usa v zach scruggs: motion to reconsider order disallowing discovery

Upload: nowdoucit

Post on 08-Apr-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    1/119

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    v. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:07

    DAVID ZACHARY SCRUGGS

    MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DISALLOWING DISCOVER

    On February 14, 2011 the Petitioner moved to conduct limited discovery in

    asking the Government merely to admit or deny certain facts, and to explain their ba

    so, providing any documents or other things that supported their contentions. D.E.,

    purpose of this request was an attempt to streamline the hearing this Court ordered.

    Government indicated no objection to the Motion, and the Petitioner had no opportu

    to whatever concerns may have existed. Nonetheless, on February 16, 2011, this H

    Court denied the motion. D.E. 317. Petitioner respectfully moves for reconsiderati

    that the Petitioners earlier request did not adequately make clear to the Court that is

    previously a part of this case were now at the fore or that discovery would focus the

    an effort to promote an efficient use of the Courts time.

    The Courts reasons for denying the requested discovery were stated succinc

    Having found that the defendant had adequate time to conduct extdiscovery prior to his trial date and finding further that the defendant th

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    2/119

    I. The Courts Duty to Allow Discovery

    In its Order denying discovery, this Honorable Court emphasized that the rul

    discretion about whether to allow discovery in 2255 petitions. Id. Indeed, a measu

    discretion is required and contemplated by the rules precisely because most 2255

    without the necessity of a hearing, much less discovery. But, as the Court has alrea

    acknowledged by ordering a hearing, this is not one of those cases. The Petition rais

    issues including issues that have not been previously explored.

    The Supreme Court has said that, where specific allegations before the cou

    reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

    that he is ... entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary fac

    procedures for an adequate inquiry. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997

    original; quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969))(emphasis added). Th

    Circuit has warned that, While the district court generally has discretion to grant or

    discovery requests under Rule 6, a court's blanket denial of discovery is an abuse of

    discovery is indispensable to a fair, rounded, development of the material facts. E

    55 F.3d 996, 1001 (5th Cir., 1995) (quoting Coleman v. Zant, 708 F.2d 541, 547 (11

    (quoting Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 322 (1963))(emphasis added).

    When district courts fail to meet their duties in this regard, the courts of app

    remand cases with instructions for them to do so See e g East 44 F 3d at 1001 10

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    3/119

    should be permitted to develop the record further. We think that Drake has made

    good cause here, and that the record does provide a sufficient basis to remand this c

    district court for limited discovery on the circumstances surrounding Walter's perjur

    testimony.).

    II. The Insufficiency of Prior Criminal Discovery in this 2255

    The Court relies on the fact that discovery was allowed in the criminal case

    disallowing discovery now. Respectfully, the Courts concern that the defendant

    counsel, represented to the court on January 16, 2008, that he was satisfied with the

    discovery issues at that time Order, D.E. 317 at 1, is a bit more broad than the reco

    At that hearing (shortly after Mr. Farese was excused for his undisclosed dual repres

    Joey Langston and Petitioner) Petitioners counsel Mr. Todd Graves told the Court:

    contacted about this case less than a week ago. There are very legitimate reasons w

    Scruggs changed attorneys. We need some time to delve into this. We haven't looke

    the discovery[.] Exh. A, Motion Hearing Tx., 1/16/2008 at 45:25-46:3. Even later

    case approached trial, the discovery allowed to Petitioner was extremely limited. F

    on February 20, 2008, when Mr. Balducci testified, the Petitioners counsel was not

    question him about his misrepresentations to the grand jury, and whether he then im

    Petitioner at all, once those misrepresentations were corrected. See Exh. B, Motion

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    4/119

    Petitioner.) Thus, in the criminal proceedings, the factual record was skeletal, with

    holes that remain to this day.1

    Even with these lacunae, it bears emphasis that after all the facts were put on

    became clear to the Government that Petitioner was innocent of any involvement in

    those charges were voluntarily dismissed. At that time, the Government repeatedly

    to this Court orally and in the Factual Basis that all the facts and circumstances of

    Petitioners conduct amounted to mere earwigging, not bribery. Plea Hearing Tr. 3/

    (Mr. Sanders), Sentencing Hearing Tr., 7/2/08 at 5 (Mr. Dawson). The purpose of m

    Petitioners propounded discovery is to discern what factual basis exists for the Gov

    to say the opposite.2

    More importantly, even if there was extensive discovery in 2008, this procee

    new issues that were not known then, and shifts the burden of proof.3 When Petitio

    plea to misprision of honest services fraud, it simply was not a material fact for thi

