The courtroom was slower to fill up, but much the same crowd, including all the Scruggses–Diane, Zack, Claire who had a bit of an emotional breakdown in the bathroom right after the sentencing for her father. Both Chancellor Khayat and Dean Davis were here again.
Judge: Court has looked at written comments to presentence report and response. The record stands based on the memorandum, and no one wishes to change it. The court adopted its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and calculations from the previous hearing. His rulings on Dickie Scruggs’ objections apply to Backstrom’s. Court finds based on intended benefit of $400,000. The case level is 29, criminal history level 1.
Trapp: I assume the court accepts the plea agreement.
Judge Biggers: I haven’t done it, but I plan on doing it.
BACKSTROM:
I want to express my profound sorrow to my family, this court and the Bar (lots unintelligible here, crying). I’ve cried with my wife and children too many times to count. That punishment along with not knowing the damage I have caused will live with me.
Trapp: Requests voluntary report and 30 days to get fine together.
Rhea Tannehill: Mentions his long-term friendship with Sid outside representation, that they first got to know each other in a men’s support group Bible study on Tuesday night.
‘As long as I liveI will never forget the feeling when I learned the facts of this case and the involvement of my brother Sid Backstrom. He is very remorseful, a caretaker of his elderly grandmother, his widowed step-mother, and his brother who is currently incarcerated. One of the reasons he is here today is because he is a caretaker.’
Judge Biggers: What does his being a caretaker have to do with his being here today?
Tannehill: He feels responsible and wanted to ‘help the situation.’
Judge Biggers: Not all caretakers who come before the court have committed a serious crime.
Judge: ‘The Court has studied the situation and plea agreement. We agree that Sid’s letters show he is well-liked and respected in his profession.’ Mentions that many of the letters received were solicited, so there is no surprise that they ask for leniency. Court also received unsolicited letters from lay people who look cynically at this conduct of lawyers. ‘I am surprised at how lightly this is being taken by some people who are in charge of students, and know the message this can send.’
The Court has been impressed with Backstrom’s state of mind and remorse. He mentions the statement Backstrom made when he pled guilty, and that ‘other codefendants’ did not show that attitude. The Court has not seen some kind of cooperation with the government. Backstrom gave the plea agreement for ½ of Scruggs’ sentence based on assumed cooperation.
Defense Atty: We’ve done what we were asked to do.
Judge Biggers: There has been no testimony about his knowledge about other co-defendants, one of whom I am particularly interested in.
Judge Biggers: I will accept the plea agreement. I know it’s a difficult thing for you. I know about your family. But, as Mr. Scruggs said this morning, he hopes he will be a better man when this is over, and I hope that you will be as well.
-28 months; supervised release 3 years; Fine $150,000 with upward deviation of $2,000/mo. During incarceration and $1700/mo. During release
-lump sum in 30 days; recommends Arkansas facility
Thanks to Ole Miss law student Forrest Ann Dillard for helping me with notes on this one.
Along with you, of course, NMC — Brava, Forrest Ann Dillard!
This is so sad.
The co-d in whom Biggers is particularly interested: Zach?
NMC – Great job! (As ususal)
Thanks you for your efforts on this!
lotus@1,
Maybe the same co-d in whom Biggers directed the “lack of remorse” comment?
Spec so, Phantom.
NMC, Kudos to you for the reporting and explaining you have done on this Mississippi legal drama.
I would guess the co defendant the judge referenced is the big D. I did note with interest the judge’s comments about "I am surprised at how lightly this is being taken by some people who are in charge of students, and know the message this can send." I would say that the letters that the people at Ole Miss wrote did no good to either of these two and actually did them some harm as now they have to pay extra fines for the cost of their incarceration. Drop in the bucket for Dickie, but a big slap in the face to the chancellor and maybe the dean and athletic director also.
Certain faces got aggressively presented for slapping — one in particular, eh, Beau?
seriously though, people do hard time for a pound of weed. For corrupting the judicial system, 5 years? I mean there are folks doing 60 years as a habitual pot smoker. Where is the justification? and this guy was a gazillionaire already. I’d say this Scruggs dude has been blessed. Won’t he be out in about 2-1/2 years? Long enough to get some nice ink, but not long enough to go insane.
I mean which seems like a much more serious crime overall, habitually smoking weed or corrupting the judicial system? And which has more potential victims? I’m not sure what this sentence is saying, except that habitual pot smokers should get 5 minutes based on this 5 year sentence for corrpting the judicial system. Not that I smoke weed, but I’m just saying
5 references to weed/pot in 3 minutes(@8-9). You okay over there, Pam?
