt or innocence of defendants before the jury verdict is in, is to say he should be abdicating one of his duties at the trial. That duty is to bring attorneys from both sides, back to reality when their egos start to override their common sense and their duty to their clients. If you think Biggers is being rough on Keker and the other defense attorneys, you should see some of the things that get said to attorneys, defense and prosecutors, back in the judge’s chambers on occasion. Some of them would probably make the client faint if he heard them.
And, it can’t be said too many times, that there is only one group in the courthouse who have a legal duty to assume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that is the jury (and even then, only until proven guilty, not forever).
observer-41
Well and succinctly said.
I have a slightly different perspective, observer.
I don’t think Judge Biggers is being the least bit hard on Keker. He let Keker make his arguments. He let him have his hearing. He even let Keker put on witnesses, I gather from what was said, past the point he thought he was obligated to do.
And Keker on his side did a pretty artful job of getting what he sought– a shot at cross-examining a couple of witnesses, some discovery, and perhaps a chance to educate his clients about just what reality they are facing. I think both Judge Biggers and Keker did what they did with respect each for the other and understanding their very different goals.
I honestly wasn’t fully expecting that, even though I knew Keker’s rep. Based on what I saw, it’s deserved.
I also think this: Judge Biggers has done a masterful job in this case so far of keeping it on track. I think he is at heart and always a prosecutor. That’s a scary part of dealing with him from the defense side, and even from the prosecutor side (judges who are smart and have prosecutor’s instincts I gather are always second guessing the prosecution). This has not the least bit effected his rulings so far that I can tell– I’m the opposite of a prosecutor at heart and think his rulings are based on the governing law in this circuit.
I do think his strong views about judicial integrity shine through in his orders today. I do not think there is anything inappropriate in that. It is fair warning about what to expect at sentencing if this doesn’t work out for various defendants.
Agreed NMC. It will be had to find a judge who will be sympathetic to defendants accused of bribing a judge, unless of course…nah won’t go there.
No, NMC, I didn’t think he was being hard on Keker, either.
I thought the same thing as you, that Judge Biggers appears to be handling the motions the way a judge is supposed to handle them, impartial, but firm. To say Judge Biggers is biased because he wasn’t swayed by defense legal theories and their arguments in support of them, that don’t appear to be swaying many other people, either, is not a super effective argument to me.