OK, folks.  Here ‘tis.  I don’t have time to break it down, but I figured some of you might.  This is it.

There is a ton of new wiretap transcript that we haven’t seen yet.

Divide and conquer.

My goodness.  I lied.  I can’t put it down.  I am 10 pages through Wiretap1 with Balducci talking to Backstrom.  He dumps on Hood, Dickie, Joey.  It’s INCREDIBLE.

Someone needs to write a book.

Never knew Hood’s wife was subpoened.

Page 39 of Wiretaps 1 is Dickie’s admission that he knows what the deal is.

Balducci (to Dickie) - Ok.  Alright, the other things relative to that, and I know I keep going back and forth about this DICK, and I’m sorry, um, he’s (Lackey) a little bit, you know, he’s a little bit nervous with that last filing by GRADY (Tollison), ‘cause he things, you know, they’ve made a decent argument and all of that, and he’s gonna do this, but he says he thinks he’s a litlte more exposed on the facts and the law than he was before and I did think that you would do a little something else, you know, to, ‘bout ten or so more?

. . . . Interrupted by a call from Governor MINTER from Delware

Balducci - . . . and, and I think I can get us around it, but do want me to cover that not?

Scruggs - Hmmm.

Balducci - Because I’ve already, you know, I’ve already taken care of everything and I’m just.

Scruggs - Uh, I’ll take care of it.  Uh, I need a, I need uh, some suggested uh . . .

Balducci - Well . . .

Scruggs - . . . voir dire from you.

They talk a little bit more and then.

Balducci - “Um, that’s probably worth about ten, don’t you think?  Doing those jury instructions?

Scruggs - It’d sure help.

Balducci - Yeah, that’s what I figured.  Ok, um, can I just get with TIM CANTRELL on that?

Scruggs - Uh, yeah.  Why don’t you just, uh, send me uh . . .

Balducci - A little engagement letter like that on that?

Scruggs - . . . yeah

Then when Balducci gets out of the building, he signs off on the recording .  . .

Howdy, How you doing?  I hope this fucking thing’s workin’.

It was.

"Gary Anderson type thing?”

Where was that?

There is no way that Dickie Scruggs would walk into a courtroom to try a case with the above quotes hanging over his head.  If Biggers rules that the wiretaps stand tomorrow, a plea deal would have to be shortly following.  I just don’t see any other way.

I think at the beginning of the 2nd wiretap transcripts… Dickie has just started talking and he says that, but there is no further reference… it sounded as if that’s what he was dealing with when Balducci came to the office…

will someone please tell me how in the heck jim hood keeps his job?

whooohooo!  red knight going down.  down down down.

Alan, when I pull up the Wiretap 3 pdf, it’s the same as Wiretap 1 pdf....

on a trivial note (which I am sure he is least concerned about now) how about getting caught on the wiretap talking about your boss.....Backstrom bit@hing about Scruggs coming in at 11.....haha.

In the first of the wiretaps, Balducci mentions former Louisiana AG Richard Ieyoube as “joining” them as of counsel.

There’s a head-scratcher for you.

Marshall Ramsey’s Pez cartoon made it into their conversation on one of the tapes....

Ok, are there only 2 wiretap transcripts then?
thanks!

This whole deal is going to come down to admissability of wiretaps.  The government makes it’s case in the motion . . .

If the affidavits supporting the Balducci and Patterson wiretaps along with the affidavit
supporting the search warrant for the Scruggs Law Firm were revised to include the omitted
information described in the defendants’ motion, the affidavits would describe conversations for
the most part between Tim Balducci and Judge Henry Lackey. The defendants’ descriptions of
these conversations, however, is not accurate. To begin, the defendants describe Lackey’s
requests as “demands” and that Balducci “relented” to such. Putting the hyperbole aside, Judge
Lackey asked only once whether Scruggs would help him if he helped Scruggs, to which Balducci
replied immediately: “I think, no question that would happen. Yes sir. No question.” Judge
Lackey then told Balducci to “talk to your man and, just, you know, whatever you need to do
holler back at me.” Far from “demanding” payment, Judge Lackey went on to tell Tim just to
“think about it and get back with him.” Two days later Balducci contacted Judge Lackey and told
him he would like to meet with him in Calhoun City to determine how much “help” Judge Lackey
needed. At that meeting the Judge suggested $40,000 and Balducci agreed, stating such a
payment would be “no problem.” Lackey also told Balducci he could bring the order that
Scruggs wanted signed. Immediately following the meeting at which Balducci agreed to pay a
$40,000 bribe, Judge Lackey contacted the FBI. It was 10:08 A.M. Also, at 10:08 that morning a
telephone call was placed from Balducci’s cell phone to The Scruggs Law Firm. In other words,
it was perfectly clear that Balducci contacted someone with the Scruggs Law Firm immediately
following his meeting with Judge Lackey. All of this information was included in the affidavit in
support of the wiretap placed on Balducci’s cell phone signed on September 25th.

