Well, if I’d seen Patsy Brumfield’s story first, I’d have made it the focus of today’s first post, ’cause it sure is more newsy-fun than Jerry Mitchell’s.
OXFORD – The trial site, Oxford, may be one of the few certainties for mega-litigator Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, his attorney-son Zach and their legal associate Sidney Backstrom – if they are tried as originally scheduled by Senior U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. …
Patsy snags better quotes, too:
“This trial will be sensational,” predicted Jackson attorney Frank Trapp, representing Backstrom. “You’ve already said you’ll put Sen. (Trent) Lott on the stand. That will leave Mr. Backstrom over here accumulating all kinds of prejudice.”
and
“They will call Balducci with hearsay and Joey Langston and that’s going to be the end of it?” defense attorney John Keker asked rhetorically. “This is not on any planet I am knowledgeable about.”
Okay, y’all, snark at will . . .
Bless her, Tupelo’s own even reminds us who Zach Scruggs’s lawyer is: Kansas City’s victim in the U.S. Attorneys scandal:
Trapp and Todd Graves from Missouri, who represent Zach Scruggs, insisted their clients are in legal jeopardy by being tried with Dickie Scruggs. They said the government’s evidence is much heavier against the senior Scruggs and will hurt their clients by association. They also have nothing to do with the Wilson case, but will be hurt by it, they speculated.
Cute verb, innit?
I don’t know, sometimes Patsy’s stuff sails into rough weather around here, but this one just tickled me (as opposed to Marsha Thompson’s effort — jeez, can’t anyone tell that poor soul what a sentence needs?).
Oh wait, here’s even better Patsy (reads quite like a blog-post): UPDATE: Long day in Oxford — filed at 7:11:58 (:58!) last evening, but no word whether a glass of wine was involved. Sample passage:
… Maybe I read too much into it, but Judge Biggers seemed genuinely concerned when FBI Agent William Delaney gave somewhat flimsy reasons for leaving out information in applications for wiretaps and a search.
I also got to wondering how Judge Lackey will hold up on the stand. This is a man who apparently took two weeks to put it together on whether he’d gotten a bribery pass from Balducci and took six months to ask for money.
Early in the Thursday action, it seemed possible, if not likely, that disgraced Booneville former attorney Joey Langston might be in the next room waiting to see if he got called to testify about what he claimed to know in the alleged bribery of Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter. …
February 22, 2008 at 9:06 am |
Out of fairness, I would have to agree that the trial should be severed by at least trying Richard Scruggs separately; the other two could probably be tried together. I would be interested to hear the opinions of the other readers of folo.
February 22, 2008 at 9:27 am |
UMAtty,you may have a point, however, with each filing and attached exhibits together with witness testimony we continue to see knowledgable participation by each of the Defendants.
February 22, 2008 at 9:38 am |
Not an attorney but have been following this stuff pretty closely. First, this thing won’t make it to trial if the motion to suppress the wiretaps is denied. The 3 will plea if the window of opportunity has not passed. If it does go to trial, I agree that the motions to sever should be granted but don’t really have an opinion as to whether or not Zach and Sid should have separate trials or one. I could see where blanket evidence presented at a trial for all 3 could be prejudicial to one or more of the co-defendants.
February 22, 2008 at 9:55 am |
I will be surprised at the granting of the motions to sever. The cases against the three defendants are completely intertwined. The law is very tilted toward “curative instructions will fix this.”
Further, there is far more substantial evidence against Backstrom than Trapp has acknowledged– he’s the one who did the call telling Balducci to get things under control, he’s the one that had two of the key calls about the bribe, he’s the one who reviewed the order in the “let’s see if we got what we paid for” order. And of course he was in the first meeting where they sent Balducci off to influence the judge. What he does have is an argument that there isn’t a shred of evidence that ties him to the other-crime facts the government is going to introduce. That’s a good argument, as is the problems with publicity in the case; I think the judge will end up ruling that jury instructions will handle the one (and, before you say: Jury instructions? That’s not really going to cure the taint, I’ll say: Yes, I agree as a practical matter, but that’s the law) and voir dire the other.
Zach has a better case about the evidence of guilt and worse about the other-crime evidence, although the government didn’t make the argument there I would have made, so he may have decent arguments on both. On guilt, the evidence against him is thin– the March meeting, where there was no crime hatched, just impropriety, and being present when Balducci and Backstrom were having the “got what we paid for” conversation. While some question was raised whether he was there for that, the transcript seems to make that clear. On other-crimes, there’s a piece of evidence the gov’m't never mentioned: When the effort to influence DeLaughter was happening, according to Langston/Balducci, one of the other Scruggs lawyers, Johnny Jones, was doing a brief. Zach wrote him that things were positioned with the judge so that Jones could “write a brief on a napkin and it would be granted.” Given the government’s argument– that they can prove improper influence and don’t have to prove a full blown crime of bribery to get the other-act evidence in– I’d think this is at least suggestive of Zach’s involvement, and the gov’mt didn’t mention it.
February 22, 2008 at 10:18 am |
Thanks for the kind words. Keep readin’ ….
February 22, 2008 at 10:44 am |
Welcome to folo, Patsy — now don’t be a stranger.
February 22, 2008 at 10:45 am |
NMC, 4 is really helpful, so thanks. How you feeling today? Sleep o’ th’ just and plenty of it, I hope?
February 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm |
I agree with NMC. In a conspiracy, there is always going to be a member who is the most culpable, and one member who is the least culpable, (and usually, a lot of other members who are somewhere in between). But, while each member must commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, to be part of the conspiracy, their association and agreement to commit the crime, IS THE CRIME. So, it doesn’t really matter, who is the most guilty, and who did what predicate acts, except when it comes to sentencing.