Former Mississippi state auditor Steve Patterson (right) with attorney Hiram Eastland as he enters U.S. District Court for sentencing this morning. Patterson appeared light-hearted before being sentenced, asking the photographers taking his photo: “Where were you when I was running for office?” Photo by Bruce Newman.

2/13/09 – Last two judicial bribery defendants sentenced
Alyssa Schnugg
Staff Writer

The last two defendants in what’s been branded the Scruggs I judicial bribery case were sentenced to spend 24 months in federal prison for their roles in the scheme to bribe a circuit court judge.

Timothy Balducci and Steven Patterson both appeared before U.S. District Court Judge Neal B. Biggers this morning at the Federal Courthouse in Oxford.

Both men pleaded guilty a year ago to a charge of conspiring with Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, his son and attorney Zach Scruggs and his law partner Sidney Backstrom to bribe Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey with $40,000 for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit against the elder Scruggs involving legal fees in Hurricane Katrina related litigation.

During Balducci’s sentencing hearing, U.S. Assistant Attorney Bob Norman told the judge that his department had never seen such “complete cooperation” from another defendant. He said Balducci’s help has opened the doors to other investigations of corruption and that the Scruggs case got as far as it did because of Balducci’s assistance.

“His cooperation was immediate,” Norman said. “He’s doing the best he knows how to do to right the wrong he has done.”

Biggers agreed but reminded Balducci he was the “bag man” in the case.

“You carried the money,” he said. “You talked the judge into going along with what you wanted to do.”

Balducci told Biggers and the court that he was “profoundly sorry” for what he had done.

“All I can do now is try to make things as rights as I can,” Balducci said.

Norman also reported that Patterson has cooperated with the government, albeit to a lesser degree than Balducci.

Patterson was called a “minor” participant in the case, although he received the same sentence as Balducci.

Before he was sentenced, Patterson said he was embarrassed and humiliated.

“If God gave me a choice to live carefree in paradise the rest of my life, or to choose to go back two years ago and change my actions, I would not hesitate to enlist to do the latter,” he told Biggers.

Both men will report to prison on March 25. The government asked for the later reporting dates because their testimony may be needed when the grand jury meets in the March.

The saga began on Nov. 27, 2007, when FBI agents raided Scruggs’ office on the Square. The next day, the five men were indicted.

On Dec. 5, 2007, the day of his arraignment, Balducci pleaded guilty to the bribery charge.

It was later learned that Balducci had been working with the government in building its case against Scruggs and the others.

But it was also Balducci who got the ball rolling. In trying to gain favor with Scruggs, during a meeting with the other defendants in March 2006, he told the famous trial attorney that he could use his friendship to corruptly influence the judge to find in favor of Scruggs in the lawsuit Jones v. Scruggs.

After Balducci approached Lackey and suggested that if Lackey would find in favor of Scruggs, he would give Lackey a place in his law firm after Lackey retired. Appalled, Lackey told the FBI about the conversation. For six months, Lackey allowed his office and telephone to be tapped. In September 2006, in another meeting with Balducci, the subject of money came up and Balducci offered Lackey $40,000. It was later discovered Scruggs was providing the funds.

Balducci was approached by the FBI in November 2007 and he began cooperating with the government and wore a wire tap himself on the day the money was given to Lackey.

Scruggs was sentenced in June to spend five years in a federal prison in Kentucky. His son is serving a 14-month sentence in Forrest City, Ark., and Backstrom is serving 28 months in Forrest City.

Earlier this week, Scruggs was sentenced to seven years in prison for his role in a bribery case involving Hinds Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter, which came to light during the Lackey case and through testimony of Balducci. The sentence will run concurrent with his original five-year sentence.

The judge called the defendant forward. He had Michael and McCoy on either side, along with Eastland.  Norman was the only one there for the Government.

The proceeding began with Patterson’s statement, described already here.

Michael spoke for him as defense counsel. He said: “Some 14 months ago when the indictments were handed down, the first person I called was Patterson. I knew that if the facts were true my friend was going to [be facing a great deal] and in spite of that wanted him to know he still had a friend, and that I did know that he was a good man who had made some terrible judgments.” He quoted the Proverbs passage about a good name being worth more than gold and then said that Patterson “has been a good servant to his friends and his community.”

