The prosecutors now want to see what was found at the Scruggs law firm

Apparently under the taint team process, the US Attorneys in W.D. Tennessee (as the taint team) reviewed the documents and computer records found in the search of the Scruggs law firm. They reviewed them and found a set of documents that were responsive to the warrant (which has not hit public view as far as I know). From the numbers of the documents, I gather there are 395 of them. They turned these documents over to Judge Biggers, and the prosecutors in North Mississippi have not yet seen them. On March 13, 2005, a set of the documents was sent to the attorneys “for the remaining defendants.” This was yesterday.

I have to wonder whether this disclosure helped precipitate today’s events.

The prosecutors in North Mississippi and the taint team (the W.D. Tenn. prosecutors) are now moving to allow the prosecutors in North Mississippi to have access to those documents as of March 21st. They ask that, if the attorneys for “the remaining defendant” have an objection to the North Mississippi prosecutors seeing this material, the objection must be made by March 21st.

This is all to be found in Motion to disclose results of search.

h/t to Confounded for the pointer to this in comments.

NMC

This entry was posted on March 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm and is filed under Herald & Examiner. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “The prosecutors now want to see what was found at the Scruggs law firm”

  1. MSlawyer Says:
    March 14, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    NMC, why do you think the Government was willing to enter into a plea agreement that would reduce Dickie’s maximum sentence from 75 years to 5 years? I’ve been pondering this all afternoon, and I think there has to be something else going on that we don’t know about yet — perhaps some as-yet unsealed indictments or something like that. Do you think that is possible?

  2. seacrestatfolo Says:
    March 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    It’s all kind of strange. I doubt it’s the case, but it would really be a trip is pages 1-395 implicated Zach more than any other.

  3. lotus Says:
    March 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Here — after a loading time I can’t describe because I went off to the kitchen to start cooking, but a helluva LOOOOONG one — is Alyssa’s story. It is worth the wait.

    Attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs seemed to be in good spirits this morning — patting friends on the shoulder and even introducing himself to reporters — moments before pleading guilty to conspiracy to bribe a judge. …

    During his plea hearing, Scruggs told Biggers he was proud to have had John Keker as his attorney, when Biggers asked if he was satisfied with Keker’s representation.

    When Biggers asked Scruggs if he, in fact, conspired to corruptly bribe Judge Lackey, Scruggs paused a moment before answering.

    “I joined a conspiracy late in the game,” Scruggs said. “It wasn’t exactly what prosecutors indicated … But I did join the conspiracy.”

    His relaxed manner and frequent smiles made Scruggs appear almost glad the whole ordeal was over.

    But Backstrom wasn’t so jovial.

    “I apologize to the court,” Backstrom said before breaking down and crying. Through tears he added, “to my family. I made some of the worst decisions of my life in this case.”

    Biggers said his apology was entered into the record and appeared almost sympathetic.
    “No doubt you made some awful decisions,” Biggers said to Backstrom. “But you’re here accepting the responsibilities of those decisions.”

    Scruggs offered no apology. …

    Meanwhile, the C-L seems to have scrubbed that balderdash about Zach from its story (h/t jester).

  4. Curly Says:
    March 14, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Yep — here comes round 2. Score after round 1: Team US - 1, Scruggs & Co. - 0.

    Sounds like there could be some interesting things in those items delivered by the taint team.

    There is no real reason for Scruggs to cooperate since the evidence couldn’t be used against himself, and he doesn’t want to testify against his son in the Lackey matter. Depending on who the cast of defendants will be in DeLaughter (and maybe other cases), he may be saving his cooperation until Zach is out of the way. He may be figuring that 5 years is a certainty, and “cooperation” is only going to reduce some number after 5 years. Thus, we get a plain Jane plea from DS in the Lackey case.