government's response to petitioner's david zachery scruggs motion for depositions
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
1/33
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
2/33
Zachary Scruggs knew that money had actually been delivered to Circuit Judge Henry La
connection with their scheme to corruptly influence him or, in the alternative, whether Da
Zachary Scruggs was, as a co-conspirator, responsible for the actions of his fellow co-
conspirators (including the actual delivery of $40,000 to Circuit Judge Lackey). The gov
has no objection to the aforesaid co-conspirators being issued writs or subpoenaed as witn
The safest and most efficient way to produce their testimony is to require their actual atten
before the Court. As regards the remaining witnesses, the petitioners proffers are at best
inaccurate and fanciful and they are only relevant to issues that are no longer before the C
They do not establish good cause.
As regards Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, the petitioners proffer doesnt come clos
establishing good cause. Whether or not there was ever any real dispute about whether Ju
Lackey should order arbitration is irrelevant to the issues sub judice. Whether or not Mr.
Balducci ever offered him a bribe is well established and beyond dispute. Who first
conceived of there being a bribe relates to the entrapment issue that was previously litiga
decided by the Court and not appealed. Whether or not Mr. Balducci ever implicated
petitioner in his conversations with Judge Lackey is irrelevant. Petitioners assertion tha
Lackey has knowledge of exculpatory discussions with federal authorities concerning the
petitioner is wildly speculative and untrue, with no basis in fact. Judge Lackey simply ha
knowledge one way or the other regarding what Zach Scruggs knew or didnt know.
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
3/33
government misconduct (entrapment) is, again, res judicata. Whether Delaney pressured
Lackey to demand such a bribe is nothing but fanciful speculation; it is untrue and unfoun
Thus, Mr. Delaney has knowledge of exculpatory discussions concerning the petitioner .
again wild speculation; it has no basis in fact. The petitioner avers that Mr. Delaney . .
resolve the mystery of this missing evidence . . . ., a statement which appears to create a
controversy that in fact does not exist; there simply is no missing evidence. Petitioner
proffers are recklessly speculative and disingenuous, perhaps useful to his public relations
campaign, but for purposes of this motion, ineffective. In any event, Special Agent Delan
already testified under oath regarding these matters and will be present at the hearing on A
There is no good reason to depose him.
As regards Joseph C. Langston, the petitioners proffer is again disingenuous. Th
petitioner is already in possession of Joseph Langstons sworn affidavit, which is attached
The petitioner therefore knows that Joseph Langston will not testify that government coun
willfully misrepresented anything to the court. He will not testify that no one corrected
record, and he will not testify that he was threatened by the government to remain silent w
Court was misled. He will not testify that there were secret negotiations for a month prec
his plea. Petitioners proffer is inaccurate and inadequate, and he knows it. However, Mr
Langston is (with leave of Court) available to testify via writ of habeas corpus ad testifica
As regards Anthony Farese, the petitioner once again attempts to mislead the Cou
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
4/33
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
5/33
6. It should be remembered that at all times during Faresesrepresentation of the petitioner, all parties, (petitioner, Langston,
and the government) represented to Farese that Scruggs I (theLackey case) involved Zach Scruggs but did not involve Langston.Scruggs II (the Wilson case) involved Langston but did not involveZach Scruggs. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest betweenLangston and Scruggs. Both Farese and the government maintainthat Joey Langston never incriminated Zach Scruggs in any illegalconduct in Scruggs II (the Wilson case).
The government would therefore respectfully submit that the petitioner, Zach Scru
well aware of Fareses position and does not need discovery to obtain or understand it. In
misrepresented what Mr. Farese would say. Petitioner has a complete copy of Anthony F
response together with all 35 exhibits including nine affidavits from Tom Dawson, Bob N
Dave Sanders, Vicki Slater, Ronald Michael, Joey Langston, Ken Coghlan, Shane Langst
Steve Farese, Sr. Because there is a pending bar complaint, the government is by a separa
pleading requesting permission to file with the Court a copy of Anthony L. Fareses entire
Answer, with attachments, under seal, so that the Court will have all of the information th
petitioner has. Suffice to say, the petitioner has already had full discovery regarding Mr.
Fareses position in this matter. Mr. Farese is also easily subject to the subpoena power o
Court. No deposition is required and the petitioners proffer is recklessly misleading. It d
establish good cause.Mr. Dawson has already provided an affidavit in support of Mr. Fareses response
bar complaint; the same has been served upon the petitioner previously, and it is attached
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 5 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
6/33
purported witnesses against the petitioner and his co-defendants. In fact, as the petitione
knows, Mr. Dawson said in his sworn affidavit . . . we were assured by Mr. Farese and M
Langston that they knew of no conflict with Zach Scruggs and the prosecution team knew
such conflict. Between December 10, 2004, and January 4, 2008, there were no plea neg
with Mr. Langston or Mr. Farese. Undaunted, the petitioners allegations continue: Mr.
