The Scruggs defendants have moved to reconsider the judge’s ruling that there will be an anonymous jury. The motion has more analysis and caselaw than the Backstrom motion to sever filed earlier today. Alternatively, it asks for an expanded juror questionnaire and broader-than-normal voir dire. It’s an interesting motion, about which I’ll write more later.
It also is apparently going to come with a raft of exhibits, not yet online, including one that claims Folo had 220,000 “viewers” in the last two weeks of February alone.
Although the exhibits aren’t yet up, I would suspect that would be “page views” not “viewers”. Hit your refresh button. There, now you, one viewer, have created two page views. Those of you who care enough to keep up are “viewers” with lots of “page views.”
Here it is: Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Anonymous Jury
A very well-written brief. In my opinion, the blog issue is not an issue. On all blogs I’ve read, several people show up in support of Dickie, et al. and tout the weaknesses of the case, anti-government stances, etc. I’m sure there are readers of the news papers that have some of the same feelings. The brief doesn’t address those percentages.
Hell, bring that case to New Orleans where nobody’s ever been screwed over by a plaintiff’s lawyer, and where lawyers never fight over fees.
Well, to me, that motion is so over the top that it borders on being ludicrous. The misstatements about “visitors” to this website and the Clarion-Ledger are patently absurd, and the writer should have known better. Talk about blowing smoke.
NAAS, I too have to disagree with “very well-written,” whether we’re talking Legal or English. In fact, I’m really surprised by the carelessness on both scores.
Here I’ve heard such good send-offs of Frank Trapp’s lawyering, but the first piece of his writing I see, I must say, leaves me terminally underwhelmed. Worst I’ve seen in this whole case, as a matter of fact.
Is this Scruggs’ or Keker that is insisting on a broader knowledge of just who is in that jury pool. This is very serious business and if this man has layered himself to bribe Judges do we not think he would not do the same to poor old Uncle John. Yes yes indeed..A Million Dollars is a lot of money and very few people could afford to turn it down.
The motion seems to be a little bit too disrespectful to the Judge’s ruling (remember he is ruling on this motion) and a little insulting. There are ways to get your point across and raise issues for appeal without getting ugly.
and the writer should have known better. Talk about blowing smoke.
I think that’s the problem. The writer obviously doesn’t know any better. Even big fancy lawyers are woefully ignorant of the “internets” and the “blogs”.
I’m going to take a not so wild guess that Judge Biggers isn’t a big blog reader and the word “folo” isn’t on his radar screen (no offense Lotus!). If he’s not familiar I doubt he’s going to be impressed that in a world population of roughly 6,602,224,175, possibly 20 or so some odd thousand people looked a Folo blog and that equates a tainted jury pool.
I’ve posted here maybe once…I am a Y’all Politics regular and check this blog everyday…so I’m somewhat familiar with the bloggers/posts/subject matter on FOLO. Great site!
Is the popular opinion here that Scruggs will not go to trial? (Or not?)
This motion violates a cardinal rule: never file anything simply to appease your client. Take your client into your office to do high-fives, or to cuss the judge, or to cuss folo and the other blogs — all in the privacy of your office — but don’t file laughable sh*t before a judge who will ultimately decide as many contested issues as the jury (including whether to set aside the jury’s verdict), just to make your client feel better about a miserable chain of events. It relegates the serious motions you may have to file later to the dustbin.
Thirdsouth…praise be!
This motion violates a cardinal rule: never file anything simply to appease your client.
Oh exactly. Do you think this stems from the clients who are used to being in charge are trying to be in charge?
I’ve looked at all Scrugg’s council as castrated figure heads. (even Keker) I think any lawyer who represents a person like Scruggs is. It must be hugely frustrating.
I think ThirdSouth, Supergreg, and Seacrest are all on the same page as me.
I have a very good friend who is a doctor who insists that the absolute worst patient to have is another doctor, to the point he avoids having one at all costs.
This motion makes me think the same is true with lawyers.
Amens, y’all just above.
ccvz, welcome to folo, where my impression is that we’re a hung jury on the question you pose. (Heck, I all by myself am a hung jury on that one.)
And, Seacrest has another good point. I have only run into one type of lawyer who really understands how the internet works, and that has generally been criminal defense attorneys who have represented defendants in child porn internet cases. Otherwise, there just isn’t a lot of reason for an attorney to go to the trouble to really understand how it works.
I am of that age group that has had to really struggle to learn what I know about it, so I sympathize with them on that.
I am of that age group that has had to really struggle to learn what I know about it, so I sympathize with them on that.
Oh lord, me too. Poor riddenword can attest to my struggle (which often becomes his. His patience with my techno-backwardness is remarkable).