Two small matters: First, Judge Biggers has granted the motion Keker made (apparently orally– I know it was mentioned at the hearings but see no sign of it in Pacer) to use a jury questionnaire. In his order doing so, he says that he has changed it slightly so it’s not redundant of the court’s standard questionnaire, and to delete questions best brought out in court during voir dire (such as questions about opinions of guilt).
Second, in all the blizzard of filings earlier in the week, I missed that the defense responded to the government’s motion for an anonymous sequestered jury. The response notes (with some accuracy) that many of the publicity-related concerns are exactly what the defense was talking about in the change of venue motion. It does not complain about a sequestered district-wide jury. Here is the Defendants’ Response to Motion for an Anonymous Jury
i didn’t read the govt’s reasons in their brief for an anonymous sequestered jury, but the real reason has nothing to do with publicity and everything to do with getting a tamper proof jury.
This is just my prediction. Young Sidney Backstrom, who is 38 years old, and is well represented by Frank Trapp, will find a way to plead and keep his license.
He would have to plea to a misdemeanor charge and cooperate with the government.
Let’s see what happens.
DH
I lovc the new Google Ad. “The God Who Wasn’t There.” Where the hell is he? If he isn’t there is he here?
duck-
I get surprised every day, but I truly do think that you are being overly optimistic, unless young Sid is going to personally hand over OBL, or all of congress. I really don’t believe that he has enough info to make that deal. If I am not mistaken, any plea recommendations have to be sent to DC for approval. I suspect that without a really good reason that the home office would nix it even if the locals approved it. But like I said, life is full of surprises.
Duckhead – Unless Backstrom knows where some real bodies are buried, (like dead people bodies), it’ll never happen.
And, as far as trying to get a plea like Langston, Balducci, or Patterson got, and trying to use the same informaton they have already given out….
well, that train has not only pulled out of the station, it is on the other side of the mountain.
Backstrom has no chance to keep his law license regardless of misdemeanor pleas (which will not happen). He better be working on as little jail time as he can. Frank is the best but this one is bad. Its a shame Sid’s Dad was one fine person and this would make him sick.
I think even if Sid doesn’t plead and isn’t convicted, he can’t keep his license just based on his own words in the transcripts. What a shame that he got involved with Scruggs.
Surely y’all (4 – 7) are right about that, and no, I’m not calling you Shirley. MSlawyer, you decided not to change handles after all?
Duckhead, I’m also trying to remember a case I prosecuted, where after the defendants had lost on all of their motions to suppress evidence, or otherwise get the government’s case dismissed, and where two out of five defendants had already pleaded and agreed to testify, where the defense came to me and said, “We’ve got you where we want you, now. How about reducing this stuff to a misdemeanor before we really go to town on you?”
If Trapp pulls that off, he will be crowned king of the defense bar in Mississippi for 2008.
Nice to know that you’re not the only lawyer out there with some self-humor, observer. A healthy sign there.
Maybe Frank can get a lesson from his cousin Eli on how the underdog pulls out the win against all odds. This would be a bigger upset than the Giants over the Patriots.
proof that college kids do smoke too much wacky tobaccy:
L’affaire Scruggs: Free Dickie
http://media.www.thedmonline.com/media/storage/paper876/news/2008/02/28/Opinion/Laffaire.Scruggs.Free.Dickie-3240897.shtml?reffeature=textemailedition
one point he does bring up is the possibility of Hillary pardon. I haven’t thought of that, but she definitely has the balls to do it.
IAG, that is the weirdest piece of writing about Scruggs I’ve seen yet.
Jane, I’m guessing he could be talked down to the $100K a month that Patterson and Balducci got for taking Hood to dinner.
There’s a possibility for a contest: “Dinner date with Jim Hood: How much would you have to be paid.” Opening bid from Patterson-Balducci– we’d need $500k
Jane, tell him if he wants to go halfsies (on either the $330K or the $100K/mo), he can illustrate and I’ll write the thang! (Gonna need to find me some of that wacky tobacky, but hey, I guess I vaguely remember how . . . )
OK, obviously I am a non lawyer.