Dawson has also specifically written about the prejudice that these tactics caused to petiti
case, stating that they [sic], Mr. Langstons (false) testimony created an insurmountable
challenge to petitioner, one that blew a hole in his case. Mr. Dawson will further explai
the government knew all along that Mr. Langston would be adverse to the Scruggs defend
. . Mr. Langstons testimony created an insurmountable challenge to Dickie Scruggs, bu
petitioner. The petitioners allegation that Dawson would say the government knew all al
that Langston would be adverse is absolutely contrary to Tom Dawsons sworn affidavit.
cause is not supplied by proffers that are fanciful and outright disingenuous. Mr. Dawso
also local and easily within the subpoena power of the Court. No deposition is required.
Federal Magistrate Judge David Sanders and Assistant United States Attorney Ro
Norman are both local, and available to the Court and counsel opposite. Judge Sanders a1
Norman have already provided sworn affidavits which are attached hereto. Contrary to thpetitioners proffer, Judge Sanders does not describe efforts to co-opt petitioners counsel
secure Langston as a witness against the petitioner, nor would his testimony establish any
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 6 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
7/33
reckless in that the petitioners own pleadings establish that, in fact, the government did c
any misunderstanding. In addition, then AUSA David Sanders, as part of the prosecutio2
and on behalf of the government, told the Court at the petitioners plea that we have no
knowledge that he has any information on other cases at this time, Your Honor. (Change
Plea Transcript, p. 14)
In conclusion, the petitioners Motion for Depositions is reckless, speculative, and
ineffective. It does not establish good cause for authorizing depositions. Furthermore, a
U.S.C. 2255 hearing is quasi-civil, quasi-criminal, and this Court clearly has the discre
authorize the issuance of writs and subpoenas for witnesses who reside outside a 100-mile
radius. 3
Finally, depositions would require teams of lawyers to travel to each witness, as o
to the witness simply traveling to the hearing. Depositions would require significant
expenditures of time and money and, furthermore, depositions facilitate the intentional ab
witnesses, subject to protests and objections that are simply reserved for the Court to deci
Page 3 of the petitioners renewed motion in limine to exclude 404(b) evidence f2
March 19, 2008, two days before the petitioners plea of guilty, states that . . . the govern
to date, has only indicated that Zach Scruggs was aware that Ed Peters was hired in the cabecause of his long-standing relationship with Judge DeLaughter. Additionally, the goverprovided counsel with a copy of an e-mail involving Zach Scruggs and Johnny Jones, whthey discuss the Wilson case . . . . Thus, two days before his plea, the petitioner was inpossession of the latest and best 404(b) notice the government could provide and it comwith Joey Langstons sworn affidavit. Any misunderstanding or misrepresentation had be
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 7 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
8/33
later date. For all the reasons aforesaid, the government objects to the taking of depositio
Actual, factual innocence (not technical innocence) will be the only issue before t
that is not time-barred. Witnesses who might therefore be relevant include the petitioner
conspirators, Sid Backstrom, Richard Scruggs, Steven Patterson and Timothy Balducci. T
government respectfully suggests that the Court consider granting petitioner leave of Cou
issue writs and subpoenas to require their presence and facilitate their sworn testimony be
Court. The petitioners motion for depositions should otherwise be denied and overruled
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN MARSHALL ALEXAND
United States Attorney
/s/ Robert H. NormanBy:
ROBERT H. NORMANAssistant United States AttorneyMississippi Bar No. 3880
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 8 of 9
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
9/33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ROBERT H. NORMAN, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby certify that I
electronically filed the foregoing Governments RESPONSE TO PETITIONER DAVID
ZACHARY SCRUGGS MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS with the Clerk of the Co
the ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Honorable Edward D. Robertson, Jr.Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny, P.C.
Honorable William N. [email protected]
Honorable Michael C. Rader [email protected]
This the _ 11th _ day of March, 2011.
__ /s/ Robert H. Norman ______ROBERT H. NORMANAssistant United States Attorney
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 9 of 9
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
10/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 6
C 3 0 00192 SAA 328 1 il d 03/11/11 2 f 6
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
11/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 6
C 3 07 00192 NBB SAA D t 328 1 Fil d 03/11/11 P g 3 f 6
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
12/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Document 328 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
13/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 5 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
14/33
Case 3:07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Document 328 1 Filed 03/11/11 Page 5 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
15/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-2 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
16/33
g
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-2 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
17/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-2 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
18/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-3 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
19/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-3 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
20/33
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
21/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-3 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
22/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-4 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
23/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-4 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
24/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-4 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 3
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
25/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-5 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
26/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-5 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
27/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-5 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
28/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-5 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
29/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-6 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
30/33
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
31/33
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328-6 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 4
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
32/33
-
8/7/2019 Government's Response to Petitioner's David Zachery Scruggs Motion for Depositions
33/33