Insurance Law

Scruggs Nation, February 12: the sweet potatoes edition

By David Rossmiller

Well, everyone has been waiting for some time for the other shoe store to drop in the Scruggs scandal, especially after the guilty plea of Joey Langston. It  wouldn't surprise me to see some big developments soon. But be that as it may, for today, in USA v. Scruggs (Mississippi version), the news is the mass filing of motions in the case -- under the amended scheduling order of this case, yesterday was the deadline for pre-trial motions (March 11 is currently the last date for submission of plea agreements).

Below are the documents filed today.  I skimmed most of the memoranda, read some parts closely, looked at some of the evidence, but there was more here than I had time for.  However, it's all here for you to peruse at your leisure.

Here is a motion by the three remaining defendants -- Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom -- to dismiss the indictment for outrageous government conduct.

Another big motion: to suppress wiretap evidence.  And here is something that you will love to comb through, I'm sure -- the affidavit in support of these motions along with accompanying exhibits.  Read the affidavit and find which of the exhibits below you want to examine -- a lot of this is transcripts of phone conversations, wiretap applications and other good stuff.

• Exhibits 1-10
• Exhibits 11-20
• Exhibits 21-30
• Exhibits 31-37

A third: a motion in limine to exclude extrinsic evidence of alleged involvement in the Joey Langston plan to bribe a state judge. 

And a fourth, a motion to dismiss counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment.

Also, here is Sid Backstrom's motion to sever his trial from that of Dickie Scruggs, on grounds that it would be prejudicial to Backstrom if he were tried with Scruggs.

The same kind of motion from Zach Scruggs, with commentary on page 4 from Tim "Sweet Potatoes" Balducci. From "man crush" to "where the bodies are buried," the man is just a fount of quotable quotes.

Full post as published by Insurance Coverage Law Blog on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).