Legal News

L?Affaire Scruggs: the Government Responds

By Ashby Jones

Last week, attorneys for famed plaintiffs lawyer Dickie Scruggs and two other indictees accused of bribing a Mississippi judge, submitted a handful of motions: a motion to change venue, a motion to dismiss much of the case, and a motion to submit certain evidence. (Click here for a post from last week, which includes links to the defense briefs and exhibits.)

Well, today was the government’s turn. Prosecutors offered rebuttals to all the motions, and teed up its own choice selections of wiretap material. Click here, here, here, here, here and here for the motions, and here, here and here for transcripts from the wiretap. Tomorrow, Judge Neal Biggers is slated to hold hearing on the motions.

The juiciest bit of evidence unveiled today might well be a transcript from a taped conversation in which Scruggs, his son and colleague Sid Backstrom discuss how Judge Lackey’s order should read in a case filed against them.

A tape of the Nov. 1 meeting indicates that Balducci went to the Scruggs Law Firm with a draft copy of an order to be issued by Lackey. According to the government, by this time, Balducci already had delivered $30,000 to Lackey for a favorable ruling in a dispute involving legal fees.

Balducci discussed the order in some detail with Zach Scruggs and Backstrom before moving into Dickie Scruggs’ office to go over it with him, according to the tape.

The defense has basically argued that the government, along with Balducci, engaged in an elaborate set-up. A trial is scheduled for March 31.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on February 19, 2008 (boomark / email).