Scruggs, other defendants in bribery case file motion to continue trial date

No time to blog on this now but wanted you to be able to see the document for yourself. Click here to view.

UPDATE: Some have asked me about a term used in the motion. It says that on December 7, the government, pursuant to a discovery request, provided the defendants with a copy of a 90-minute "consenual recording made in the course of its investigation . . . [that] contains statements by the four defendants."  What is a consensual recording? Here is the answer from a government website.  It is where one of the participants (an agent is also considered a participant) consents to the recording, as opposed to a wiretap or other form of non-consenual monitoring.  Under the allegations of the indictment and Tim Balducci’s later guilty plea so early in the case, one would have to assume the consensual participant was Balducci.  Ninety minutes? That’s a lot of talk.   

2 Comments

Filed under Industry Developments

2 Responses to Scruggs, other defendants in bribery case file motion to continue trial date

  1. Justus

    Well, it looks like the Scruggs clan disclosed the “real reason” for their continuance request in the body of their Motion for Continuance. Below, the revealing language is quoted, as follows:
    “Defendants also request a continuance so that they can effectively prepare pretrial motions. While Defendants have only begun to analyze the discovery provided to date,Defendants anticipate the possibility of filing suppression motions directed to the November 26, 2007 search, motions directed to the applications for, and the request for extension of, the Title III wiretaps, motions to dismiss some or all of the counts in the indictment, and discovery motions.”
    So, according to the language of their motion, the express purpose that defense counsel seeks additional time is to put together pretrial “suppression motions”, particularly to suppress the “wiretap evidence” and the evidence obtained during the November 26 “search on Scruggs’ office”.
    Okay, tell me, since when does an innocent accused need to ask the court to “suppress evidence” – unless, of course, it is “incriminating” evidence? Now that’s an “eyebrow raiser” that makes one go “Hmmmm”?
    By the way, isn’t it Scruggs and his ilk that always claim that the defendants are concealing evidence from the plaintiffs in litigation? Interesting how things come full circle – what do they call it, “shoe on the other foot”?
    Justus

  2. Silas

    More likely it will be called “the cuff is on the other wrist..”