Bob Norman spoke for the government, saying he was saying some things not so much for the court as because they were things Patterson needed to hear. Stated that when he first met Patterson they were combatants but the case came to the point where they were not. Patterson said that he would like Norman to believe he was a minor participant, and said, “Do you believe that this would have happened if I had been out of the country as I was when you were trying to find me to arrest me.” Norman decided that this was so, and that this meant Patterson was a minor participant. Patterson was the second person to take responsibility in this case and was available to testify. “I will need him in the future. I believe he will testify truthfully.”

… Holder is showing more investigative interest in the alleged politicization of the DOJ than his predecessor. The Huffington Post reported that Holder promised senators this week that he would review why career prosecutors in Washington had decided not to prosecute the former head of the department’s Civil Rights Division after an inspector general’s report found that former division head Bradley Schlozman lied to lawmakers about whether he politicized hiring decisions.

Holder is also in a position to reverse Bush’s order to protect Rove, Miers and Bolten from testifying before Congress.

Minor’s attorney Hiram Eastland said he is encouraged by the new make-up of the Justice Department and the president’s office, and felt Rove’s testimony could have “huge” consequences.

“We think they’re going to find out that Karl Rove was actually involved with the Justice Department and countless cases of political prosecution, and in the creation of nothing less than political prisoners,” Eastland said. “Congress is addressing the U.S. attorneys firing and all, but they’ve yet to get down to the questions that were raised about whether these prosecutions were political. We’re not aware that they’ve gone around and questioned anyone. There’s been very little follow-up after our letters to the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. We’re not saying the investigations won’t happen. They may have ultimately planned to get around to them anyway, but this was never meant to be a country where we take political prisoners and we’re encouraging Congress and the Justice Department to get to the bottom of these issues.”

Diaz said he was not confident Rove would be speaking before a House committee anytime soon. …

Maybe not, but time is finally on the side of justice, not Dunn Lampton and Karl Rove.

A federal grand jury in Oxford is expected to hear testimony this month or next on whether imprisoned former trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs influenced Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter – a case prosecutors already are calling “Scruggs II.”

Scruggs’ prosecution earlier this year in an unrelated judicial bribery case received plenty of national media attention, but Matt Steffey, professor at Mississippi College School of Law, expects this new case to attract more. DeLaughter is known nationally for his successful prosecution in 1994 of Byron De La Beckwith for the 1963 assassination of Medgar Evers. “I expect a media feeding frenzy,” Steffey said. …

Joey’s Langston’s lawyer, Tony Farese, wouldn’t discuss the case because it’s under seal, but that didn’t stop Hiram Eastland, Jr., Steve Patterson’s attorney.

“Steve has been a cooperating witness, so it’s not unusual to see sentencing postponed. We haven’t heard anything on sentencing that would lead us to believe sentencing is imminent, but it’s totally discretionary with (U.S. District) Judge (Neal) Biggers.”

Well, this time we’ve been warned. Lay in your popcorn and clear your cache.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In August 2007, three men who later became entangled in a Mississippi bribery scheme raised money for Sen. Joe Biden’s run for president.

A month later, two of the three were overheard in a phone call recorded by the FBI discussing federal legislation and a prospective meeting with Biden’s brother, Jim.

It’s unclear whether any meeting ever occurred or whether legislation was ever discussed, so the episode may mean little — except as an example of the potential political vulnerabilities that Barack Obama’s running mate brings to the Democratic ticket. …

Among the other grist he may provide for John McCain’s mill: …

_The history of Biden’s son, Hunter, as a Washington lobbyist. Since 2002, the firm Hunter Biden co-founded has represented a major constituent of Joe Biden’s, the University of Delaware, which has collected millions in federal funding.

_Donations to Biden’s campaigns totaling more than $200,000 in the past two decades from Delaware-based MBNA, the credit card company, and a similar amount from trial lawyers, including Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, one of the three men implicated in the Mississippi bribery scheme. …

[T]he Mississippi fundraiser and the FBI-taped phone call are the kind of information Obama’s opponents can make use of if they want to, despite the ambiguity of the circumstances

Biden has returned at least $7,500 in campaign contributions from the three men and their families.

The overheard conversation between attorney Timothy Balducci and former Mississippi State Auditor Steve Patterson was recorded in September 2007 while the FBI was investigating a bribery scheme that toppled Scruggs, Mississippi’s most prominent lawyer.

Balducci tells Patterson at one point in the cryptic conversation that he was told “we really need to push on the Senate bill” and “get your man in line in the House if this comes out of the Senate,” according to the transcript.