    1 For example, on November 19, 2007, the Government sent Timothy Balducci into the Scruggs Lawduring that visit, the Petitioner explicitly asked Balducci when he would have the jury selection workupcoming Katrina case, the very case that the Government contended was a sham. To this day, the G

    never turned over the tape recordings or FBI reports for that exculpatory conversation, which wouldPetitioner had no knowledge of any bribe or cover-up. Rather than such contemporaneous documenGovernment would apparently prefer to rely upon the unreliable testimony of Timothy Balducci. Whas testified about meetings for which the Government has produced the tapes, Mr. Balducci has repwillingness to stretch the truth, in ways that can be documented. For example, in the grand jury, Mrthat on November 1, 2007, he explicitly told Zach Scruggs about a $10,000 payment to Judge Lackthat Zach Scruggs responded that it was not a problem. In fact, the tape makes it clear that the coni l d di i f d Z h S t d t h t S D E 30

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    5/119

    determine whether Petitioner participated in a bribery scheme, since mere knowled

    earwigging seemed to suffice for the honest services fraud statute. At the sentencin

    this Court so acknowledged, saying that whether it was for money or whatever else

    immaterial; it was a corrupt order. Sentencing Hearing Tr., 7/2/08 at 7:23-24 (em

    added). After Skilling v. U.S., what the Court once considered immaterial is now m

    Thus, several of the requested admissions and interrogatories are focused precisely o

    question, which simply did not exist at the time of Petitioners plea, because all brib

    had been dismissed for lack of evidence. 4

    III. The Revelation of New Evidence Since Petitioners Plea

    The fact that the Petitioner had discovery in the criminal case in 2008 is furt

    insufficient for the present inquiry because the Governments misrepresentation to t

    about Joey Langstons proposed testimony against Petitioner was not revealed until

    long after the criminal case was closed. See Petition, D.E. 303 at 8-10 (laying out

    chronology, based on 2010 affidavits from current and former prosecutors). It goes

    saying that Petitioner could not conduct discovery on prosecutorial misconduct that

    yet know existed, and in fact no such discovery was conducted. Only now do we ha

    Langston, Mr. Farese, and a former prosecutor, Judge Sanders, swearing under oath

    Langston neverimplicated Petitioner, but instead affirmatively exculpated him. Th

    strongly suggest that the Governments representation to this Court was not only fal

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    6/119

    that the representation was false at the time this Court and the Petitioner were relyin

    And no one corrected the record.

    Frankly, this case provides a patent example of the problematic nature of the

    discovery allowed by the criminal rules. In the 2008 criminal proceedings, the Gov

    never required to turn over a 302 Report for Joey Langston, since he did not testify

    and of course Petitioner had no opportunity to depose him or otherwise put him on t

    As long as Mr. Langstons true testimony remained shrouded in secrecy, the Govern

    free to make false representations to the Petitioner and this Court that Mr. Langston

    implicate Petitioner in another case altogether. See Petition, D.E. 303 at 4. Trus

    Government said, and the Petitioner and the Court both relied upon such representa

    Government has not proven anything in this case, except for the fact that trust is eas

    Now, the Government admits that it may have miscommunicated with Joe

    Opposition, D.E. 309 at 8. This is perhaps as close as the Government can come to

    that the Court relied upon it for inaccurate information. But in any event, Petitioner

    know what the Government knew when, and whether the Government now admits t

    had false information. Presumably, the Court will want to be fully informed on this

    was a critical fulcrum for the Courts 404(b) ruling against Petitioner. It was also th

    for the Court's denial of Petitioners Motion for Severance and for the Courts decis

    an anonymous jury Further it was a critical fulcrum in the Petitioners assessment

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    7/119

    benign, negligent, reckless, or intentional. The requested discovery was targeted to

    questions.5

    Similarly, in 2008, there was no opportunity to conduct criminal discovery a

    Governments month-long secret plea negotiations with Petitioners then attorney T

    procure testimony from Joey Langston that it knew could be adverse and prejudicia

    Petitioner, creating a disqualifiable ethical conflict. At that time, neither the Govern

    Mr. Farese notified the Petitioner or the Court of its secret negotiations or its knowle

    conflict. See Petition, D.E. 303 at 32-33. When those secret negotiations culminat

    publicized plea deal for Mr. Langston on January 7, 2008, it then became obvious

    (and the Petitioner) for the first time that Mr. Fareses continued dual-representation

    insurmountable ethical problems.6

    The secret, month-long plea negotiations leading up to that point, and Mr. F

    central role in procuring Mr. Langstons cooperation and adverse testimony despite

    representation of Petitioner, were only revealed in Tom Dawsons attempt to profit p

    from his role as a prosecutor in this case. In December, 2009, Dawson published K

    5See Requests for Admission Nos. 12, 13, 18, 19, 23, and Interrogatories 12, 13, 19, 20 and 21.

