Patsy Brumfield muses on what may happen in Zach’s April 25th hearing

She writes this about the discovery Judge Biggers denied Zach: ”Much of what Scruggs asked for six days ago did not even exist three years ago or was discovered only after the guilty plea.” This seemed an odd thing to write, and sent me back to carefully read the discovery and see what that would be. Essentially, the requests fall into four groups, three of which Zach Scruggs and his defense team knew before the plea and oen they did not. The first two groups relate to the underlying crime and possible defenses– they are about the Jones case (largely that Judge Lackey had no choice but to send the case to arbitration) and the bribery attempt (largely about evidence of Zach Scruggs’s knowledge and participation). The third is about Tony Farese’s simultaneous representation of Langston and Zach Scruggs, and his plea negotiations for Langston that delivered him as a cooperating witness.

Obviously, all of these issues all surfaced pre-plea.

The fourth did not.

Read More
NMC
2/20/11