On the tape, Balducci says he had spoken by phone to Jim Biden, Sen. Biden’s brother, “and we’re gonna meet the Bidens around noon,” according to the transcript.

Balducci said they would “meet with the black farmers at three.”

Around the time of the tape-recorded call, Biden and other lawmakers, including Obama, were pushing legislation to give thousands of black farmers a chance to seek compensation if they were denied loans or crop subsidies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture because of their race.

In December 2007, the Senate passed a farm bill that included language to help the farmers seek compensation if they missed out on an earlier settlement with the Agriculture Department in 1999.

Patterson’s attorney, Hiram Eastland Jr., says that Patterson did not have any conversations with Joe Biden about any of the black farmers and that Patterson “never asked Jim Biden to work on anything.”

Eastland said Patterson may have had limited conversation with Jim Biden because Patterson and Balducci were trying to open a consulting firm in Washington.

The phrase “the kind of information Obama’s opponents can make use of if they want to” is intriguing, isn’t it? Quite conceivably, others may want to talk more about Scruggsiana than Camp McCain would prefer, mayn’t they? This promises an interesting dynamic to watch.

(1) Jerry confirms that the Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission is looking at the Middleton case, in which DeLaughter withheld adjudication following former Jackson police officer Jeffrey Middleton’s guilty plea to culpable negligent vehicular manslaughter, which withhold cleared the way for the conviction to be expunged. DeLaughter’s old (a) colleague and (b) boss from the Hinds County DA’s office, Tommy Mayfield and Ed Peters, were Middleton’s attorneys, and the JPC is apparently powerful-curious about how that coincidence may have affected the result. By statute, non-adjudication isn’t available in crimes against persons, such as manslaughter.

(2) Even harder on Bobby’s migraine, Jerry reports that the federal grand jury to be seated in Oxford on August 19 will take up the Peters-DeLaughter[-Lott-Scruggs] funny business in Wilson v. Scruggs, as told by Joey Langston, Tim Balducci, and Steve Patterson.

“Our client continues to cooperate in any way he can,” said one of Patterson’s lawyers, Hiram Eastland Jr. of Greenwood. “It’s still an ongoing investigation.”

Wondering when to schedule your last little summer getaway? Hope this helps.

(h/t Confounded, OMTL, and jdog, very nearly simultaneously)

He now moves for release pending appeal, arguing that the circumstances of his bond revocation no longer pertain, that his wife is dying of cancer with only months to live, that the sentence Judge Wingate should have imposed he’d have already served, and that he has meritorious issues in his appeal brief, which we blogged about earlier in the week.

As I said at the time about the appeal brief, I was just describing what I saw and was going to say what I thought about it when I’d had a chance to read more about the case, particularly after reading the government’s reply brief.  I do think that his basic issues– bribery instructions and quid pro quo– ought to be excellent issues.  I’m not making any predictions about this motion, except that the pretrial bond issues muddy the water a lot, possibly too much.

His lawyers on this motion are Abbe Lowell and Hiram Eastland, among others.  Eastland was one of the lawyers on Siegelman’s succesful motion for release pending appeal in the 11th Circuit earlier this year.   The legal issue about quid pro quo in this motion is essentially the same issue that was the core of the Siegelman motion.

Here’s a pdf of the motion for release pending appeal, which I understand was docketed yesterday.

In its delay motion filed Friday in U.S. District Court, the government asks to continue [Steve] Patterson’s sentencing until after the trial "to enable " him "to substantially assist the government and to provide him with an incentive to do so. "

I ask y’all more experienced in the genre: Is this “and to provide him with an incentive to do so” phrase mere customary boilerplate, or is it there more purposefully this time, suggesting that Patterson actually does need more convincing? I accept the risk of feeling a little silly (again) if, come to find out, it is just S.O.P. boilerplate, since

(a) Patsy’s report on the parallel motions re Joey Langston and Tim Balducci doesn’t contain this language,
(b) no one (that we know of) has ever accused Steve of high wattage,
(c) his wife Deborah apparently ain’t exactly a font of wisdom either, and
(d) as late as three days ago, Patterson attorney Hiram Eastland “could not confirm that Balducci and Patterson tried to persuade [Jim] Hood to withhold criminal charges against State Farm. "

These perceived deficits notwithstanding, Patterson’s ties to Ed Peters, P.L. Blake, and other Mississippi- and D.C.-based figures of interest in Scruggsiana make him a crucial enough dot-connector for investigators that at least the non-crim-law-specialists among us may understand my WTF.