On page 28 of wiretap 2, Zach Scruggs accuses Grady Tollison of being unethical while discussing how to reword an order he and his father’s associates have paid a judge to enter.......WORDS FAIL ME.

Bigger’s allows this to stand, right?  This doesn’t get thrown out...??!!  Calling all Atty’s/Judges out there...at least tell me what I want to hear - for now…

Roger that, Coldwell. The sheer arrogance and rank hypocrisy are just stunning. What is he - seven years out of law school at this point? Unbelievable.

Updated with the third wiretap.  Hattip MyTwoCents.

Thanks.... and you don’t have to HT me, as long as you continue to clean up after my posts

Here’s the comment that I believe will doom Sid Backstrom to a few years in green striped pants.  To set the scene, Balducci calls Backstrom. Balducci tells Backstrom that he has Judge Lackey in town and they want to verify whether the order they have “purchased” is really what they want.

From Wiretap 3 page 15 on the PDF . . .

Balducci - ... but I, there, he (Lackey) brought up an issue with me, not an issue, but he brought up an opportunity with me um, that before I told him to file it, I at least, I feel like, you know, I gotta go back to my client, you know and clear?  It’s almost like a settlement offer, um.

Backstrom - Mm-hmm.

Balducci - . . .and essentially, I mean, essentially the message is, you know, do you, is this really what you want?

Backstrom - Mm-hmm

Balducci - You know, do you, do you really want this to go to arbitration or do you want him to keep it and try to fix it?  You know.

Backstrom - Mm-hmm.

Balducci - Because I think, um, I think we have a, an opportunity here, SID, that you know, I don’t know what ya’ll’s take on the arbitration is, you know, if, um, but I think, you know he’s the judge is ready to play ball with us.

Backstrom - Mm-hmm.

Backstrom - You know? And we’ve got an opportunity probably to kill this thing now, um, you know, if you wanna do it that way.  He’ll, he can keep it and kill it here for what we want him to kill it for, you know, but he’s, he’s, he’s in a posture where he’ll play ball with us on whatever we wanna do.

Backstrom - Mm-hmm.

Balducci - . . . you know, I mean, we’ve given him fifty, to, to get us to where we are now, but you know, for a little bit more, you know, he’s willing to play ball I think and get this whole thing like we want it so.

Backstrom - Mmm.

Balducci - I mean, I guess . . . maybe you, maybe you should talk to DICK and ZACK about it and see what they, you know, before we enter this order, it might be better served, you guys might wanna just wanna keep it there.

Backstrom - Yeah.  We just cut out for about three minutes there and I didn’t hear any of that, but umm . . .

Balducci - I’m sorry (laughs).

Backstrom - . . . but (laughs) but uh, but I know what you’re saying (laughs)

Balducci - Yeah. Yeah.

Backstrom - Um, you know, I just, I um, I think we’re gonna get ourselves in trouble, by you know, just fuckin’ around with the thing to be honest.  I mean I, I think if we um, if we overreach again probably come back to bit us, so.  Um, you know I understand that you know, that there is a, a feeling, uh, uh, a quick kill is, is available but . . .

Balducci - Mm-hmm.

And it goes on . . .

If you listen very carefully, you can hear the sound of a warden making another spot available at the license plate stamping table for Mr. Backstrom.

What arrogance on the part of Scruggs, Scruggs, Backstrom, and Balducci!!Alan, thank you so much for all the work you have done to enlighten us. If we had waited for the print media to inform us, the trial would be over before we ever knew it began.

You are nice to say, Dixie. 

I’ll tell you, we need some journalists to help with all this stuff.  It’s almost too much to absorb.  How about a freelancer!  Anyone know a Columbia Journalism Grad?  I can pay $6.50 per hour.

