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.

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.

Well and succinctly said.

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).

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.

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.