    6See Order D.E. 86 (denying a motion for reconsideration for Ken Coghlan to represent Richard Scr

    having previously represented Steve Patterson, writing that: A situation similar to the Coghlan mattwhen attorney Anthony Farese, who represented defendant Zachary Scruggs, took on the representatJoey Langston which Langston pleaded guilty to another charge of judicial bribery and agreed to tespresent case against defendant Richard Scruggs about Langston's knowledge of alleged prior similar S id d f b R l 404(b) th F d l R l f E id Th L t l i

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    8/119

    which revealed that as early as December 10, 2007, the Government expressly infor

    Langston and Tony Farese (Petitioners attorney) that Mr. Langston was a target i

    Delaughter case, and despite that knowledge and the ethical conflict it created, they

    secret negotiations together. See Petition Exh. C., at 181-192. As Mr. Dawson desc

    book, from that moment, the Government planned to plant the seeds of cooperation

    that [Langston] would ultimately plead guilty and testify adversely to the Scruggs d

    Id. Mr. Dawson explains that in that December 10, 2007 encounter, the prosecutor

    Farese immediately understood that Langstons status as a target in the Delaughter c

    conflict of interest for Mr. Langston continuing as an attorney for Dick Scruggs in th

    case, which obviously created the same conflict for Mr. Farese representing both Pe

    Langston. Id., at 181. Mr. Dawsons book shows this inside information about earl

    negotiations, revealing that from the beginning, the Government willfully exploited

    conflict of interests, undermining Petitioners constitutionally protected right to effe

    counsel.

    Mr. Dawsons 2009 book further explains that the Government proceeded w

    month of secret negotiations, using Mr. Farese to secure Mr. Langstons plea and ag

    cooperate with the Government, all without notifying the Petitioner, the other defen

    other joint defense counsel members, or the Court about the conflict the Governmen

    created See Exh C hereto Affidavit of Lead Counsel John Keker (stating that he h

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    9/119

    Langston and Farese made a desperate pitch for immunity, offering to against Scruggs in the Delaughtercase. They argued that the value of Langtestimony would cause Scruggss collapse in both cases, resulting in guilty The specter of Scruggss own lawyer testifying against him wouinsurmountable.

    Petition Exh. C., at 188.

    Mr. Dawsons book goes on to reveal that first thing on the morning of Janu

    the Government, Mr. Langston, and Mr. Farese quickly concluded the prejudicial pl

    had been in the works for almost a month. See Petition Exh. C at 191. Within min

    plea deal had been reached, Mr. Farese went straight to Petitioners office and for th

    asked him to execute a written informed consent to represent Mr. Langston, tellin

    that Langstons Washington, D.C. lawyers asked for the waiver so he [Farese] could

    locally comply with previously served grand jury document subpoenas. Mr. Farese

    signature without informing Petitioner of the negotiations or Mr. Langstons plea, o

    criminal jeopardy at all. Early that same afternoon, Mr. Farese then appeared in Jud

    Mills Court on behalf of Mr. Langston, with the fraudulently induced waiver obtain

    Petitioner in hand, and entered a plea for Mr. Langston. That plea revealed only the

    iceberg.

    Only with the publication of these facts in 2009 did Petitioner Zachary Scrug

    the Government induced his own attorney to procure a witness that the Government

    Court and Petitioner would testify against Zachary Scruggs a witness that created an

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    10/119

    Government now concedes that Mr. Dawsons account is true, then these questions

    dispatched quite quickly.

    Given that the Governments secrecy -- about Mr. Langstons true testimony

    Mr. Fareses dual representation -- is the very problem underlying the Petition, the C

    denying discovery creates a Catch-22. Petitioner alleges that he was prejudiced by

    information and secret negotiations, but the Court says he cannot discover the predi

    about those secrets, because he previously had the opportunity to undertake discove

    those secrets when they were still secret. The discovery allowed in 2255 cases is d

    precisely to resolve this sort of problem. See Conaway v. Polk, 453 F.3d 567, 584 (

    2006) (describing this as a classic catch-22).