It sounds like Backstrom had his mouth full of DOTS (for which he obviously has a craving) during much of the transcripts....Mm-hmm, Mmm, Mmmm…
These guys have danced too close to the flame.  They’ve gotten burned, no doubt.  Not singed, but burned and they supplied the matches.

IN the wire. Balducci is going like a bobcat on speed.  It will be interesting to see if Hm mmmm, and hm hmmmmm. can be considered a yes, no, or otherwise words that will garner a conviction.  Sid was seemingly playing the cards close to his chest and not saying anything too damning.  It seems like he wasn’t paying too much attention to Tim’s ranting about many cases in a short time.  What he knew and what they can prove he knew may be two different things.

IN reading it again one thing that sticks out is that Joey is not very favored by the parties.  In fact the quote about how Joey was “pissing on their leg” indicated that he would not play along on the “dark side” anymore.  Thus.... the “other bodies that were buried” which Balducci was quick to point out to the feds could be an effort to pull Joey down for not playing ball with them for other cases.  It turned out that Balducci was not a good person to have mad at you for whatever cause.

My predictions are not worth much but here goes,
1. Motion to dismiss--- overruled- (don’t think the judge would be brave enough to throw out all the charges in the face of the nature of the crime)
2.  Motion in against 404 testimony--- sustained ( prior bad acts, but not convicted of those acts)
3.  Motion for change of venue.--- overruled
4.  Motion to suppress wiretaps--- This is the interesting one with the most to gain or lose by how the judge rules. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is not a partial win by either side as the Judge may admit some but not all conversations. 

Frankly, it is very disturbing that the prosecutors aired the portions of the conversations about other lawsuits that the firm was working on into world wide domain.  They should have not published information about other non related cases.  If I were a Katrina client or one of the other cases discussed, I would be livid.  This act could well jeopardize other cases by their inclusion in the public record.  I am not as disturbed on the lawyer’s behalf as much as the client’s behalf, whose claim is being toyed with by the parties to this action.

TTTF
My predictions:
1.Defense motions denied.
Perhaps not at the hearing tomorrow, but soon.  And without much in the way of any testimony.

But of course, I could be wrong.

Motion to dismiss could be done by Judge Biggers, it would be a brave move, possibly the bribery of Judge Lackey was a mis-understanding by him, he called in the Feds in haste, the Feds really went after the Scruggs Law Firm due to their going after State Farm after Hurricane Katrina.
In finally finding access to law firm files, i.e. Lawyer Langston etc. they lucked up on Judge DeLaughter’s situation!
It is a stronger case as no wire taps are involved.
Regular folks don’t like the way the Judge Lacky-Balducci case is playing out.
The Federal Gov. played too much a part in the allegations concerning the bribery of Judge Lackey.
The wire taps and coaching by the Federal Gov. is at the heart of the case.  It is a domino effect.

Agreed non lawyer.  I think what some on this site are forgetting is that it’s against the law for a judge to meet with only one party in a lawsuit and Lackey set up those kinds of meetings often.  In fact he called those meetings.  He’ll have to answer for some of that if this goes to trial.

Would Judge Lackey be called to testify?
Yes, he would and Judge Biggers knows that fact, it is unfortunate that the Federal Gov. has put both Judges in such a situation.
They are good Mississippi judges and possibly are being taken advantage of by the Feds.

My prediction is that all the defense motions will be denied, despite all of the Scruggs fan club’s postings here.

Regular folks don’t like the way the Judge Lacky-Balducci case is playing out.
The Federal Gov. played too much a part in the allegations concerning the bribery of Judge Lackey.
The wire taps and coaching by the Federal Gov. is at the heart of the case.  It is a domino effect.

BS!  I’m “regular folk” and am happy that SOMEONE had the balls to do something about this mess.

The above comment is obviously not from “regular folk” because “regular folk” would look at the fact that they were BRIBING A JUDGE… PERIOD.  The fact that the FBI made a very good case against them after they were informed of what was going on is not a negative.

mnl-
Wow.  You and I must have been reading different versions of this whole thing.  I was under the impression that it was SCRUGGS that had put both judges in this situation.  You mean that the feds did it??????  I am really glad you cleared that up for me. 

And i suppose you think that rape victims are at fault for being attractive as well?????

What time is the hearing in front of Biggers this morning/afternoon?

Scheduled for 9 am as I recall

I think we have a good idea who non mississippi lawyer is.

