I’m going to post what is visible in public because of reports on the Clarion-Ledger site that Zach Scruggs has struck a deal to surrender his law license and defer prosecution (I’m not sure what that would mean). I have seen nothing to confirm this.
In the hearing this morning, Zach Scruggs was notably absent. The fact that Sid Backstrom has agreed in his plea agreement to cooperate strongly suggests that Zach has more exposure than previously, because Sid Backstrom will be able to present an “inside view” of what was going on in the Scruggs Law Firm. After the pleas and a ten-minute recess, the judge called up the remaining motions, noting that the major motion before him was the motion to dismiss based on purported misleading statements to the grand jury. Zach Scruggs’s lawyer said he would stand on the pleadings on that motion, and the judge overruled it.
The court asked about other matters. The lawyer noted that there was a discovery motion and a jury motion out there, and that he would like an opportunity to negotiate with the prosecutors and come back if they could not reach agreement, that there were decisions that had been made that did not apply to single defendants in the way they would to a group. Judge Biggers answered that this was reasonable. The lawyer responded that he had a concern with trying the case as scheduled. He noted that the jury just got the questionnaires and jury summonses and would now hear all the publicity about the guilty pleas.
Judge Biggers responded that the questionnaires had gone out but the jurors did not know the names of the defendants although they might surmise it. Defense counsel: I believe they will. I believe there will be a need for a hearing on the conspiracy issues remaining and whether the 404(b) evidence is to be excluded before there could be a trial.
Judge Biggers responded that the court had sent out 200 summonses for March 31st, which would be a waste of effort if the trial was continued. He stated he would let the parties confer and get back to him in five days.
This made two things clear: Unless something changes, the trial is still on, and the parties are negotiating. If there was a deal within reach for Zach they would have made it. Perhaps the changes in circumstance will allow a deal to be struck, but it was not evident in the courtroom.
NMC
If Dickie tells the DOJ where there are some big-time bodies buried, I’ll bet that Zach could walk for little or no prison time.
Excuse my ignorance here, but I still haven’t seen anything that says Dickie has to cooperate as part of the agreement, while Backstrom’s plea reportedly includes cooperation. Is it just understood “cooperation?” I’m confused, but not an unusual state-of-my-being.
Dickie has not agreed to cooperate Justus and in fact shows no sign of it and cannot without resolving other issues like Wilson.
Cooperation means be a witness for the prosecution, and testifying truthfully when called. “Testifying truthfully” starts with testifying in a trial about the current bribery matter, presumably, which would be in the trial of Zach Scruggs.
Sailor, I probably wasn’t clear, but I could also be mistaken. I simply assumed that Dickie would sing to the Feds to get a better deal for his son, Zack. But, maybe criminals don’t care about their offspring.
He hasn’t made that deal, Justus– he’s in a trap:
He can’t sing without singing about everything. He wasn’t offered a deal that he could take that resolved the Wilson case, which is certainly part of “everything.” So he’s not able to cooperate. And I suspect they weren’t offered a deal they could live with for Zach.
As a parent, I don’t think you put your son in harm’s way, as it were, to begin with. Seems like his paternal instincts (if in fact h’s doin’ this for Zach) might be kicking in at least a year too late.
NMC: look at PACER. new motion filed indicates that there is no deal for Zach.
NMC, I know one thing for certain, Dickie knows where more bodies, and much bigger, than Balducci ever dreamed about, and the Wilson case is only one of them. Don’t you think that Dickie could throw out a nice juicy chunk of information on something other than Wilson that the feds would trade on?
Deferred prosecution means that someone serves “probation,” pays fine, reports, acts nice and, if they do for however long, then the case is dismissed. Giving up his license prevents him from ever getting it back. If you are disbarred you can at least ask to get it back if you show you have rehabilitated yourself. Odd they heard other motions if Zack has cut a deal. I expect that they are hard negotiating to beat the Monday deadline.
Can’t edit so will have to add. Dickie may not have to cooperate because of 5th amendment issues. He can’t be made to cooperate in prosecuting himself for other crimes and DeLaughter is still looming in the background with Langston’s plea.
NMC,
Don’t know if you want to step into this swamp, but why would the prosecution agree to a deal that didn’t include cooperation?
Are we looking at the temptation of a sure thing vs. chances in court?
Speaking of Langston’s plea, lotus, you got any more on your previous conversation re: panic in Booneville?
Would the chance that Dickie “cooperates” mean that if someone, mainly Big Tobacco, wanted to review any of the previous tobacco awards possibly mean giving up the “ill gotten fruits” if there were “judicial impropriety” involved in those? He might not mind giving up five years, a career and a son, but all those millions stacked neatly away…..
Nope, Sailor 4:06, I told the whole thing.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2008/03/deferred-pros-1.html
Ironically, a hearing was held in the US House this week on the issue of deferred prosecutions.
Yeeeouch!
Marshall Ramsey cartoon
http://thedmonline.blogspot.com/
Here is an interview with Ben Creekmore and a statement from Chancellor Kayhat.
from a link:
"I joined a conspiracy late in the game, " Scruggs said. "It wasn’t exactly what prosecutors indicated … But I did join the conspiracy. "
His relaxed manner and frequent smiles made Scruggs appear almost glad the whole ordeal was over.
But Backstrom wasn’t so jovial.
"I apologize to the court, " Backstrom said before breaking down and crying. Through tears he added, "to my family. I made some of the worst decisions of my life in this case. "
Biggers said his apology was entered into the record and appeared almost sympathetic.
"No doubt you made some awful decisions, " Biggers said to Backstrom. "But you’re here accepting the responsibilities of those decisions. "
Scruggs offered no apology.
ugh.
That’s actually accurate secrestatfolo