News and views from NMC
Poor NMC is finally through with a court-day that should have been only a court-morning (don’t we all know how that goes . . . ), and he’s just called in with more news and a bit of analysis as he drives home to Oxford — which I wish to hell he WOULDN’T DO. (At least this time he wasn’t driving on ice as we talked, gah.) Anyhow, he reports as follows:
Though Nancy has already alerted us to the entry of Edward T. Robertson, Jr., an associate of Todd Graves in Kansas City, as of late this afternoon, ETR,Jr’s is not the only new face on Team Zach. Also entering are, from Graves’ shop, Mary Winter, and from Mike Moore’s, David Lee Martin. So that’s FOUR new attorneys Zach enlisted today: a phenomenon we can safely call “lawyering up to show fight.”
Previously, Graves and Garrett’s only local colleague was the young (fresh-out-of-law-school?) Christopher Robertson of Scruggs Law Firm. Since apparently they felt the need of a much-stronger Mississippi representin’, they’ve officially welcomed Mike Moore’s help.
Also consider the many big guns who were operating that vaunted “united defense” that’s no longer required. Well, if he’s going to trial, Zach best fill in all these fresh craters around him, right?
So has he now got the heavy-duty Mississippi crim-defense chops he was missing? You’d think the famous Mike Moore would fit the bill (and yes, he might well prove a jury-dazzler). But NMC begs to leave you with this one thought to chew on with your supper:
Mike Moore may be the former Attorney General and a crowd-pleaser from way-back. But he hasn’t tried a case in 20 years.
lotus
P.S. As Nancy also pointed out earlier in comments, Judge Biggers today memorialized his orders allowing Zach five additional days from March 14 to amend his current pending motions or file additional ones. But: “THIS EXTENSION IN NO WAY AFFECTS ANY OTHER DEADLINES PREVIOUSLY SET IN THIS CAUSE.”
March 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Hmmm. Well, no disrespect intended here, but if I were facing a lengthy prison sentence, I don’t think I’d pick Mr. Moore to represent me.
Lately he’s been acting as something he calls “resolution” counsel. I thought when he joined Zach’s defense, he was going to “resolve” the charges against Zach. But I guess I was wrong. I still get the feeling that there’s something big going on behind the scenes, though.
March 17, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Hiya, MSlawyer. Justus just pointed out another possible application of MM (speaking of “something big behind the scenes”).
March 17, 2008 at 6:58 pm
It looks like Zach Scruggs is going to trial. If he does, I hope he will raise tge defense of entrapment per se.
See http://wikiscruggs.blogspot.com/2008/02/judical-entrapment-violates-rule-of-law.html
See also, http://wikiscruggs.com/wiki/index.php?title=Entrapment_Per_Se.
March 17, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Eugster, what you’re always doing over here is called “blog-whoring,” it’s bad form, and I wish you’d cut it out. In fact, if you don’t, you’ll be excused.
Oh, and you never answered my question the other day: If commenters can’t participate in improving the information at your site, why on earth do you call it a “wiki”? This place is more nearly “wiki” than that thing you run.
March 17, 2008 at 7:14 pm
My goodness. So be it, I will not trouble you and your readers any further. BTW, nice language.
March 17, 2008 at 7:20 pm
It’s a term of art in Blogovia that I didn’t make up. In any case, you can hang around as long as you like, but not to do that (or to leave questions directed your way unanswered).
March 17, 2008 at 9:02 pm
MsLawyer
I find the decision to hire Moore odd in some ways, because he has not tried a case in 20+ years and I don’t think ever has done criminal defense, but he is local counsel here. It’s an interesting move.
Am I the only one who wonder exactly what Steve Eugster was up to and why he was/is up to it?
March 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Mike Moore had a good record as a trial lawyer, but he has morphed into a “fixer” since them. You only have to watch that video of Moore talking about the Katrina client he was representing to see how good at public delivery he is. But he is rusty as far as getting in front of a jury.
I still don’t think he’s there to win the case so much as he is to get a better plea deal for Zach and/or talk Zach into taking the plea.
I think the people who care about Zach have no illusions about where he is going to end up, and for how long, if he takes this one to trial. I think Moore has been brought in to “fix” Zach into doing the smart thing.
March 17, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Observer is probably right on this. Zach is stubborn and knows nothing but life as the son of Dickie. Talking him into taking the deal will be an uphill battle.