Hey Steve, how is the disbarment going?

Hello darlin

This is better than ANY AMERICAN IDOL Show!
Thanks, Alan!!!!!

Is anyone going to be able to provide from the courthouse coverage?

some of them want to use you, some of them want to be used by you, some of them want to abuse you, some of them want to be abused.

Apparently, NMC at folo is there but I don’t believe he is liveblogging.

I most certainly would be considered “regular folk” and I love the way this is going. Don’t forget---an honest man cannot be entrapped.

I hope and believe that Judge Biggers will deny ALL the motions.

Alan...can you say....cha ching cha ching cha ching.  I read the interview you gave where you say you’re traffic has exploded.  Keep up the controversy and you can sell some add space....  Buy that new house and car.  America is a great country.

Alan doesn’t “keep up the controversy”.  He reports on controversy others have created.  Myself, I like that some have chosen to break media silence re Hood and other related controversies.  This stuff actually qualifies as news (as opposed to whether Britney Spears wears underwear) and should be out there for the public to make itself aware of and scrutinize. 

Just not really sure I understand your point…

Alan is doing a great public service, Educated1, how did you get that handle?  Hmmmm

Yeah, the REAL news is here; no fillers.  You certainly get the facts here, AND FIRST.  Realize how long it took the “NEWS” outlets to get the info we had already read thru (twice) yesterday?

Jerry Mitchell’s update:
Balducci testifies he knew actions were unethical
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS/802200365&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

Timing is everything.

Per DJ..

OXFORD – Former New Albany attorney Tim Balducci underwent questioning this morning in federal court as a judge considered a series of motions in the Richard “Dickie” Scruggs attempted bribery case.

Balducci, who already has pleaded guilty in the case, began the morning proceedings before a packed courtroom by testifying about what he did in conjunction with the Scruggs firm and his offer of a bribe to Circuit Judge Henry Lackey.

In an unusual move, government prosecutors turned over Balducci’s grand jury testimony to defense attorney John Keker.

E1:  “Alan...can you say....cha ching cha ching cha ching.  I read the interview you gave where you say you’re traffic has exploded.  Keep up the controversy and you can sell some add space....  Buy that new house and car.  America is a great country.”

Funny, my computer must be blocking all of those banner ads and pop up ads that are generating Alan’s windfall.  Unless Kingfish is paying him in andouille sausage to link to his site, I don’t get the point.

Wow - Zach initiated some good premeditation

From NMC at folo:
News bulletin:

Balducci testified for over an hour

Judge Biggers overruled the motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct

E1, I know for a fact Alan doesn’t make squat off of this site.  It actually costs him money and time.

Sorry to break thread:
AG’s press conference will be at 12.30p local

Per DJ update regarding Dismissal…

“
Biggers rejected their motion, saying that only in limited circumstances – when the defendants had not played an active role in the case – could such a motion be considered.

The judge will continue to hear other motions this afternoon in federal court. Among them: moving the trial out of Mississippi and separating the trials of Dickie Scruggs and the other two.”

Funny moment from NMC at folo who is at the hearing:

“At the very beginning of the hearing, someone called from the Scruggs side to say that Attorney General Moore would like to sit at counsel table.  Keker stood up and said, “It wasn’t your honor.”

Um...I said “you can sell some ad space” not “you can sell MORE ad space.” I swear people don’t read on this site.  They just post out of emotion.  Calm down guys and gals...no one said he’s making money.

I still believe that before this is over, Educated1 is going to earn his name.

E1, you can parse your words all you want.  You were clearly implying that Alan was somehow “keeping up” a controversy that he could now exploit.  The only people keeping up this controversy are the crooks involved.  Alan is merely providing information.  I think if you look in the mirror you might be the one that needs to calm down.

On folo, Alyssa from Oxford Eagle posts this:

“Alyssa // Feb 20, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Just broke for lunch…it’s been kinda fun. I like this part:

Norman: “Was there something that led you to believe you would be able to get the 40k from Scruggs?”

Balducci: “I was privy to conversations on another matter when Scruggs bribed another judge to solve another matter.”

In cross by Keker..
“Who was the judge?”
Balducci: “Judge Delaughter”
Keker: “Who was he bribed by?”
Balducci: “Dickie Scruggs”
Keker: How was he bribed?
Balducci: “Scruggs offered the influence of his brother-in-law (Trent) Lott to put him on the list for consideration for a federal judgeship (?) … Mr. Lott called Delaughter at Scrugg’s request … being considered to be put on the list ..”