Oh, and while we deal with mine on Patterson, David Rossmiller and commenters are dealing with his re Judge Vinson’s dismissal of the Alabama contempt charge . . . so watch out, it’s going around.

Sun Herald

Hood denies Scruggs’ influence (Anita Lee)
“To protect a potential insurance settlement worth $26 million in legal fees, attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs agreed to pay $500,000 to colleagues who interceded on his behalf with Attorney General Jim Hood, a government informant says,” this one begins, before going on to report:

Hood declined an interview with the Sun Herald on Tuesday, instead issuing a written statement:

“The decision on whether to indict State Farm Insurance Company was based solely on the advice of senior prosecutors in our office. Several days before the January 23, 2007, settlement with State Farm, after our prosecutors heard three days of testimony before a Jackson County grand jury, the majority of the prosecutors working on this case determined with a high level of certainty that no fact pattern existed that fell squarely within the insurance fraud statute.”

“I made my decision that there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction of State Farm on evidence we had at the time, based upon the advice of a career prosecutor who started in this office in the early 1970s. I am too hardheaded to be influenced by outside forces – I do what I think is right for the working people of Mississippi.”

Hood did meet with Patterson and Balducci, he confirmed during a recent hearing before U.S. District Judge David C. Bramlette III. State Farm attorney James Robie implied the meeting was about a threat from Scruggs to support another candidate for attorney general in 2007 if Hood refused to sign on to a State Farm settlement.

Hood denied the discussion took place.

In 2007, Scruggs and legal colleagues contributed, either directly or indirectly, at least $500,000 to Hood’s re-election campaign.

Hood said “it’s news to me,” when Robie told him $470,000 came through the Democratic Attorney General’s Association.

Maybe I just need more caffeine, but I’m not really following Anita’s implication that “Balducci’s statement may be called into question because it refers to $26 million in fees” (that Dickie an’ them gained by settling with State Farm in November 2006), and that Hood convened a grand jury investigation two months later, “when a separate global policyholder settlement negotiated by Scruggs and State Farm hung in the balance. State Farm signed on only after Hood agreed in writing to end his criminal investigation.” (Said global settlement, having failed to impress the Southern District’s Judge Senter as fair to policyholders, of course soon went away.) But what in this backdrop might especially call Balducci’s statement into question, I’m afraid I don’t get.

Oh well, onward . . .

Biggers rules against Scruggs defense (Anita Lee)
Recording the “clean sweep for federal prosecutors” in yesterday’s rulings, Anita also quotes Judge Biggers, “In this court’s opinion, to send an attorney to a judge to get him to rule a certain way – when that attorney is not of record in the case and professes to be a friend of the judge and when opposing counsel has no knowledge of the visit – amounts to an effort to corrupt a judge.”

WITNESS: SCRUGGS PAYING ‘BAGMAN’ $50 MILLION GOING TO MYSTERY MAN (Anita Lee)
The longest of Anita’s three stories today, this one amuses our jim by reporting:

A mystery man receiving $50 million from prominent Mississippi attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs earned the money by paying off allies during Scruggs’ epic battle with the tobacco industry in the late 1990s, said a former colleague turned government witness.

As state attorney general during that time, Mike Moore mustered the legal troops Scruggs helped lead into battle, wresting unprecedented settlements from the tobacco industry that earned Scruggs’ firm almost $1 billion in legal fees. The war involved lobbying at the state and federal levels and years of negotiations with tobacco company representatives.

Scruggs has said a $50 million cut from his fees will go over 20 years to P.L. Blake, a politically connected son of the Mississippi Delta who now lives in Birmingham. Scruggs and Moore have said Blake worked political cloakrooms, bringing his keen political knowledge and connections to their settlement efforts. Blake has said he simply clipped newspaper articles, watched C-SPAN and kept Scruggs updated on political maneuverings.

Scruggs’ former cohort, Timothy R. Balducci, offered an FBI agent a different explanation. Balducci was in deep trouble for attempting to bribe a state court judge when FBI agent William P. Delaney interviewed him on Nov. 2.

