NMC has two posts on the matter:
Why DeLaughter didn’t testify
As regulars may recall, DeLaughter filed a motion on Friday to quash his subpoena because he was going to assert the Fifth Amendment if called to the stand. Scruggs objected to this and demanded DeLaughter be forced to assert the Fifth from the witness stand, an irony noted by Alan at YallPolitics. On the first morning of the hearing,the lawyers for Scruggs, the Government, and DeLaughter’s local counsel, Larry Little, came out of chambers before the hearing commenced. It was apparent they had been dealing with the motion to quash, and it seemed that the motion had been granted.
Yesterday, at the lunch break and the end of the hearing, there was discussion of a proffer from the Scruggs side about DeLaughter’s testimony. Recall that Scruggs’s side asked for the judge to grant immunity to DeLaughter so he could testify. In order for them to appeal the judge’s ruling against Scruggs on immunity, they have to place in the record a statement of what DeLaughter’s testimony would have been, so that the appeals court can rule on whether it would have mattered.
Mike Moore on the Scruggs hearing, day two
Either there’s some confusion on Moore and Brumfield’s part about the evidentiary effect of a proffer (see my prior post about that)c, or Moore’s intended audience for his day’s efforts is not the federal courts. She has others on the legal team similarly confused about the use of a proffer:
In the end, lead attorney Edward “Chip” Robertson Jr. said they will submit DeLaughter’s statement, or proffer, to Davidson with any other submissions they believe will help him arrive at a decision.
She closes briefly describing Balducci’s testimony, noticing nothing more that his memory is not as fresh about all this as it once was.
I’m willing to wager that Judge Davidson will have a different take-away from the hearing this week.