Others aren’t the only ones who don’t read.  If you’d been reading about recent events you’d know *where* the controversy comes from.  However, some prefer to post out of bias.

Edumucated’s above post says in part:  “...Keep up the controversy and you can sell some add space....”

“ADD space”?  Hm...mmmm

Subconcious signals of A.D.D., genius underlying meanings of both “Ad space” AND “Add space”...

I’m confused...have I chosen a side here?  Go back and read every post I’ve written on this and tell me where I’ve said something that suggests I’ve chosen a side.  What I’ve said over and over is that the defendants are innocent until proven guilty.  And as far as earning my name, I have.  I don’t desire nor do I require anyone on this planet to say I’ve earned the name.  LOL, it’s amazing how many people here can’t read.  Just go back and slowly read...pay attention now...I may be going too fast for ya Dixie.  Time to move on.  There are actually people out there who understand the law and the founding principles of our legal system.

GUYS---Could ya’ll move this discussion somewhere else and leave this one as it was intended… re:  the Scruggs motions and their hearing that is being held today in Oxford… please?

LOL..CCVC...one can’t help microsoft’s auto fixes...but I’m sure you know that already.  Sheesh guys...a little grammer error and suddenly people are on the attack.  Sounds to me like you don’t have an argument of substance.  Keep going after mispellings and gramatical errors.  Oh man this is great.  Save the attacks man.  They’re wasted on me.

Whatever.  Not responding to anything you’re saying anymore as, in my opinion, you’re the one trying to stir up sh!t. 

Re: the actual news—I can’t wait to hear more reports from the hearings—how glad am I that we have some high quality blogs out there reporting on this!

Motion to dismiss case...denied.  More to come this afternoon.  I have someone in the courtroom...will give you more later.

Did Balducci just make life a little harder for DeLaughter?!
Wow.  I don’t guess the bar will take that into consideration while doing their investigation will they?

E1 - sorry, I couldn’t help it.  I have no problems and I’m not on your case.  (No spell check can come back to bite)

I’m thinking that the motion to surpress wiretaps is the most important for Dickie...what do you guys think?  If the wiretaps are allowed, it’s over.  Any thoughts?

Surely Richie Rich and The Funky Bunch DO NOT go to trial if those wiretaps stand!  No way!

CCVZ, I’d say Balducci made it a little tougher on Lott as well

Yeah, unfortunately for the overall view of justice in Mississippi I feel that if they allow those wiretaps, the fat lady is warming up in the wings.  BUT....innocent until proven guilty is my motto...over and over again.  There’s a chance, i suppose, that the guys could fight it out and get ready for an appeal.  I think it would just be a means to stay out of prison longer.  That’s truly a tough call.  Any lawyers out there want to weigh in?

If the wiretaps are allowed, and they will be, the defendants are toast.

Two cents, I don’t get the Keker quote above:  “It wasn’t your honor.”

Is this a misquote or am I missing something?

MTC, You’re right...I walked right by that one.

And my thoughts on how often the Fifth Circuit has reversed a criminal case on appeal have already been posted on this blog.

I don’t get that either, EC… it was reported as a little blip from NMC from the courtroom… Jane, do you understand that?

I just thought it worth pointing out that Mike Moore was there, and not in the audience.

I assumed it was a typo and maybe Keker said “It wasn’t me (or I), your honor.”

CCVZ… Lotus and another poster and including some other information they’ve received on folo re:  Lott… not substantiated, so I won’t repeat here, but you can go there and read.

It is ironic that they apparently referred to him as “Attorney General Moore” rather than “former Attorney General Moore” . . . .

Alan,
Curisosity made me ask this:  What is the highest number of posts under one thread?

Hopefully Moore has his facial ticks under control.

Since we have a little lull… these are from the Jerry Mitchell article in the CL re: Balducci testimony this am:

“Timothy Balducci testified this morning that he knew he was doing something unethical that might result in the loss of his law license when he had a conversation with Circuit Judge Henry Lackey about ruling in favor of Oxford attorney Dickie Scruggs.

Balducci, who has already pleaded guilty to a scheme to bribe the judge, was questioned this morning by the prosecution. He recalled a meeting at Scruggs’ law firm involving him, Scruggs, Scruggs’ son Zach, law partner Sidney Backstrom and former State Auditor Steve Patterson. At some point the conversation turned to a legal fees dispute involving a Hurricane Katrina case.