Back to Sidney, in some ways, he has the most to lose. I would assume that any wealth that he may have created in his short career working for the Scruggs Law Firm is already spoken for.
I have asked the question before, was he a full partner who received a percentage of the take or just a salaried lawyer who is in fact listed on the marque as a member. If you go to the Scruggs firm website, there is a fourth attorney listed as an associate whose name has never been mentioned.
Anyway, little has been written about Backstrom or Trapp’s defense stragegy. I picked this line up from last weeks hearing when Trapp got his five minutes worth of arguing before Biggers in between Keker’s drama performance.
“He argued that Mr. Backstrom is just a regular working lawyer, and if he did not have the good fortune to work for the Scruggs law firm, none of this would have happened. He said that he is not aware of a drop or scintilla of the 404 evidence that would apply to Mr. Backstrom. The judge seemed particularly interested in getting very clear, focused answers on this subject from the prosecution”
I don’t think Sidney is looking forward to “His day in Court” How helpful would it be to the governments case for him to cooperate as a witness for the prosecution? He is the one who has had the most physical contact with the Scruggs since he goes to work with them daily.
If he loses the case and gets ten years, he gets out of jail at age fifty with no law license or money and basically has to start a new career. The Scruggs can live off their millions stashed away in a Cayman Island offshore trust and write books when they get out.
Yes, Frank Trapp does have his work cut out for him but he is one of several local attorney’s that I would hire if I got in a mess like this.
DH
DH:
Here’s another slant to the “Sidney’s Future” you discussed above. Since he doesnt have the bazillions stashed away like der Scruggz boys, he may feel honor bound (and potentially rewarded in the future,) to keep his Trapp shut and hope to share in some of those bazillions when he gets out.
DH-
The only answers that I can attempt to give you are from afar but based on seeing this type of situation play out many times. As in any negotiation, much depends on what the parties are seeking and bringing to the table. If all Sid is bringing to the table is that he will plead and tell a story consistent with Balducci and Patterson then I suspect that the prosecutor is not going to think that has much value. Cooperating defendants, like bread and milk, have a shelf life. The time of that cooperation being of tremendous importance appears to be long past. From the prosecutor’s position having Sid now really doesn’t make his life any easier; he still has to go through the same trial, with the same witnesses, with the same proof, but just with one less defendant at the table. Any information about personal dealing with Dickie quickly turn into a he said / he said situation unless objectively verifiable in some manner. And although the final decision whether to testify is made by the client, I really think that the government is comfortable with their ability to cross examine Dickie at this point and isn’t seeking new material for that purpose. So from where I sit, I doubt that they would be enthusiastic about backing off much.
Now if Sid has VERIFIABLE knowledge of new matters, leading to new cases, and is willing to let the government evaluate his knowledge by making a proffer, then it could be a whole new ballgame for him. But no matter what he knows I cannot see any circumstance that would allow him to plea down to a misdemeanor. And I fully agree with MSlawyer, he loses his license regardless of the outcome.
Potentially rewarded in the future, Curious? By whom, certain Scruggs heirs? Mighty hard to imagine that.
Honor bound, you say? Sid? The caught-on-tape wannabe-judge-briber?
I think tiredlawyer pretty much nails the situation Backstrom and Trapp find themselves in.
lotus 8, when mslawyer decided to change names, I thought it unnecessary for me to do so. Of course will be happy to do so if you prefer.
Oh, MSlawyer, was it mslawyer who went to “Greenlawyer” (but hasn’t piped up since)? I thought that was you.
still here, had some life to attend to!
Oh good, greenlawyer (hope that applies to what you were attending to too). Welcome back.
According to PACER, US v. Scruggs (Alabama) is dismissed with prejudice!