All right, this morning Judge Coleman presides over the sanctions hearing in Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs. Word is that the Jones side has subpoenaed Judge Henry Lackey, Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, and possibly Steve Patterson, but the Scruggs side has warned that its clients, still in pre-sentencing jeopardy, will all be taking the Fifth if called to the stand.
So, barring the phrasing of questions put to the mummed-up Scruggsians as tip-offs to something or other, that leaves Judge Lackey as our only likely source of new info today. If you were a lawyer in that hearing, how would you play your shot at this witness? Whether you’re Grady Tollison for Jones or the-perhaps-still-excruciated Brooks Dooley for Scruggs . . .
What question(s) must you pose Judge Lackey?
Where are you not going to go (and why)?
How will you handle a witness like this one in front of a judge like this one?
What are you expecting from the other side, and what do you plan to do about that?
The popcorn is hot and we’re all in our seats. “Your witness . . .”
I predict Judge Coleman will not allow testimony but will simply accept the guilty pleas as evidence that an attempt to bribe occurred. Tollison only has to prove the attempt by clear and convincing evidence. The pleas of Balducci, Patterson, Scruggs, little Scruggs and Sid accomplish that.
He will move directly to the scope of the sanctions and will set a date for a damage hearing.
Aw foot, that’d be a lot less fun, Jsh. The pleas suffice to let Judge Coleman disallow testimony without risking a good issue for appeal? Hmm.
Agreed, I would prefer to see Grady do a Perry Mason on this one.
Judges hate putting other judges on the spot; I’ll be curious to see what happens.
Thanks for checking in, Anderson. Thought I’d kilt the blog.
I stand corrected.