Balducci said this morning that it was Zach Scruggs, who was aware that Lackey was a mentor to Balducci, who suggested Balducci have an off-the-record conversation with Lackey and persuade him to rule in their favor.

After that discussion, Balducci met with Lackey March 28. During the conversation, he said he mentioned the possibility of Lackey, who was nearing retirement, coming to work for Scruggs. He said it wasn’t intended as a quid pro quo, but sees how Lackey may have interpreted it that way.

“Did Judge Lackey make you commit a crime you didn’t want to commit?” U.S. Assistant Attorney Bob Norman asked Balducci.

“No, sir,” Balducci said.

NMC just posted his commentary from testimony this morning on FOLO

NMConFOLO

Interesting commentary on folo also… wondering why Keker is going down the trail of the DeLaughter information…

“25 OleMissTrialLawyer // Feb 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm

... Keker’s using this hearing as an opportunity to learn as much as he can about the government’s case. Depositions are rarely ever allowed in criminal cases, and there are no interrogatories or requests for admission. So this is his best shot at discovery.

Much better to hear this for the first time at a motion hearing than during trial.

26 NMC // Feb 20, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Bingo, OMTL– this is like a preliminary hearing. He’s using it very well and very wisely. Balducci bloodied him a couple of times on cross– better now than in front of a jury. He also got all of the Jenks material relating to Balducci, a major thing– in this district you ordinarily get that stuff during trial”

oh....
Hood criticizes Legislature for killing wiretap bill
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080220/NEWS/80220021

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20080220/NEWS/80220021

“If it’s OK to wiretap a dope dealer, why not a white-collar criminal?” Hood said.

What would Hood do w/the wiretapped info anyway????

Ridiculous… he is ridiculous

What does “Gary Anderson type of thing” mean?

I bet State Farm people would be the only people that he would wiretap with this new found investigation tool if he were given it.

It was a quote from Scruggs in the 2nd wiretap transcriptions..

Beau..i respectfully disagree with you on that.

Something just occurred to me . . . I wonder what John Grisham is thinking now about the guilt/innocence of Scruggs after reading excerpts from the wiretaps.  I wonder how “smart” his buddy Dickie is now.  I wonder if we will ever hear from John Grisham again on this issue.

Of course we will, in his next book… the one about the Knight in Shining Armour Plaintiff’s Attorney who saves all of the victims of Mississippi, but is framed by an evil judge and Republican DOJ.

Hope I get some mention in the credits for that.

Norman: “Was there something that led you to believe you would be able to get the 40k from Scruggs?”

Balducci: “I was privy to conversations on another matter when Scruggs bribed another judge to solve another matter.”

In cross by Keker..
“Who was the judge?”
Balducci: “Judge Delaughter”
Keker: “Who was he bribed by?”
Balducci: “Dickie Scruggs”
Keker: How was he bribed?
Balducci: “Scruggs offered the influence of his brother-in-law (Trent) Lott to put him on the list for consideration for a federal judgeship (?) … Mr. Lott called Delaughter at Scrugg’s request … being considered to be put on the list ..”

Isn’t this what Joey Langston plead guilty to?  Was Keker trying to figure out if Balducci was going to give up the goods on a different bribery, since this one was already known about?

This certainly puts Lott into play in this whole ordeal. 

The whole “bad actor” defense that Scruggs team originally tried to push is out the window now that we have seen the transcripts.  You can’t exactly call Balducci a liar now, so you have to put some credibility in what he is saying.

Read 1:17pm post above re: thoughts on why Keker went that route

Thanks for that observation about the defense trying to get out as much information as possible during pretrial motions.  I hadn’t considered that...very insightful.

I can’t take credit for the comments---but I agree that they were mighty helpful

I agree with Alan on this..

“There’s an old saying that Mississippi is a club, not a state,” Lange said. “Mississippi is so small that just about everyone in the state has had some personal interaction with at least one of the players in this tragedy, so it’s compelling on an individual level.”

I’m thinking the only way anyone here gets a fair trial is out of state.  What are your thoughts guys?

I have to say my gut reaction is “that’s what he gets for sh!tting where he eats.” However, that’s not fair nor what the standard is.  I’ve only practiced civil law (and therefore had virtually no trial experience)—anyone more experienced who can offer up something re when venue should be changed?

