Zach Scruggs’s lawyers have responded with an aggressive reply on the second motion to dismiss. It exclusively parses the facts, comparing the grand jury testimony and the transcript. Here is Zach Scruggs reply on the second motion to dismiss.
If you want to evaluate all this for yourself, here is Zach Scruggs’s 2nd motion to dismiss and here is the Government response to Zach Scruggs’s motion to dismiss all of which have been previously linked on this site.
Pretty good hairsplitting on the part of counsel. It’s easy to get sucked in to the minutia and forget the overall stench. When you step back objectively and look at the facts, there is no way this doesn’t get to trial for Zach. Why did he really think it was OK to be previewing an order in a case, and BTW, with a non-representing attorney? Why would any attorney think a judge would be a part of this without some kind of “sweet potatoes” hanging out there?
IMO, Defendants are splitting hairs over the interpretation of facts and not the facts themselves.
I initially felt like 2nd motion to dismiss was an attempt to get the Government to give up more of what they had and I was impressed they didn’t take the bait. They made a concise response. After reading this I am more convinced that was the goal and Zach’s folks didn’t get what they wanted.
Interesting observation Seacrest– the reply backs you up, because as I recall there’s a comment in there somewhere that the government could have explained more of what it did in the grand jury but didn’t.
“The Government could have come forward with other facts or testimony which somehow proves the veracity of its witness’ false statements before the grand jury, or which could somehow explain the grand jury’s apparent and inevitable acceptance of these repeated misstatements,” Graves wrote.
“Instead, the Government has simply tried to spin either the Nov. 1, 2007 transcript, or the contrary grand jury testimony rendered a few weeks later, to make them mesh.”
I’d be tickled if the Government responds, “yeah, could have, but we don’t need to like we said” just to mess with their head. It looks like this restraint is making the defendants hysterical.
I read there were at least 12 taped discussions with Balducci and defendants and 4 with Patterson and I don’t think all has been released. Sounds like there is so much juicy meat the defendants just have to be wondering about.
It’s hard not to get the feeling that it’s all over, except for the crying.
I wouldn’t say the game is over, but it’s sure in the fourth quarter.
Although I think that if D, Z and S are pursuing every option up until the last minute for pleas (which as attorneys, I would probably expect them to do)… what is that costing them in the eventual agreements (if that’s actually what they do)… what are the expectations out there given what Balducci, Patterson and Langston have all reached, although Langston is the only agreement we have, correct? What are the thoughts about the potential deals to be struck here?
As I recall, Balducci’s plea was blind but Patterson has a plea agreement in place as does Langston.
?? Anyone hearing anything? Just got the message that Zach has just cut a deal… what’s the word out there?
NMC’s tied-up right now, according to his sec’y, who’s slipping him this note, MT. Let’s see if he or anyone else can nail this down or no.
Good—I forwarded the email I got to NMC, too.
Hood offers help in bribery fiaco
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=268701&pub=1&div=News
About dang time!
I didn’t get the forward mythoughts, just a short message from Lotus.
I just saw Big Scruggs and Little Scruggs strolling through the Square on their way back from lunch. If they worked a deal, you sure couldn’t tell it by the wide smiles on their faces.
Interesting, Hotel Kilo Mike. Have they been keeping a low profile lately, or are they often seen out and about in their native habitat?
Dragoman, The operative word there is smiling. Could be they have something to smile about, as in finding good deal. Don’tha Just Know it.
Mag, that reminds me of the reports of Dickie Scruggs’ constant smiling in court a few weeks ago, described by one of our correspondents as “pained,” I believe.
And the media keep running one photograph of Scruggs in which his smile resembles a death grimace.
Dragoman// Dickie did look like he had visited the local morticion and ask to be made up to look as if he was at death’s door. I personally would not put it past him, win at all cost.
Just spoke with NMC, who’s not finding any substantiation for this rumor and at the moment is leaning against its being likely.
After reading the post-lunch comment, I also became less confident that it was true… thanks for checking
If the Scruggs pair cut a deal it will be on the courthouse steps just before the trial starts. I could see Backstrom still cutting a deal early though. Also, I don’t know if the feds really want to cut a deal with Scruggs at this point. Wouldn’t the benefit of publicly trying him be greater than the cost savings of not trying the case at this point?