I’m fine, hahahah, thanks for asking. Sixty percent of the prison population is involving the drug war that’s why I used referenced pot. It does seem to be a huge portion of our society locked up for mainly low level drug crimes such as weed and cocaine. In other words, non-violent, victimless crimes. But corrupting the judicial system? I’m not saying he should have gotten a harsher sentence, I’m just wondering about the fairness in the sentencing in this country.
The drug laws are a disgrace. I agree Pam. Booze is much more destructive than pot. We need some brave politicians who will reform the drug laws to focus on treatment instead of punishment.
I would bet Zach is pretty nervous about right now and wishing he had shown some serious remorse at his plea hearing. Bet he also wishes he could take back those letters he solicited to be sent to Biggers, expecially the ones from those associated to the school. Wondering if the good chancellor put in a letter for Zach that it would be a waste of our taxpayer $$ to keep him in jail, or if that was just reserved to Dickie’s letter.
I may have read him wrong, but I get the impression he has shown the same kind of attitude and defiance for this whole mess as his dad has.
Brave politicians . . . hmm . . . dang . . . where DID we put our stash of those?!
Me too, Beau, which is why I’m leaning to him as the judge’s referent.
The judge’s remarks about the difference in attitude exhibited by the “other co-defendants, ” especially “one of whom I am particularly interested in” must have sent a shiver up the spine of Zach Scruggs.
I’m pretty sure that is THE topic at dinner tonight. I’m not hearing any “best of luck to you” in the statements related to Zach.
Can’t the judge reject the plea agreement and more or less start over if he feels that the defendant isn’t remorseful or taking responsibility? Seems like a recent federal case heard in front of Judge Wingate here lately resulted in something similar occuring.
There was also talk about what an arse Zach was to his “handlers” when he turned himself in and through the whole processing before he was released. You know that spread through the courthouse like wildfire. Who has the judge’s ear more than those kinds of folks? Is that just arrogance or youth or both? The same people said Dickie was the exact opposite. I know a smart and/or older person would know those are not the folks you behave like an arse around.
I feel a lot of sympathy for Sid and a lot more for his wife and children. Does anyone else find it interesting that the Scruggs family was present for his sentencing? And also, his lawyer’s statement that “there was no knowledge” about the activities of the co-defendant Judge Biggers asked about? I can’t really put my finger on it, but I’m getting the sense that there is something more to all of this than is reflected in the transcript. I almost get the sense that Sid is acting as a caretaker for Zach. If he is, what is he getting in return? Maybe I’ve just read too many novels.
Yes, I think Zach is toast – as far as the sentencing guidelines will allow. He won’t get probation and will probably get a year at least. He should have been a whimpering toddler on the floor of the courthouse pleading for mercy and showing contrition but apparently, that’s just not in his nature.
I thought I remembered correctly about federal judge Wingate not liking a defendant’s “surly attitude” and imposing more than the recommended sentence. Zach might better hope that Judge Biggers doesn’t consult Judge Wingate for guidance and direction, http://tinyurl.com/4dwpku
I haven’t been able to keep up a whole lot lately, but I put this date on my mental calendar and want to thank and praise Lotus and NMC and their community for the astounding coverage, insight and local information. Cheers to y’all!
I haven’t read every word yet, but goodness my heart goes out to the Backstom’s.
MSlawyer @ 19
I almost get the sense that Sid is acting as a caretaker for Zach. If he is, what is he getting in return?
You and me both (and I think the Judge too). It may be just a sense of remorse that DS and ZS are incapable of processing. Perhaps Backstrom is so aware of his ethical failure and a bizarre sense of loyalty and responsibility has overcome him. He WILL be responsible for as much as he can because he was responsible in some way. It’s obvious to everyone, present and reading, that he was taking responsibility and possibly the only authentic/genuine soul of the 3.
MS @19, I understand Mrs. Scruggs is particularly close to Sid and his family; as I recall, she was also there when Sid pled guilty and sat with him while they were waiting for the judge to start the hearing.
I agree that the judge’s comments about “the activities of a co-defendant” seem mysterious,and I’m not sure he was referring to Zach. But I don’t think Sid is caretaking for Zach at this point – if by that you mean he is not telling all he knows about Zach’s involvement. Certainly, if Biggers felt that way, he would have given Sid the full 30 months, don’t you think?
They don’t sound mysterious to me curious georgette. First, didn’t he say “co-defendantS”– I think it pointed at both father and son. Second, his curiosity seemed to me to point to a decision he has to make in the future, which would be the sentencing next week.
Maybe “caretaking” isn’t the precise word or phrase to use. Maybe “falling on a sword” kind of thing is a better conveyance.