Can’t agree.  Lots of people out there who’ve had nothing to do with Scruggs and his buds and aren’t obsessively following the case like we are (as hard as that may be to believe; I know it is for me).

Scruggs obviously feels he is better than ordinary people including “asshole” judges and “dumbass” attorneys.  I’d say there are plenty of people who haven’t had the privilege of being with 6 degrees of Scruggs’ circle.

They’ll pull a jury pool from the across the various counties that make up the district.  If 30% or so of those people indicate that they can’t be fair, Judge Biggers can change venue at that time.  There’s plenty of mechanisms available to insure a fair trial.

Unfortunately you’d have to find 12 in Lafayatte County and I think that’s going to be hard.  There’s only one newspaper and it’s an extremely small town.

The Northern District isn’t JUST Lafayette County.

E1, I disagree they have to move the trial for a fair one.
I think when you get away from the political blog sites, etc the % of the general public that’s not interested in politics at this level (I’d bet they make up the majority) don’t know who Richard Scruggs is...I know some people think that’s nuts and I may be way off, but it’s my opinion.

Do they pull jurors from other counties for federal cases?  I truly don’t know this.  If that’s a fact then there’s no reason to move it.  Mississippi isn’t full of blind, stupid and easily swayed rednecks.  If there’s a jury to be found throughout the state then hopefully they’ll be called, chosen and will do their duty.  I may be changing my mind on this one soon....

Here’s the map of the included counties.

http://www.msnd.uscourts.gov/images/western.png

I totally forgot about the district.  Thank you very much for that.  So look guys...i’d have to say...keep it in MS.  See, I learn every day...just like I said earlier when I was under attack for saying “innocent until proven guilty.”

I, for one, was not attacking you for saying “innocent until proven guilty”

But, yeah, thanks for the information, Jane—very interesting.

E1, maybe if Keker had “sold some add space” in the paper, he could have gotten a little more of the public to know Richard; then move it out of State.
(sorry)

No Hazl75...it was the other night.

CCVZ...what’s that about man?  lol, you bringing up old stuff. 

I’m just sayin’ man…

Have you paid your membership fee, E1?

Let’s break it down then dude....there are all kinds of ways to make money from getting eyes on your site.  You could promote another business...doh.  Again, you’re bringing up old stuff....i’m trying to move on.

"ADD”...there’s more there than meets the eye.
(Ok, I’m off your back...all in good fun, but I’ll stop)

No need.  I’ll stay on thread.

I have questions and am looking for sincere answers.... How big a role (if any) do you think Zach played in all of this?  I read the transcripts, but did you notice how he left the room when Balducci mentioned a bribe?  It appeard that Zach was editing the brief with Balducci and Backstrom.  Did I miss something?  That’s what they were talking about correct?

It’s good to be king.

Go back and read Balducci’s testimony from this morning… it’s posted here for that reason.

According to the testimony this morning, it was Zach who had the idea to get Balducci to influence Lackey because Lackey had been a “mentor” to Balducci.  It was Balducci who threw in the offer of a potential job to Lackey after retirement.  Then it was Lackey, after consulting with the FBI, who talked about money.  Balducci knew that bribes were ok with Scruggs because he had been there when the Ed Peters deal was being discussed.

As far as Zach during the actual discussions, I’ll have to recheck the transcripts.

This is NMC’s answer to that same question yesterday on folo:

On page 30, Balducci says this to both Zach and SId: “Balducci: Um, the other piece of this puzzle I hadn’t told you yet is, uh, get it how you want it because I’ve got to, uh, I’ve gotta go back for another delivery of, uh, another bushel of sweet potatoes down there. So because of all this that has come up. So get it right. Get it how you want it ’cause we’re paying for it and get it done right”

E1, I’ve had one of my comments pulled, but for good reason...I can’t complain. 
It happens.  As far as I’ve seen it’s done with good intentions and for the betterment of the site (in my opinion)

no rulings

I smell a nuke coming on, and just in time.

Is the hearing over?

Per NMC..."These are due Monday.  He recessed about 3:40 until 9:30 tomorrow when he will take up the motion to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4, the motion on other crime evidence, the motions to sever, and the motion for a change of venue.  He says those will go shorter.”

You know, for an “Educated” Guy....

Where is P. L. Blake??????????