In his notes, Delaney said that Balducci described Blake “as the ‘bagman’ for DS during the national Tobacco case.” …

[Delaney's notes] also say: “[Balducci] met Blake when [Balducci] was employed at the Langston Law Firm and Joey Langston represented DS on some tobacco settlement cases regarding attorney’s fees. Blake is paid approximately $1 million per year out of attorney’s fees which are controlled by DS. Blake receives the money directly from DS, [Balducci] does not know why Blake receives money from the Tobacco Settlement fund.”

In legal disputes involving the attorneys’ fees, sworn testimony indicates that Scruggs paid Blake an initial $10 million through Langston. Court records show Scruggs is paying Blake the bulk of the $50 million in quarterly installments of $468,000 over 20 years. …

Blake’s telephoned assurance that Dickie would pay Balducci and Patterson back the $40,000 bribe to Judge Lackey of course gets a mention, as does that fact that “Blake and Patterson, forced from office in 1996 for malfeasance, are longtime acquaintances” and Joey’s Langston guilty plea to conspiring to bribe Bobby DeLaughter. Which info makes a nice segue to . . .

House stiffens judicial bribe penalties (Michael Newsom)

JACKSON –The House passed a bill Tuesday that sets tough penalties for those convicted of bribing judges.

House Bill 1108 would expand the state’s obstruction-of-justice charge for the felony. Under an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, the offense would carry a sentence of no less than five and up to 20 years in prison and a fine of three times the bribe, but no less than $25,000.

Judiciary A Committee Chairman Edward Blackmon Jr., D-Canton, offered the bill, which originally had a five-year sentence and a $5,000 fine. Blackmon said many things could fall under the description of bribe.

“It doesn’t have to be money, it can be a promise of something,” Blackmon said. …

More there.

Clarion-Ledger

AG pulled into Scruggs fray (Jerry Mitchell)
Covers all the Anita Lee territory in one story, whose most interesting passage is:

In a statement Tuesday, Hood – who has acknowledged he had dinner with Balducci and Patterson – said his decision came after prosecutors discussed the lack of evidence.

“Several days before the Jan. 23, 2007, settlement with State Farm, after our prosecutors heard three days of testimony before a Jackson County grand jury, the majority of the prosecutors … determined … that no fact pattern existed that fell squarely within the insurance fraud statute,” Hood said. “I made my decision that there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction of State Farm on evidence we had at the time … I am too hardheaded to be influenced by outside forces …”

Hood noted Balducci said of him in one of the FBI’s wiretaps: “He ain’t gonna dance with the one who brought him to … the dance.”

Phil Supple, a spokesman for State Farm, said Tuesday, “We’re not involved in that legal dispute, and we don’t think it would be appropriate to comment.”

Jerry finishes with

On Tuesday, Special Circuit Judge William Coleman said if lawyers in the $26 million legal fees dispute with Scruggs can prove there was an attempt to bribe Lackey, he as judge can enter a default judgment for them.

“The court has the inherent power to protect the court’s integrity,” said Grady Tollison of Oxford, an attorney for the lawyers. “I can’t think of anything worse in a judicial proceeding than trying to bribe a judge.”

Key players in the bribery case
The cast-list you sometimes see attached to Jerry Mitchell’s stories, here as a stand-alone useful to those new to Scruggsiana.

The Associated Press

FBI document: Scruggs paid 2 men to persuade AG not to indict State Farm (Holbrook Mohr)

JACKSON, Miss. — A lawyer accused of trying to bribe a judge also paid two associates $500,000 to convince Attorney General Jim Hood not to file criminal charges against an insurance company over its handling of Hurricane Katrina claims, according to an FBI report in court records.

Plaintiffs lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, who sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Cos. soon after the 2005 storm, was afraid the company “was not going to settle the civil cases” if the attorney general’s office filed criminal charges, according to an FBI report filed Monday in the bribery case.

At the time, Attorney General Jim Hood was pursuing a criminal investigation against State Farm over what he claimed was the company’s fraudulent practices in denying homeowners’ insurance claims.

Scruggs agreed to pay New Albany attorney Timothy Balducci and former State Auditor Steve Patterson “if they could get Hood to relent on indicting” State Farm, according to a report written by FBI Agent William Delaney on Nov. 2, 2007.

Hood would not answer questions Tuesday about the alleged meeting. However, he issued a statement through a spokeswoman saying he made the decision not to file criminal charges after three days of grand jury hearings. …

Mohr gets Hiram Eastland, Patterson’s attorney, to confirm that his client and Balducci were “paid a fee totaling $500,000 over a period of time to assist with the State Farm settlement. … However, Eastland could not confirm that Balducci and Patterson tried to persuade Hood to withhold criminal charges against State Farm.”

