Keker’s back for Zach - UPDATED
Jeepers, I glanced at Patsy’s story too quickly the first time, missing this tucked-away sentence:
Without fanfare, the senior Scruggs’ California attorney, John Keker, also was added to the defense team.
UPDATE: False alarm, according to Keker himself (h/t dmwriter). Carry on . . .
lotus
March 18, 2008 at 10:09 am
Whoa! Is this not a conflict of interest? Also, who takes the lead: Keker, Graves, or Moore?
This trial is still gonna be a circus huh?
March 18, 2008 at 10:14 am
Forget watching the trial. I would love to be a fly on the wall when those three start deciding who is lead attorney on this case.
And, yes, it is a huge conflict of interest that I highly doubt Judge Biggers will overlook.
March 18, 2008 at 10:14 am
I see Moore as a well-known face at trial, not a litigator. Am guessing Keker’s there as a protector of Daddy and Graves will probably continue as lead.
March 18, 2008 at 10:19 am
Well, they still impress me as The High-Dollah Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight. Lawd hev mussy.
March 18, 2008 at 10:28 am
I don’t see Moore as lead atty…surely Keker takes that roll (just a guess)
Someone please explain the conflict of interest Moore has w/ representing Zach…I was under the impression there is no conflict.
March 18, 2008 at 10:35 am
Not Moore. Keker. He can’t ethically represent Dickie and Zach, especially after Dickie has pleaded guilty, and could be called as a potential witness against Zach (and, he could be called to the stand by the government, no agreement to cooperate withstanding).
It’s the same problem Ken Coghlan had when he was trying to represent Zach after representing Patterson. Judge Biggers didn’t gof or it then. It’s hard to picture him going for it now.
March 18, 2008 at 10:39 am
I noticed that a private jet arrived in Oxford about 2:00 p.m. Monday direct from Oakland. I also see potential conflicts of interest issues.
March 18, 2008 at 10:43 am
As far as being a litigator, there are some pros and cons to Moore.
1. He, by all reports, was a very good prosecutor while serving as a District Attorney back in the 1980’s, with an extremely good win-loss record.
2. He has never represented a criminal defendant before as far as I know.
3. He has never tried a case in federal court, as far as I know.
4. He hasn’t tried a case anywhere in about twenty years (since he was sworn in as AG in 1988). as far as I know.
Moore was a certified gunfighter in his day. I guess we’ll get to see if he is still a good shot or not.
March 18, 2008 at 10:46 am
Moore is the PR man
March 18, 2008 at 10:50 am
I think you’re right. That and someobdy Zach trusts, who might be able to talk turkey to him without getting fired.
March 18, 2008 at 11:00 am
The word that is being aligned with Mike Moore in how he practices law is (A THREATER). He will have you investigated by the FBI and the IRS and when you have been brought to your knees with all of the insinuations he then goes in to pick the carcus. Does anyone know where he picked this tatic up.
March 18, 2008 at 11:13 am
Why isn’t it Scruggsissippi?
March 18, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hi, Infidel. Somebody else asked that recently. I thought of “Scruggsiana” first because the “iana” suffix means “lore of,” and that’s what I wanted to convey — “everything to do with the Scruggs situation.” (Also, Scruggsissippi is a real bear to type, no?)
March 18, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Messissippi?
March 18, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ooo, that’s a good one, Kycol. Howya been, too busy to blog?
March 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Kycol, now that I think about it, I think “Messissippi” will be perfect for what we’ll end up talking about post-Scruggsiana. Let’s stockpile that one for future deployment, uh-huh.
March 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Hey DMwriter..I wonder if they will all arrive at the courthouse in one tiny car dressed like clowns.
That would rock.
I’m totally bringing the peanuts.
March 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Does anyone other than me wonder where the Daily Journal got their information? It’s not on Pacer, there’s only one sentence referring to no source in the Journal article, and it just seems on the odd side to me.
I’ve done a post about this and other issues.
March 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I had somewhat felt sorry for Zach a few months ago…that is until the transcripts came out. Looks like Dickie passed on his bad genes to the bad son.
March 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm
707, Lydjah 12:30!
Bwaahaahaahoohoohoo (a flowah laffs ’til she cries)
March 18, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Can Judge Bradley and Meyers come on board to and have I missed anyone.
March 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Something strange here:
“I’M INNOCENT !
(But) I need this here dozen lawyers now to convince you jurors.”
That picture may not sit all too well with the folks I recall from spending a few years living in the Northern District of the Great and Sovereign State.