After the two guilty pleas yesterday, there was a recess and then a motions hearing involving Zach Scruggs. I described it in a prior post. David Rossmiller obtained a copy of the transcript from the court report, so thanks to him for those who want the actual thing rather than my notes. Here is the Motions hearing transcript.
It’s of interest for those wondering: (1) Has Zach made a deal (didn’t sound like it as of 11:00 AM yesterday. BTW, I gather the Clarion Ledger took down their report to the contrary before committing it to newsprint) and (2) Will the trial happen on March 31st (sounds like it to me).
NMC
Well, I’ll just say that, before I even got past the cover page, Todd Graves’ address in Kansas City gave this ol’ bird a flutter. I briefly worked in that building fresh out of collitch.
Is this blog fixing to kill me? It’s seemed to be determined to pass my whole life before my eyes this week. Yipe.
If somebody brings up Peru or Ecuador next, man, I’m outta here!
I cooked quinoa for dinner one day last week.
Waaaaaaaah!
it’s a grain from Peru
What are the chances Zach will enter a plea on Monday?
From reading the transcripts you can tell he knew what was up. He just tried to stay of it as much as possible. Leaving the room etc…
This earwigging business, do yall think Scruggs would attempt this often testing the waters with each judge with something not yet illegal?
Why would any judge be earwigged in the first place?
Do yall think Lackey knew this kinda stuff was going on around him (if indeed it was).
A pre-Inca temple was recently discovered in Peru.
DM:
1. Somewhat slim
2. yes to an extent
3. Why do people not follow the rules? I don’t know.
4. No.
If you earwig a Judge without sweet potatoes, and he rules with you, have you come as close as possible to determining how many angels can dance on the head of pin. If he rules against you after an earwigging with sweet potatoes, do you solve the riddle about a tree falling in the forest without an ear to hear it making no sound?
Say three Oums spaced 1.5 minutes apart and more will be revealed to you!
I have heard from somewhat reliable sources here in Oxford that Zach was offered a deal of 1 year and that he refused, actually refused to go to court.
Even if Zach gets off on this particular venture, enough evidence of his involvement in the DeLaughter situation (like telling Jones he could file his brief “on a cocktail napkin”) has surfaced that it’s just a matter of time.
Question: Knowing what Jones apparently knew about the backdoor maneuvers in the Wilson suit, what are the chances that he could get caught up in that prosecution, which seems sure to come quickly now that round 1 is nearly over?
soms:
I would predict not in answer to your question. Look at the list of lawyers representing Scruggs in that case– a whole raft of them. Those folks were not clued in to the plot, I don’ t think, including Jones.
There’s a “you made a deal with the devil” quality to what has happened to Jones, but that doesn’t mean Jones did anything improper himself. The brief-on-a-napkin remark should have made him wonder what he was dealing with, but I’ve not heard anything that makes him sound a potential target.
I don’t know what Zach expects to happen at trial, after Balducci, Patterson, and Backstrom get up and testify that he was part of the conspiracy and knew what was going on. He may be the least involved person in the conspiracy (there always has to be one) but that still makes you a member of the conspiracy.
“Him” a member, not you!
the 404b still comes in on zach or not?!
Yep, confounded, sure does.
The government is going to have to reframe it’s argument somewhat to do that, confounded. I’d say “I would think so but I’m not sure.”