The judge has set a pretrial conference and pending motions for 10:00 March 14th in his courtroom in Oxford. In the order setting, he reserves the right to decide any pending motions before the hearing, and encourages people to not wait until the hearing to file anything they have in mind. By my count, there are two pending motions: The motion for an anonymous jury (filed by the government) and the motion to dismiss relating to the grand jury testimony (filed by Zach Scruggs).
Predictions: Will there be more motions? You bet. Will there be an anonymous jury? Reply Hazy. Try again (but leaning toward “no, perhaps a district-wide jury instead, and certainly a sequestered one). Will the case against Zach be dismissed? I doubt it seriously.
Just for kicks, I’ll bet the motion for anonymous jury gets granted.
It seems I read somewhere that Balducci told the FBI agents he was in fear for his life.
Couple that with the fact this entire case is about corruption, bribery and other secretive acts, it seems like jury tampering is a given.
Sorry, I corrected “lury” to “jury” already.
He says that in the grand jury transcript– well, at least he says he is in fear.
Well turkey season starts on the 15th and Dick Cheney and I will be huntin’ around Chickasaw County. Y’all defendants are invited to partake after the hearing on the 14th. It should be fun and also shouldn’t last too long …..
As far as needing an anonymous jury, it’s not like no one has ever tried and succeeded in bribing a juror before. And, I can’t imagine who would be more under the spotlight for that possibility than people on trial for trying to bribe a judge.
So this runs right up to the deadline date for pleas with only a weekend in between. Doesn’t give Zach much time to negotiate if this motion is also denied. Will that deadline be pushed out and with another continuance moving the trial date back as well?
Some date-confusion here, NMC:
You and Anita Lee have this conference set for a week from Friday, but Patsy just filed, “Senior Judge Neal Biggers Jr. has set a hearing for 10 a.m. Friday to consider whether to hold a pre-trial conference in the judicial bribery case of famed Oxford attorney Richard "Dickie " Scruggs and two other attorneys. …”
Until I hear otherwise, I’m assuming Patsy misunderstood.
Please note and give credit that I”m not responding to that remark.
MT, did you mean 8 to apply here or on the Kirksey thread? If here, huh? If there, noted and credited.
I won’t get credit now that I”m pointing it out, but…. “I’m assuming Patsy misunderstood”… letting that go by without a smarty remark.
PACER sez the hearings are the 14th at 10:00am.
My calendar says March 14 is a week from Friday. I don’t know how to account for what Patsy’s says.
Yeh, NMC, and the other weird thing is her phrasing “to consider whether to hold a pre-trial … .” Maybe it was Patsy’s evil twin . . .