Sid Backstrom apparently dasn’t take no for an answer and has filed a NEW motion to sever his trial from the Scruggses’.
You’ll want to read the whole eight pages, since they cite such worthy Legal sources as “Court TV,” “Perry Mason,” “Law and Order,” “Boston Legal” — and “the ‘Folo’ blog.”
I ain’t lyin’ — you gotta see this for yourself (h/t Not At All Surprised).
Update by NMC: The government responded: This motion is a rehash of the motion the court has already decided. This is a discretion call, and the court has said no, so the court should say no again. Here’s the Government response to the 2nd motion to sever.
My mama always said you better watch who you hang around.
Seems sufficiently straightforward to me. I’m confident the court will overrule the motion, but it adds another arrow to Backstrom’s appellate quiver.
Good lord, you’d think that somewhere in the vast warrens of Phelps, Dunbar they coulda found somebody to proofread this sucker for Frank. Tsk tsk. But I digress.
So: Frank and Sid don’t think it’s fair that evidence of the DeLaughter-bribery in Wilson be mentioned in any courtroom Sid inhabits — especially not a courtroom that Sid and an ANONYMOUS JURY inhabit — and in fact, it’s so unfair that Judge Biggers needs to reverse himself.
Right.
No matter how many sources of popular entertainment they cite, you buying? or betting Judge Biggers will?
Curly, yo’ mama wuz right.
The best argument he has is the 404(b) argument, which he has already made. The argument about the anonymous jury– which is the new one– seems substantially weaker. He really doesn’t back that argument up with analysis. Insertion of the word “known” in the phrase “jury of his peers” doesn’t make that the right involved here.
The 404(b) argument could play out in a way that I would view it as really prejudicial to his right to a trial in a way a jury instruction would not cure. But my view of prejudice is not that of the federal (or other) courts. They think the prejudice to Sid can be overcome with a jury instruction.
Curley, My Manna used to say to us kids I’ve talked and talked and now I’ve just talked out. We knew what that meant , a good little switching, lets see how Da’ Judge does it.
The moral here is to be careful who you pick as your co-conspirators.
I agree it’s being done as one more possible grounds for appeal, not because they think it will be granted.
I hope this jury gets a nice jury room, because I predict they will spend a lot of time in it as the defense lawyers continue to raise motion after motion during the trial.
Prediction: Backstrom makes a plea on the 17th, and the Scrugges push the envelope until the 31st when it’s time to crap or get off the pot.
ROFLMAO.
I told ya, I told ya, I told ya, they’s been watchin ya!
HEE!
Would this fall under the Hail Mary play?
This has none of the possibilities for dramatic success that are part of a hail mary pass.
For those keeping score, Zach has filed a notice that he joins in Sid’s motion.
“See ya round, dad, I’m going to leave with Sid.”
You don’t say, NMC 11. Now tha-at’s news!
Hey, Busted! Who’d a thunk, huh?
I tell ya what darlin’, if I want to see a huge spike in my visitor stats, all I have to do is put up a post with the name ‘Scruggs’ in it.
It’s like a murder of crows on a pile of sweet cherries, they come outta the woodwork.
Now that, my dear Busted, is an image to conjure with, yessirreeebob. W00T!
was sid backstrom not employed by the scruggs firm until after 2006? the wilson case ended sometime in 2006 didn’t it? how is it that trapp says backstrom wasn’t working for scruggs at that time? does the motion give backstrom’s start date of employment and point out that it’s after the delaughter conspiracy was concluded?
TO OBSERVER (7): This isn’t state court. Once the jury is put in the box, in the box they will stay until J. Biggers gives them a break. There may be some brief sidebar conferences, but there won’t be any motions hearings in chambers.
Soooo, no bribery on the part of the defendants but extortion by J. Lackey? I thought only the IRS (and not the FBI) was allowed to extort money from regular folks.
Ben. You need to get out to more federal courts if you believe that. The last federal trial I had, admittedly three years ago, and not in the northern district of Mississippi, the jury probably spent three quarters of their time in the jury room while the defense attorneys raised issue after issue, and motion after motion, that we all thought should have been disposed of pre-trial.
Not many judges, federal or state, like to take testimony from witnesses in chambers.
Then you haven’t practiced in the Northern District of Mississippi. These judges run the courtrooms and the trials—not the lawyers. Jurors hear the testimony and decide the facts, and they don’t trot back and forth to the jury room while lawyers chase rabbits in the courtroom.
Ben Cole, my experience of jury trials before Judge Biggers and Judge Mills, both, is that there is a normal amount of time spent with lawyers arguing evidentiary issues and the like with the jury out of the room, and occasionally at the bench with the jury in the box. Yes, both judges run a relatively tight ship, and I’ve seen impatience when a lawyer didn’t keep things moving along efficiently, but they don’t stop lawyers from making objections that come up in any trial, and expect lawyers to not argue those issues in the jury’s hearing.
I’m surprised your experience is different.
Per the motion: The case’s notoriety…could expose jurors to harassment or intimidation.
Most likely by the defendants. In a bassackward way, it sounds like the motion almost agrees with the anonjury.
I have put the government response on this issue online as an update to the original Lotus post.
in 11, I was mistaken– Zach did not join in the motion to reconsider on severance.