Yes, that term might explain it better. I guess I just think that if Sid is truly remorseful for what happened (and it seems he is), then part of that is a recognition that the chips need to fall where they may, and he wouldn’t try to shield anybody at this point if he was asked about their involvement.
I feel really bad about Sid, he is a friend and a truly good person. This was totally out of character for him. Dickie is also a true friend, who once helped me in a tremendous way, but I think we all know or at least believe that he was the one that had the final say on what happened. My guess would be Zach knew as much about it as Sid, and like Sid did not have control over what happened, but undoubtedly participated in it, likely at least as much as Sid.
I really feel sorry for their families most of all, they had nothing to do with this yet will suffer greatly.
curious georgette
I agree. I think that is where the statements
—–Defense Atty: We’ve done what we were asked to do.
Judge Biggers: There has been no testimony about his knowledge about other co-defendants, one of whom I am particularly interested in.
Defense Atty: There was no knowledge—-
I took this as an indictment of the defense attorneys in Bigger’s eyes too.
Like Bigger’s knows the game. The defense attorneys got involved, and so no chance of an extra chat or a cleansing of the soul was possible.
My opinion is NOT to reflect criminal defense attorneys as a whole, by NO means. Just that I think Bigger’s know wagons were circled BIG time in this case.
Sea @ 27
Are you suggesting Biggers thinks Backstrom has knowledge of other activities of one or both Scruggs that he declined to share after agreeing to cooperate? If so, why would that be an indictment of the defense attorneys?
I find it difficult to believe that someone in Backstrom’s position would fail to cooperate. But I do not find it difficult to believe that Backstrom would be out of the loop on many matters. (I don’t know any of these people personally.)
At the same time, while Backstrom told Balducci he would have to get back to him, he didn’t say, “How dare you suggest such a thing? I refuse to be the messenger for such a request.”
Another thing to consider, Backstrom had to follow DS’s lead in all this to avoid being the scapegoat.
He may not feel free and safe to say all he knows till he’s under federal protection away from Dickie.
He can still cooperate.
(My comment @28 was sent before editing of 27.)
Backstrom is the one I really feel for. The time I most wanted to weep in all of this was reading the transcript of his and Balducci’s conversation about Halloween with a 2-year old. By the time I was reading that, Backstrom had already had to explain this whole mess to his family. Now, that makes me feel sad.
28MsNExile
Ok, “indictment” might not be the right word. It’s just not a mystery that when a defense attorney shows up the defendant is guided in their speech and communications, much different pre- attorney.
In this situation the defendant is an attorney beholden to a much BIGGER attorney with a much more prominent representation.
Local representation of a minor but predominant fish is going to guard their fish very securely to watch and defer to Big fish representation.
IOW, even if Backstrom wanted to turn on everyone he was most probably pressed in all sorts of ways not too. It could have been himself not to, but he had a team and their was a bigger outside team that probably made that not feasible.
At least at this time.
It’s just a sad shame that Dickie Scruggs utilized and manipulated young men, with young children to conduct criminal acts on his behalf and he showed NO remorse for that.
Had he, he might be a step up in my book. He didn’t, it was all about him.
They were grown adults that could have “blown the whistle” on Dickie, but they would’ve never stood a chance and they knew it, and being enticed to be the future great Dickie was too much for almost anyone to take a stand.
I would not for one minute be surprised to learn that his accounting department or even his paralegals were in some danger for looking the other way or kowtowing to Dickie when he asked them in his sweet way to “change things” wink
Sad Day @ 27, I agree with you about Zach’s level of involvement. Judge Biggers, being a perceptive man, probably sees that too.
Hey there, Seacrest and MsNExile, nice to see y’all back! Hope you’re not too slammed to join us for the sequels . . .
A lot more big fish in this pond. P.L. Blake is still on the hook and he can lead to a lot more.
jim, Judge Biggers seemed real curious about P. L. didn’t he?
Morning, jim and MSlawyer. Y’all remind me of something I’ve been meaning to mention: heard a few days back that David Nutt is closing his office and swearing off law practice (with some wondering whether this is 100% voluntary). Anything like that to be found in the traps y’all running?
All I have heard is that he has been cooperating since Nov. of last year (and of course, about possible nuptials).
Okey-doke. Wonder what Meg McAlister’s plan is.
What amazes me about ‘ol PL is that, through all this, he’s been able to avoid being photographed. With all the attention coming his way, that quite an achievement.
I should add to my comment at 39 that what I have heard about cooperation is based on Mr. Nutt’s testimony in open court. I can’t remember which proceeding now (there have been so many). Anyway, someone who was there said that Nutt testified that he called the FBI and helped them locate the invoice from Balducci for the bribe. Just wanted to clear up that I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Nutt’s activities.
MSlawyer re 37–YES he did!