Famous Lawyer Smacked Down in Bribery Case (MORE, CLICK HERE)

Famous Lawyer Shutout in Key Motions in Bribery Case
The National Law Journal by Julie Kay - February 28, 2008

In a huge blow to the defense of Mississippi plaintiff attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, the judge overseeing his bribery case denied a slew of defense motions Monday, including change of venue and motion to suppress wiretaps.

In one of the motions, U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. even went so far as to characterize a Scruggs' co-defendant's actions as corruption.

In a case that has rocked Mississippi legal circles, Scruggs, along with four co-defendants, is being charged with conspiring to bribe a judge to rule his way in a $26 million fee dispute on Hurricane Katrina cases. Two co-defendants have plead guilty and agreed to cooperate against Scruggs, his son, Zack, and their co-counsel Sidney Backstrom. The trial is set for March 31.

In their motion to suppress the wiretaps, Scruggs' lawyers had argued that the defendants did not discuss offering a monetary amount to Judge Henry Lackey. However, Biggers said because defendant Balducci offered Lackey a job as "of counsel" at Balducci's law firm after he retired, that constitutes "a clear and gross violation of all known code of ethics applicable to attorneys and judicial officers." "Indeed, when an act such as this occurs, perceived by the judge possibly to be an attempt to corrupt or bribe, it is incumbent on the judge to report the matter to appropriate authorities, which is what Judge Lackey did," stated the order.

He also stated that the mere fact of Timothy Balducci ­ not an attorney of record in the case ­ visiting Lackey when the opposing counsel has no notice of the visit "amounts to an effort to corrupt the judge." Biggers also denied a motion by the Scruggs team to block jurors from hearing evidence on a related bribery case playing out in Hinds County, Miss., involving famed Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Lastly, he flatly denied Scruggs' motion for a change of venue without explanation.

Still left for Biggers to rule on is a request by the government to have jurors sequestered and anonymous. The prosecution insinuated in its motion that it wanted the jury anonymous to prevent jury tampering by the defense.

Scruggs' attorneys filed a motion objecting to the request, saying "the government has failed to show that the publicity here poses any threat to the security or safety of the jury. Under these circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever to utilize an anonymous jury in this case."