Comments on: Copious news on the Jones v Scruggs front– and some info about what the sanction may be

By: Arklawyer

Arklawyer — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:37:06 +0000

It’s been interesting reading all the intrigue in the MS judicial/legal system. I’ll chime in that, to the extent Dick Scruggs faces potential criminal liability other than that to which he has pleaded guilty, he would retain the right to invoke the 5th.

By: Justsittinhere

Justsittinhere — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:21:28 +0000

NMC: do you think Biggers will hold this vigorous battle the Scruggs are putting up against the Scruggs when it comes to sentencing as the Bar contest will probably be? In other words, is this vigorous fight just more evidence that the Scruggs are not accepting responsibility? By trying to still win the result they tried to accomplish by bribe?

Do you know if scruggs, barrett, nutt have made any attempt to settle with jones? Do you think there will be any attempt at settlement at the hearing?

By: NMC

NMC — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:46:44 +0000

it’s not waived forever as I understand it, somslawyer.

gearheart: I don’t think so. Judge Coleman was willing to give them about a month but not hold things up forever. That was my understanding of the import of his ruling.

By: somslawyer

somslawyer — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:04:57 +0000

Didn’t Dickie, Zack and Sid have to waive their 5th amendment privilege at the beginning of their plea colloquys in federal court? Like attorney-client privilege, isn’t it once waived forever waived as to the same matter?

By: Gearhart

Gearhart — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:01:45 +0000

didn’t the judge rule they don’t have to testify while all the criminal stuff is going on? isn’t that in a discovery ruling related to the sanctions or did i dream it up?

By: lotus

lotus — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:09:56 +0000

I sure got to thank J.C. Harris for this wonderful idea: Somebody judgely need to butt Dickie an’ them crank-sided, he do.

By: NMC

NMC — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:52:12 +0000

5th amendment question:

All jeopardy has to be at an end. That’s not the case here. I don’t seem them being forced to testify. OTOH, Judge Coleman can enter all kinds of presumptions against them based on the 5th Amend assertion

By: NMC

NMC — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:50:28 +0000

No telling other than, like Brer Fox, they'll lay low.

By: lotus

lotus — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:57:29 +0000

Oh, I also meant to ask for a reminder of where Nutt, Barrett, et al. are gonna be being unavailable tomorrow.

By: lotus

lotus — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:55:52 +0000

Same question as Jsh, NMC — I thought the 5thA’s purpose is to avoid compelled self-incrimination, not to avoid due punishment once guilty pleas have established the incrimination.

When you say, “The motion notes that the subpoenas asked for Ed Peters (!!) … ,” did they mean his person or his documents or both? (WHAT an interesting error in drafting, no?)