March 17, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Surely, Scruggs Sr. wouldn’t make his own son — Scruggs Jr. — hold up on entering a plea in order that Scruggs Sr. might negotiate a concurrent sentence in another case, with Scruggs Sr. holding back (as a”sweeten the pot” global item) forcing his son to plead, too. No father would do that, and speculation along those lines appears, to me, to be way out of line.
March 17, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Third, maybe I’m not reading carefully enough, but I haven’t heard anybody speculate along those lines.
March 17, 2008 at 9:30 pm
From what I hear regarding Zach is that he insists he won’t plea because he will be found innocent in a trial. Who knows?
March 17, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Good point, Nomiss. You have to conjure up a certain level of admiration for any man (or woman) who’s willing to stare down odds this unfavorable, and still roll the dice.
March 17, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Lotus:
OK I will try not to offend you. And will not put links to my comments in my posts. I had no idea I was doing anything wrong. In fact I thought is was proper.
And, as far as “questions unanswered” I suppose you are referring to the wiki I have started. I have some misgivings about making the wiki public at this point. I want to see how it works out from the sort of point of view I am developing in this. Also, the oddity of the wiki is that I am using it as an impetus to learn about Mississippi. I have friends and acquaintances from Mississippi — Jackson. The wiki lets me travel about the state.
I also I think it may serve as a place for footnotes to my comments on Wikiscruggs Comment — sort of like footnotes to a law review article. I may change my mind as time goes on. Right now, I want to keep it as my own to be looked at by those who care to look at it.
Clearly, people have some very strong points of view about the Scruggs Matter and the players. I do not want to offend. I want to simply think about what is going on and put things on Wikiscruggs Comment and Wikiscruggs.
As you and your readers know well by now, I am definitely interested in the “entrapment per se” or “entrapment as a matter of law” issue and the sub-issues which will evolve from a serious discussion of the main issue.
I do not wish to offend, truly,
Steve
March 17, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Todd Graves told me today “Zach is not willing to admit to something he did not do.”
Could Scruggs really not know his father, Backstrom, Balducci, etc… were conducting this business right under his nose. My belief that people in general are good combined with the cloak of innocence brings me to believe its possible.
On the other hand how do you argue this pile of evidence?
March 17, 2008 at 10:23 pm
For a number of reasons, I think it will be clear to the jury that Zach was a co-conspirator. If Zach was not in the know, doesn’t it stand to reason that Sid would have chastised Balducci for mentioning the bribe during the meeting in Sid’s office where all three were present? If Zach didn’t know and wasn’t intended to know, Sid would have been mortified that Balducci was talking about it openly and would have almost certainly addressed it with Balducci.
March 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Steve:
I’ll accept what you wrote at face value. How did you get interested in and start writing about the Scruggs cases? And seriously, I thought public contribution was the whole concept of a wiki. It seems flat out contrary to that to have a locked down wiki. I looked at your site when it first went up, and when I figured out it was “closed,” I didn’t go back. I’ve been back recently since you started here, but don’t find a particularly knowledgeable perspective. What do you bring to the story?
I’m curious, seriously about the questions I’m asking.
March 17, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I think observer 9:05 p has it right: Mike M is here as a presence and guide to Zach while he works through what it is he has to do. He’s such a young guy. I can imagine a shock and denial and break with reality. After having read the transcripts I cannot imagine that he had no knowledge of what happened.
His dad’s seeming even-tempered demeanor (see, I can do this; so can you), his mama’s tears, and his own pacing. It seems of a piece.
March 17, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You got a good quote from Graves, DM. I think you could accurately report that this sounds like a lawyer in trial mode.
March 17, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Zach is going to jail. At this point the question is for how long. And that’s up to him.
March 18, 2008 at 12:28 am
From reading the plea agreements and then the timeline, I thought Backstrom was agreeing to plea and Scruggs was trying to hold him in.
Once he pled, Dickie had no choice.
Blackstrom never did have the kind of defense council cash as Dickie - it still pisses me off this Machiavellian hold this a-hole has on vulnerable people, but he will do whatever it takes NOT FOR A FRIEND THAT WENT TO BAT for this jerk, but will pull all stops for junior spoiled POS.
I don’t live anywhere near Mississippi, but if I were in Zach’s pool? I’d have a hard time not delineating him from the others and his arrogant defiant snot boy routine is a huge net negative - BIG TIME..
I think he should pay more then the rest going just off his whiney little man act one.