Recounting the timeline of the playahs’ interactions with each other and State Farm, Mohr finishes with

When Hood testified earlier this month in the lawsuit filed against him, State Farm attorney Jim Robie asked Hood about meeting with Balducci and Patterson.

Robie suggested that Scruggs sent word with the two that he would support another candidate in the 2007 attorney general’s race if Hood did not back off the criminal investigation.

“If you’re asking me, ‘Did somebody come to me and threaten me?’ the answer is no,” Hood testified on Feb. 6.

Hood acknowledge having dinner with Balducci and Patterson, but testified that “they didn’t convey any threats to me about settling the case or anything like that.”

Scruggs, the brother-in-law of former Republican U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, donated $33,000 to Hood’s campaign last July. He also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Attorneys General Association, which in turn contributed to Hood’s campaign. Hood, a Democrat, was easily re-elected to a second term in November 2007.

Hood and State Farm reached a settlement of the insurer’s lawsuit the same day Hood was forced to testify in federal court in Natchez. Neither side has disclosed the terms of the agreement.

The courtroom was almost full. Lots of media (Jerry Mitchell) and a lot of lawyers: Charles Merkel, Cynthia Mitchell, Bill Kirksey, Vicki Slater, Robert Wilson (all from the Wilson case), Norman Gillespie, John Hailman, Al Moreton (the last two former prosecutors in the US attorney’s office), Jim Greenlee, and others. I think Hiram Eastland was there.

The judge said he had granted oral argument, but noted that the defendants had asked for a Franks (evidentiary) hearing. Keker said he wanted one and wanted to call Balducci, Lackey, FBI agent Delaney. They argued about the propriety of a hearing. Keker emphasized an opinion Judge Biggers had written, Slattery v. U.S. Keker stated that: "As a government witness, Judge Lackey aggressively pursued this case and Mr. Balducci in a way that was very aggressive.” He emphasized that there were early meetings for which there was no recording, and he needed evidence about that. The most critical meeting was not recorded. This was the first meeting at the Scruggs office. In his plea colloquy he did not intend to corrupt a judge at this first meeting. There was no quid pro quo at the first meeting. It may be unethical in Mississippi or in fact anywhere to send Balducci to talk to Lackey but not a bribe or a crime. Another critical unrecorded conversation Keker wanted to ask about is the call from Lackey at the conclusion of that meeting. Keker stated that after the meeting with Balducci, Lackey spent 10 days to 2 weeks talking to people about what to do about the contact by Balducci. The next conversation with Balducci was not recorded. Then the FBI wired Lackey’s office. May 9^th: After this meeting, what Balducci is doing is over. Balducci has asked a favor, Lackey says he’s likely to do arbitration, it’s over.

Judge Biggers: How do you know Judge Lackey pursued Balducci for months? You haven’t talked to any of these people.

Keker: From the tapes. I want to make a factual record and pin this down. This involved the government creation of a crime out of whole cloth.

Bob Norman: The reason there are more calls from Lackey to Balducci than vice versa in the summer is that Lackey was tape recording calls when he initiated them, and not the other way around. There are no recordings from when Balducci called. Judge Lackey came to the government and said "I believe there is a bribery attempt afoot. "

Norman‘s great line: "These defendants initially wanted to corruptly influence this judge for free. When the judge tested this criminal enterprise, they agreed to pay the bribe willingly. "

Norman noted that Balducci says that he was not thinking quid pro quo when he mentioned of-counsel in that meeting. Balducci says it was not, the judge felt that it was.

Judge: Do you not consider the offer of a job a thing of value and therefore a bribe.

Norman: Yes, but the government was still willing to test the defendants and see. The government conduct was reasonable and necessary.

Judge to Keker: I’m not sure what you are trying to elicit with this testimony. Is it this first meeting? What is it you want to ask him about? What specifically do you want to ask Balducci about?

Keker: In addition to first two phone calls, want to look into the government role in getting Lackey back into the case when he recused himself.

Judge: One thing militates against your motion. The charge you are making, according to the Fifth Circuit, is available only to those defendants with only passing roles in a crime and who did nothing active. There is a much higher burden than with entrapment There is evidence before the court that your client played not a passive role but an active one. I will allow Balducci’s testimony on three points: The first meeting in Scruggs’s office, the first meeting with Lackey, and Lackey’s recusal.