Zach Scruggs has filed another motion to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that Balducci lied before the grand jury about what Zach Scruggs knew about the bribery scheme. He says that Balducci testified that he told Backstrom and Zach Scruggs that Lackey wanted “another $10,000″ and they said it would be no problem when in fact Balducci said that Lackey wanted “another bushel of sweet potatoes,” which would not have meant anything to Zach if he did not know about the bribery scheme. Further, the motion argues that Zach was leaving the room as Balducci said the remark about seeing if “we got what we paid for.” Thus, says the motion, the indictment was obtained with false testimony from Tim Balducci, reinforced by false testimony from the FBI agent.
The motion accuses Balducci of perjury.
I haven’t read it carefully but have two visceral reactions: It is a hard hitting and forceful motion that I can’t imagine will work. Read for yourself the Zach Scruggs motion to dismiss.
The motion states that there are three pieces of evidence against Zach: the March meeting (at which there was no bribery discussed), Tim showing up to pick up a package from the Scruggs Law Office on October 18th (at which no criminal conduct was discussed) and the November 1st meeting where Balducci wandered about the Scruggs Law Office collecting evidence while wearing a wire.
One thing the motion includes is Grand Jury testimony of Tim Balducci and Agent Delaney, about which more later. Pretty interesting.
It’s hard not to sense some desperation in that motion when you read it. But, I don’t see that a motion where you are arguing about what a witness meant when he testified before the grand jury, or whether you had actually left the room or not when the bribe was being discussed, when you were there for sure when the conversation started, is your ticket to a pre-trial dismissal. Likewise, the “maybe I though Judge Lackey just really needed some more sweet potatos” version ain’t looking that strong, either.
Maybe it is a more complicated strategy than it appears, with some object like getting Balducci and agent Delaney on a witness stand again before the trial.
And, I didn’t see the justification for filing the motion past the dates specified by Judge Biggers. I am guessing they must have received agent Delaney’s and Balducci’s grand jury testimony at the last hearings, after they testified, and that will be there justification for a late filing. Because, if they had it before the motions deadline, I don’t know how they would present that to Judge Biggers.
This doesn’t even look like a good appeal issue, since the jury is going to be deciding the facts, and whether Zach is guilty or not on them, later, anyway.
But, it doesn show that this is going to be a fight until there is absolutely nothing left to fight about.
I know if I wasn’t privy to corrupt activity and some dude came by my office and said Judge Lakey needed "another bushel of sweet potatoes, " I’d ask him what the hell he was talking about.
Observer
I am guessing they must have received Balducci’s grand jury testimony at the last hearings,
I recall NMC’s commentary of the hearing mentioned rather than pick through the relevant portions of GJ testimony the UA handed them all over.
note on page 1 zach states that the use of the evidence would be “an affront to our justice system . . . ” this reminds me of his statement on the november 1 transcript that tollison was being unethical; ironic given that the conversation he was having was discussed illegal contact with the court and reviewing and approving an order prior to its entry.
also, on p. 2 the motion states that on October 18, 2007, Mr. Balducci delivered an order to the Scruggs Law Firm and picked up a package left for him by “a third party . . .” why doesn’t he just say it was Dickie that left the package for Tim? you know the one with the fake invoice for jury work that never happened to cover the bribe money that WAS passed? yeah, the government’s conduct is an “affront to justice” and tollison’s attachment of e mails to some pleadings was “unethical.” This is all creating a very disturbing picture.
Don’t know where to put: MS Bar Assoc forms Judicial Task Force per Hampton blog at CL… did I miss this or is it new?
Here.
[MT, if you're gonna bring C-L stuff (and please do), we gotta teach you how to do hyperlinks, 'cause their squirelly links are hell on a blog.]
The cases against Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom appear, in my view, reed thin. After reading motions, briefs, transcripts, and orders, and after observing open-court proceedings thus far, I cannot find a single criminal act committed by Z. Scrubs and/or Sid Backstrom.
It’s a fact of Mississippi that there is and always has been probably too much “clubbishness” between some judges and some attorneys. Tim Balducci wasn’t the first lawyer to “chat up” a judge regarding cases not his own. All the reported events between the early-2007 “commencement” of the alleged conspiracy and J. Lackey’s late-2007 insistence that Balducci state affirmatively that the alleged payoff money actually came from D. Scruggs, appear consistent with the defendants’ lack or absence of criminal complicity.
Again, just my moderately uninformed opinion, but it appears clear to me that there’s a major DOJ campaign to crush D. Scruggs and they’ll do it with little concern for others who may have done nothing more than be caught standing too near the “kill radius.”
It will be an interesting Spring in North Mississippi.
Oops!
[See over there under Pages in the left sidebar, "folo's introduction to HTML code"? There's yer solution.]
also did anybody notice that pages are missing from balducci’s testimony? what’s up with that?
It certainly doesn’t argue “unity” either, does it, observer?
I will say, this is one of the few motions I’ve ever read where the factual argument outguns the legal one — at least to my mind.
It’s an awfully good try. For me, maybe the biggest impression it makes is that Todd Graves is 10 or 20 times the lawyer that Gonzales’s little run-amoks wanted to replace him with as USA for WD MO. Ptui.
Ben, I am amazed that you say you have read the transcripts and can’t see a single thing that incriminates Zach and Sid. Truly amazed.
Ben Cole, I’ll have to disagree with you about Backstrom. He’s in some very bad conversations that are on tape.
