Scruggs Co-Defendant Backstrom Files Sentencing Objections
Scruggs co-defendant and former partner, Sidney Backstrom, who plead guilty on March 14, 2008 to the count one conspiracy charge of the Scruggs indictment, is scheduled to be sentenced on June 27, 2008 and has filed his objections to the Presentence Report (PSR).
Now, first, the filing of objections to the PSR is unusual in and of itself. And, I have to say, that the work that went into these objections is less than what I’d expect of someone representing an attorney in a federal criminal case.
The factual basis from Backstrom’s plea alleges that:
- as a member of Scruggs’ Law Firm, he sent a proposed order in the Jones v. Scruggs civil case to Timothy Balducci that was then faxed to Judge Lackey.
- then, on September 21, 2007 Balducci placed a four minute phone call to the Scruggs Law Firm and discussed the $40,000.00 bribe with Backstrom.
- On October 18, 2007 Balducci called Backstrom and told him that he had delivered a copy of “those papers we’ve been waiting on” referring to the order obtained by the bribe.
- And, after Balducci was flipped, he wore a body wire against both Backstrom and Zach Scruggs and engaged in a conversation about the order.
- Finally, on November 13, 2007 Balducci and Backstrom engaged in a conversation about the bribery scheme and the benefit of a favorable order for the Scruggs Law Firm.
Backstrom has filed objections to both the factual accuracy of the report and to the sentencing guidelines calculation:
- First, he objects because the probation officer has used $5.3 million benefit to the defendants as the amount of loss pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1, contending that rather than the 18 level increase that results from the $5.3 million benefit (the amount the PSR claims that Scruggs saved by corruptly bribing Judge Lackey), the appropriate amount for consideration is the amount of the bribe, which would result in an enhancement of only a 6 level increase.
- Second, Backstrom contends that no role in the offense enhancement should apply because he was neither a manager, nor supervisor of criminal conspirators, but rather a “worker who takes on the yeoman task of getting work out.” ¶ 30.
In Backstrom’s plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend a “sentence not to exceed one-half (1/2) of the sentence imposed on his co-defendant, Richard Scruggs, which will not, in any event exceed 30 months incarceration.” If there is an 18 level increase in Backstrom’s guideline range, then any sentence he faces will, according to the sentencing guidelines, wildly exceed 30 months.
More importantly, Backstrom in his objections has continued a bizarre display of disputing the facts which form the basis of his guilty plea. I’m certain that this conduct can’t sit well with the district court. For instance, in his objections, Backstrom says he didn’t draft and email the proposed order that was faxed to Judge Lackey. ¶ 38-39. Then, Backstrom has a lengthy argument that the “credible evidence” shows that the September 21, 2007 phone conversation between Balducci and Backstrom did not occur. ¶ 48.
The importance of these objections is a defendant can lose the benefit of his bargain by denying his guilt. In other words, in federal court, you don’t get to say, I’m guilty, but I didn’t really do anything wrong, which seems pervasive among these defendants. It’ll be interesting to see how both the government and the court react to this sort of shenanigans.
