September 27th: What the defense will say about Balducci and Lackey, Part 4 (by NMC)

This website moved Sunday, Feb. 10, to a new address – Please go to to enter your comment! Thanks.

More facts from the motion to continue:

September 27th meeting: At this meeting Balducci paid Judge Lackey $20,000. During this meeting, “Judge Lackey suggests ‘if this is not Mr. Scruggs’ money, I don’t want a nickel of it’ and Balducci responds as follows: ‘I want you to know.. this is between me and you, and just between me and you… this is just between me and you… there ain’t another soul in the world that knows about this….'” Judge Lackey said: “I would think Mr. Scruggs would have to know something about it” and, the motion says Balducci stated “well, here’s how it works… there will come a time where I will sit him down in private and I will tell him that I’ve solved a problem for him.. that’s how that’ll work.”

Tim Balducci is one weird guy. This is beginning to make me think of Henry II and Thomas Becket. “And then, King Dickie said ‘Who will rid me of this troublesome arbitration issue,’ and Baron Balducci went out and right there in the cathedral, that is, chambers, slew the annoying arbitration issue.”

I think I’m getting a little punchy here and probably need a break.

Update: More from 9/27

Later in the conversation Judge Lackey mentioned, “Mr. Scruggs or Dickie or Dick whoever or whatever I should call him,” and, the motion says, Balducci responds “he is not even involved at that level, Judge… frankly he doesn’t even… like I said, the way this will work is I’ll just go to him at some point and say I have cured a problem that you had, and you need to recognize the problem that I have cured for you; that’s how it works…. He is not involved in a direct manner, doesn’t want to be doesn’t need to be… You take comfort in knowing this is between me and you; this doesn’t go any further than right here… “

And then Balducci told Judge Lackey about the horses head that P.L. Blake would arrange to turn up in Grady Tollison’s bed one morning.   Just kidding, that’s all the interesting facts from the motion I notice right now, and I’m going to take a break.  I’ll put the motion itself up later.

13 Responses to September 27th: What the defense will say about Balducci and Lackey, Part 4 (by NMC)

  1. This kinda on topic, kinda not, anyway’s it is about Lott and his BS reason for bailing out to lobby, something to do with;

    “Earlier this month, Lott announced that he and former Lousiana Sen. John Breaux (D) were forming “a powerful lobbying partnership called The Breaux Lott Leadership Group.”

  2. duckweedpond says:

    Could one of you lawyers clarify for the rest of us a couple of things? Will the judge have the entire transcript of the wiretaps and/or actual recordings at his disposal and not just those bits that the prosecution and defense offer in their motions? And only those things spelled out in the pleadings – like the stuff you’re recounting for us now bless you – will be what the public can see right? unless there are leaks?

  3. supergreg says:

    duckweedpond // January 16, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    The judge normally will just use what the gov’t and defense include in the motion and response. It is not outside the realm of possibility that the judge may ask to see the entire transcript of the recordings to review in considering his ruling on the motion, but I doubt it. The judge will probably say that it is not his realm to determine whether or not the information used to obtain the search warrant was factual or not, if there is some room for disagreement in the interpretation of what was used to obtain the warrant (unless it is patently false), but rather this is a fact determination issue reserved for a jury to decide as to whether or not scruggs et al were entrapped, or whether they really were ignorant of Balducci’s activities. I do not believe that the entire volume of evidence available must be presented to obtain a search warrant, only enough evidence that shows probable cause that a crime was committed, and that the information that is presented comes from a reliable source. The motion seems to suggest that prosecution has a duty to put on all the good and bad parts of a case to obtain a search warrant. That is not correct.

  4. observer says:

    Keker’s motion obviously played well with some of the press and some laypersons, and that appeared to be its intention.

    It is not a serious motion as far as getting the Title 3 interceptions suppressed.

    A Title 3 affidavit must demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe a phone is being used to conduct conversations related to committing a crime (and a few other technical and statutory requirements).

    As stated above, it does not have to include possible defense theories that may be raised.

  5. nmisscommenter says:

    observer is pretty close to correct.

    The motion is good lawyering. That is not to say it will lead to the end result in the case– but he’s previewed his defense in an effective way, probably the most effective way, yet by doing it under seal can’t really be accused of playing to an audience other than the judge deciding the motion.

    He got the relief he wanted. He put out a positive gloss on his version in a way no one could say was wrong. As I said, good lawyering.

    Personally? I’m not buying. But I have no chance of being a juror.

  6. nmisscommenter says:

    oh- one possible problem with the lawyering– if he’s trying to do anything other than get his continuance granted (and all the work implied in that motion is probably the best argument) I don’t think he’s persuading this particular judge of anything. The lawyering at its best should aim at the intended audience. This particular judge is a “tough crowd” for Scruggs’s side, and I’d be thinking about that harder than Keker seems to be. But I think that with this particular “tough crowd” Keker may have a pretty tough hand to play.

  7. supergreg says:

    I don’t think that anyone needs to really put much effort into debate that addresses whether the motion will be granted, because it won’t. Like the posts above suggest, its a preview of the defense used for the purpose of bargaining a plea, establishing record for appeal and getting the word out to the folo audience.

  8. nmisscommenter says:

    I’m confused, Greg. (1) The motion got granted (all the discussion is from the motion to continue). (2) I agree it is a preview of the defense, but don’t know if they’re plea bargaining or trying to influence a larger community (jurors, etc) in a way that is perfectly legit. (3) I can’t imagine that thinking about an appeal is much in the minds for this continuance motion. (4) I wish “the folo” audience mattered in the greater scheme of things but I think not to these guys

  9. supergreg says:

    Perhaps I am not completely on board with what took place. I thought this was a motion to suppress combined with a continuance motion. I haven’t read the motion text and skipped around a bit. That’s bad lawyering.

  10. supergreg says:

    What about OJ?

  11. nmisscommenter says:

    no problem, super– I’ve read the motion and you haven’t. The motion says there is a BIG MESS to come, one part of which is the motion to suppress.

    And honestly I think the motion to suppress implied by the motion to continue is a long shot but OTOH, the motion is well put together and does tell the judge the most important message for a motion to continue: THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO. It also tells the other side WE HAVE AN ARGUMENT ON OUR SIDE, and tells the broader community that. But, as I said, I’m not buying.

  12. supergreg says:

    I have filed continuance motions like that before.

  13. lotus says:

    No wonder you’re punchy after all this work, NMC. Take a breather while I enjoy the Baron Balducci interlude. Slew him an arbitration issue, awright, but thereby slue-footed hissef & Co right into the Slough of Despond, po’ boy, whew.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: