Reflections on the Dickie Scruggs Saga
I have yet to weigh in on the many fine blogs that have followed the Dickie Scruggs case since the indictment in November of last year (particular kudos are due to David Rossmiller’s exceptional work here), but with Zach Scruggs’ plea to misprision of a felony last week, and, since Mississippi is the land of Faulkner, here is my editorial stream of consciousness:
My first thought on Zach Scruggs’ plea:
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men
It has been said by one prosecutor that misprision is for girlfriends, but, apparently, that prosecutorial gift extends to sons as well. It is surprising in the extreme that the government allowed Zach to enter a plea to misprision. The sentencing guidelines for misprision are very low, and that plea virtually guarantees that Zach won’t serve much time in prison.
One of the things that has struck me about the defendants’ plea colloquy is that several of them have wanted to weigh in and lessen their culpability (see here, Zach's plea transcript, p.15-16, and here, Dickie's plea transcript and his famous earwig comment, p. 15). Generally, statements by defendants in mitigation are not made until sentencing, and even then that can be a dangerous tact because here the defendants are entering pleas to some of the most serious offenses, bribing a judicial official, and straining at gnats at the plea is not cottoned to by district court judges.
I was fundamentally surprised at three things in the pretrial motions practice in this case: (1) that more attacks were not raised by defense counsel against the wiretaps (there is an entire body of Title III litigation out there); (2) the shrill, overblown writing style of the defendants’ motions that, (3) was very effectively countered in direct, succinct writing that highlighted the nits at which the defendants were picking and the substantial, and fundamentally wrong conduct the defendants were engaged in.
Finally, I was extremely surprised at Dickie Scruggs’ guilty plea, particularly because the plea agreement, p.10, does not protect him from additional criminal investigations that, plainly, are ongoing.
In that respect, Balducci predicted in one of his conversations with Judge Lackey that he knows where the bodies are buried (Scruggs Indictment, p. 5). My guess, there are other bodies out there, and it will be interesting to see how aggressively the government pursues those case.
My first thought on Zach Scruggs’ plea:
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men
It has been said by one prosecutor that misprision is for girlfriends, but, apparently, that prosecutorial gift extends to sons as well. It is surprising in the extreme that the government allowed Zach to enter a plea to misprision. The sentencing guidelines for misprision are very low, and that plea virtually guarantees that Zach won’t serve much time in prison.
One of the things that has struck me about the defendants’ plea colloquy is that several of them have wanted to weigh in and lessen their culpability (see here, Zach's plea transcript, p.15-16, and here, Dickie's plea transcript and his famous earwig comment, p. 15). Generally, statements by defendants in mitigation are not made until sentencing, and even then that can be a dangerous tact because here the defendants are entering pleas to some of the most serious offenses, bribing a judicial official, and straining at gnats at the plea is not cottoned to by district court judges.
I was fundamentally surprised at three things in the pretrial motions practice in this case: (1) that more attacks were not raised by defense counsel against the wiretaps (there is an entire body of Title III litigation out there); (2) the shrill, overblown writing style of the defendants’ motions that, (3) was very effectively countered in direct, succinct writing that highlighted the nits at which the defendants were picking and the substantial, and fundamentally wrong conduct the defendants were engaged in.
Finally, I was extremely surprised at Dickie Scruggs’ guilty plea, particularly because the plea agreement, p.10, does not protect him from additional criminal investigations that, plainly, are ongoing.
In that respect, Balducci predicted in one of his conversations with Judge Lackey that he knows where the bodies are buried (Scruggs Indictment, p. 5). My guess, there are other bodies out there, and it will be interesting to see how aggressively the government pursues those case.
Tom - first time visitor (sent via Rossmiller).
I have enjoyed looking around your blog...I look forward to seeing more.
I believe the Feds are looking agressively into these other "bodies"...and can't wait to see what all they find - and if it matches up to rumors floating around out there.
The question here is where was Scraggs guilty of "concealment" of the corruption here? He knew about it, but unless there is a mandated reportage law that applies to him due to his profession, mere knowing of a federal crime hardly makes for a "misprision of felony" charge....there must be some act of covering it up, or aiding the perpetrators.
Can anyone comment on this?