I’ll have to give some thought to what you say about Zach.
Dear Ben: “chatting up” as you call it, is earwigging it is unethical, wrong. is your argument that two wrongs make a right? in other words, other lawyers do it so it was okay for balducci to do it. furthermore, your argument ignores $50,000.00 cash passed to the judge. that’s a little beyond earwigging. your poor dickie argument fails. if the DOJ is out to get dickie, how do you explain their total failure to go after him in the minor matter?
Observer:
Their excuse on the motion and timeliness is that they got the grand jury testimony at the hearing.
That does not say the motion will be granted. As you note, this is the sort of issue that jury trials resolve, not pretrial motions. It’s also not calculated to impress this particular judge in my opinion, for whatever that is worth.
To really have a solid opinon in response I’m going to have to the motion and the transcripts, and was going to post later about all that given time.
Promise to study up on links before I attempt another and get dubbed the OTHER Mess in Mississippi….
It’s gotta be cocktail time…
(clinks glasses with MT)
Naw, baby, you ain’t the OMinM, the C-L is. (Or maybe whatever Bud’s going on about is too, I’m not sure.)
At this rate, I just don’t see the Scruggs duo pleading guilty to anything. I’m willing to bet they will take chances at trial.
But, I think Ben Cole does (perhaps inadvertantly) make a good point, that has been my thought from day one. That these attorneys (and others like them) have been engaging in this type of behavior for so long that they really don’t think they are doing anything wrong at this stage in the game.
And, past that, they are offended that anyone else thinks they are doing anything wrong, to the point that they actually believe that any attempt to get them to stop, has to be a conspiracy by their enemies (who are pretty much everyone else).
The whole thing is so interesting on so many levels.
… The whole thing is so interesting on so many levels.
Ayup. And who can ever forget Zach’s motion-on-a-napkin speech?
Chatting up A Judge or Chatting up a Judge’s best friend or Chatting up A Public Official sure was expensive for Dickie and he paid it , so Ben Chatting up does have its perks.So Chatt-O
Mr. Cole, have you heard the joke about the paper napkin?
i will wait for nmc to read all of this but it seems they have picked through balducci’s testimony as they did the transcripts in their previous motions. sometimes at the end of a page where it get near to zach (like dropping off the october 18) version of the order the transcript skips over several pages.
i expect the us attorney will file a vehement response and unload the full version of balducci’s testimony.
this may be a ploy on zach’s part to say, go ahead and show me everything you got on me from everywhere.
I am having a hard time speculating the defense strategy. Is it “everyman for himself” or a carefully orchestrated collaboration between Keker, Graves, and Trapp to attempt to get acquitals for all three defendents.
Graves maintains that only Backstrom had involvement with Balducci in the “sweet potato discussion”. (and Backstrom just said UH HUM).
Trapp previously told Judge Biggers that “Backstrom is just a “regular working lawyer” (whatever that is) who had the good fortune of working for the Scruggs Law Firm.
I do not think the DOJ was out to get Dickie either but I do believe he is now the primary target.
This is not a slam dunk case for the government.
It does look like with this motion, that young Scruggs will fight to the bitter end along with his dad.
Has Sidney been “thrown under the bus”?
Let’s see what happens between now and March 17th.
DH
Per the “they don’t even think it’s wrong,” n.b. that IIRC, Balducci led off by offering Lackey an “of counsel” spot at their firm, i.e., sweet cash after the fact.
That’s sooooo wrong.
And the feds thought they had to get Lackey to suggest *real* cash, apparently lest the “of counsel” offer not seem enough like bribery.
Doesn’t anybody notice that Zach is commenting on a draft of a judge’s order that has not yet been entered? Isn’t that unusual? I rarely get to see a draft of a judge’s order before it comes down, whether references to “sweet potatoes” are involved or not.
I can’t figure out what’s going on. This motion by Zach seems somewhat desperate. The only thing I can think of is that this is some strange maneuver in the ongoing plea negotiations. Perhaps a conditional guilty plea will follow the denial of this motion — preserving Zach’s right to appeal the denial of it and maybe some of the other motions.
I think that any of the folks that are left will do anything to try and save their butts. Sorry folks but this is going to continue to get better as the plea dead line approches. I wouldn’t doubt anything!
I also believe that “the Scruggs Gang” needs the remember that is this about jail time and not a $ sign. I was talking to someone the other day that made a statement about Joey and the others having the assets to be ok and make it through all this and that Tim didn’t, regardless can you imagine being in jail snd having someone that wants you as their “girlfriend”? ouch!!!
Agree Stormy #26. The Gang may want to take a click… juries haven’t been very friendly to greedy rich guys lately.
This Week on American Greed
Case 1: Inside the WorldCom Scam
http://tinyurl.com/24eo9z
WorlCom is a good example. People I know who are friends with Bernie Ebbers say he still doesn’t acknowledge that he did anything wrong.
And, can you imagine how conflicted lawyers are who have been doing the same thing as Scruggs and Company have been doing, and convincing themselves of the propriety of it, being confronted with the idea that most people think they are scumbags.
It would have to result in some unflattering self reflection, at the very least, I would imagine, with only the defense to self being what Scruggs and the other are using- the, I’m not the bad guy here-the people who are trying to stop me are the bad guys- line of reasoning.
How many times have we seen that in the last few years? WorldCom, Martha, Enron, Clinton, Delay. The list is long and getting longer.