To follow this post, you might want to look at the Zach Scruggs motion to dismiss again. What I’m posting about is a fairly important issue involving whether the government was in fact dishonest to the grand jury in presenting Tim Balducci’s testimony.
I took away from a reading of that motion a high state of outrage being expressed by the defense lawyers over Balducci supposedly lying about Zach Scruggs’s participation in the November 1st meeting. I read over the transcript of the November 1st meeting and the excerpts from Balducci’s grand jury testiony, and thought that the motion made one point that seemed legitimate and another that seemed weak. The weak point was that Zach was leaving when Tim made the “see if you got what you’ve paid for” remark. I think the transcript supports the conclusion that Zach heard it. The stronger point, based on the transcript I saw, was that Balducci testified he told Zach and Sid that Judge Lackey needed another $10,000, when in fact he had said “basket of sweet potatoes.” I took it that, for testifying to dollars instead of potatoes, the motion accuses Tim Balducci of perjury. At least that’s how I read it. And the transcript excerpts filed yesterday seemed to bear this out– on page 42 Balducci says he told them “that the judge wanted now an additional $10,000 to do it…” No mention of sweet potatoes about that conversation. Earlier in the transcript, there was a reference to Balducci using the term to mean the order, but not here, about the $10,000.
Only today, with the entire transcript available, we see this exchange:
Q. Is it possible that you might have used the term sweet potatoes again referencing the amount of money involved?
A. I think I did.
That’s on page 43. I think that page (added with the correction today), um, really substantially undercuts the point being made in the motion filed yesterday.
