Judge Biggers has used Zach Scruggs’s summary judgment motion to narrow the issues in the case, ruling that Zach’s legal arguments about Skilling and Whitfield are correct and granting a summary judgment as to Counts Two, Three, and Four of the original Indictment and the portion of Count One which concerns Title 18 U.S.C. § 666.
His order states that at the hearing a week from Monday will involve Zach Scruggs having to prove enough to get relief on one of four claims:
1) That he is actually innocent under Skilling, which will involve whether he knew of the payment to Judge Lackey, whether the other defendants considered the payment a bribe or a gratuity
2) Whether the plea was involuntary “due to alleged government misrepresentations.”
3) ”conspiracy to commit honest services fraud”
4) “ineffective assistance of counsel.”