March 18, 2008 at 5:12 am
Maybe the offer made to Zach in this case didn’t resolve the Peters/DeLaughter “napkin brief” case to which Zach’s “Uncle Joey” pleaded guilty , and that’s why he turned it down. Maybe his “Uncle Mike” came in to try to resolve everything in one neat little package. This is just some speculation that I’ve heard. I don’t think the speculators have any concrete knowledge of what’s going on, though.
March 18, 2008 at 6:02 am
rogerwilco @ 9:15: “Zach is stubborn and knows nothing but life as the son of Dickie” is as crisp and dead-on a summary as I’ve seen. And, boy, does it echo.
Steve @ 9:57: Well, I didn’t realize this is all as new to you as it sounds, but I too am willing to accept your explanation at face value. I do share NMC’s puzzlement, though (but for the return to your place since you’ve been visiting us, I could have easily written his 10:41 comment).
Seems to me that your site needs renaming, because people arriving at a “wiki” expect an “open source” place to add their own knowledge to the mix for the enlightenment of all. The day I was there, the place had only old and incomplete info, and no way for others to help, so I didn’t bother going back.
I’m not sure what you might call it — a personal blog? an aggregator site? a waste of the time you could better spend visiting other online communities to interact with other people interested in Mississippi (and/or other interests)?
Anyhow, whatever you do with it, you’re also welcome here, and if you have no fresh info to add, then you can contribute just as valuably by asking questions or stating opinions (civilly-phrased ones, of course). We’re always glad to have more sane voices in the conversation, and a Southern accent certainly isn’t mandatory.
March 18, 2008 at 7:49 am
I have opened http://www.wikiscruggs.com so others may contribute to it.
March 18, 2008 at 8:01 am
Congratz, Steve, that’s great news — bet you’ll enjoy it a lot more now too.
March 18, 2008 at 8:58 am
Lotus:
Thanks. Hope you and all will contribute. And be sure to let me know if there is a glitch in getting into the site,
March 18, 2008 at 9:17 am
dmwriter at at 10:00 pm sums up Zach’s only possible rational defense that I can see- “I am the dumbest SOB you ever met, completely oblivious to what is going on, and only at the law firm as a way for my father to give me a salary so I don’t look like an airhead playboy.”
Not knowing Zach, I have no idea if that is a believable defense or not.
But, if Mike Moore is there as a friend, what a friend! I’m not so sure I would be so concerned about the people who just shot me out of the saddle of an almost sure thing as a U. S. Senate seat. If he really is there because he likes Zach, Moore has got to be one of the most forgiving persons in the world.
March 18, 2008 at 9:25 am
Hmm, observer, do I detect a whiff o’ skepticism?
I just updated the “AG Day” post with something that I prolly should have parked here instead. Oh well.
March 18, 2008 at 9:29 am
Y’all remind me (soon as we’re back at the main site), to update “First thing we do, let’s ID all the lawyers” AGAIN, okay?
March 18, 2008 at 10:39 am
Folo/Lotus:
Is there an easy way to have the most recent posts at the top of each article … to save us the time scrolling down ?
This stuff is too good to miss a second.
March 18, 2008 at 11:08 am
JOM, I’m not sure I know what you’re asking for. A “post” is what NMC and I write. “Comments” are what y’all write. A “thread” is post + comments. Are you asking for the comments to appear above the post, most-recent first?
If so, no, all blog-formats do it the other way around.
When we get back to the main site tonight, I think you’ll find navigating and keeping up with the latest comments on all threads much easier. Near the top-right of the page over there, we have a “Recent Comments” list that makes it easy to track what’s going on all over the blog, and on the left sidebar, there’s a “Recent Posts” lists that makes those easy to spot too.
Over this weekend, I think we folo old-timers have come to appreciate just how good we had it at “new folo” compared to here . . .
Can I get an AMEN?
March 18, 2008 at 11:13 am
I’m still getting my learner’s permit on Gore’s ‘Internet Highway’, so your definitions are helpful.
I’m speaking about the reader comments being in most-recent-first order - not your postings which should be at the top as they spear-head each e-discussion.
March 18, 2008 at 11:25 am
Yep, that would be better, JOM, and I don’t know why website-designers don’t agree with us. But apparently they don’t, and ain’t nuttin’ we can do about that (as far as I know).
One thing that does help, though, is that you don’t have scroll up-and-down the page. See on your keyboard the “Home” and “End” keys? The first one takes you directly to page-top and the second directly to page-bottom in a zip!