    III. This Court Can Permit the Discovery of the Truth.

    This Courts order denying discovery serves to perpetuate the dangerous bus

    relying upon the Governments naked and uncheckable representations, allowing th

    lurch towards a hearing based on rhetoric rather than facts. If limited to the evident

    adduced by the Petitioner and the Government in their briefs, there could be little di

    Petitioner is actually innocent of bribery, a point that the Government acknowledge

    dismissed all bribery charges in 2008 and again in 2010 when they felt the need to s

    the record with new unsubstantiated (and mostly irrelevant) representations

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    11/119

    the truth all along). The Government represents that there is an email regarding the

    that is somehow damning to Petitioner, which the Government declines to exhibit o

    testimony laying a foundation or supporting its interpretation. Trust us, the Gover

    (even though Judge Sanders has already repudiated the claim that the email implica

    Petitioner.) The Government represents that they secured a verbal waiver from Peti

    allowing Mr. Farese to also represent Joey Langston in a plea deal adverse to the Sc

    Petitioner. Trust us, the Government says (even though a verbal waiver of such a

    conflict would be irrational and contrary to the Mississippi Rules of Professional Co

    If not for these naked representations, a hearing on this motion would be alto

    unnecessary. In all fairness, these sorts of new allegations should have been substan

    Governments Brief, and the requested discovery is really just giving the Governme

    chance to do that. Petitioner simply asks for the Government to put its evidence wh

    is, just as the Petitioner did, providing dozens and dozens of citations to the 23 exhi

    to his Petition. See D.E. 303, Exhs. A to W. At the very least, the propounded disc

    attempt to get the Government to clarify what it does and does not contest, given th

    do so in their briefing to date. 9

    8 L l thi t d f P id t f th Mi i i i B Ch T tt h i i d i

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    12/119

    Talk is cheap, Jutzi-Johnson v. U.S., 263 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir., 2001) (J

    reminds us. Courts serve a higher purpose than providing a forum for cheap talk. T

    of courts of justice [is] to ascertain the truth. Brown v. U.S., 356 U.S. 148 (1958).

    IV. Conclusion

    This Court should welcome civil discovery as a mechanism to narrow and c

    basic issues between the parties, and as a device for ascertaining the facts[.] Hickm

    329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). The Court will recall that Petitioner has never conceded

    was a bribery in this case, much less that he participated in a bribery. In contrast, th

    earwigging plea was exceedingly simple he knew that Tim Balducci had an ex pa

    conversation with Judge Lackey. See Factual Basis, D.E. 190. This Court has prov

    hearing that will allow Petitioner to address his actual innocence of any bribery relat

    Narrowing of the issues or discovery of predicate facts will serve the Court by focus

    hearing on contested issues. Respectfully, if there is a case in which it is necessary

    and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and [to] ascertain[] the facts in adv

    hearing, this would be it. It will also provide Petitioner the opportunity for the proc

    due him. After all, the Government has shown itself to be to put it gently unreli

    representations to the Court in this case. Petitioner can only refute what the Govern

    access to the Governments sources.

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

    C 3 07 00192 NBB SAA D 319 Fil d 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    13/119

    Pro hac viceBartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Go715 Swifts HighwayJefferson City, Missouri 65109573-659-4454573-659-4460 (fax)[email protected]

    Christopher T. RobertsonAttorney at LawMS Bar # [email protected] N Via Lomas de PalomaTucson, AZ 85718

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I, Edward D. Robertson, Jr. hereby certify that on March 2, 2011, I served copies o

    to the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi b

    Electronic Court Filing (ECF) system.

    /s/ Edward D. Robertson

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3 07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Doc ment 319 1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    14/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T

    N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F M I S S I S S I P P I

    U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A . D o c k e t N

    .

    P l a i n t i f f . O x f o r d ,

    . J a n u a r y

    v . . 1 0 : 0 0 a .

    .

    R I CH A RD F . " D IC K IE " S C RU G GS .

    D A V I D Z A C H A R Y S C R U G G S .

    S I D N E Y A . B A C K S T R O M .

    .

    D e f e n d a n t s .

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    M O T I O N H E A R I N G

    B E F O R E T H E H O N O R A B L E N E A L B . B I G G E

    U . S . S E N I O R D I S T R I C T J U D G E

    A P P E A R A N C E S :

    F or t he P la in ti ff : U ni te d S ta te s A tt or ne y'

    N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i

    B Y : D A V I D A . S A N D E RS ,

    B Y : R O B E R T H . N O R M A N,

    B Y : T H O M A S W . D A W S O N,

    9 0 0 J e f f e r s o n A v e n u e

    O x f o r d, M i s s i ss i p p i 3 8

    F o r t h e D e f e n d a n t

    R i c h a r d F . " D i c k i e " S c r u g g s :

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3:07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Document 319 1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    15/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    F o r t h e D e f e n d a n t

    D a v i d Z a c h a r y S c r u g g s :

    C H R I S T O P H E R T A R V E R R O B ES c r u g g s L a w F i r m , P A

    1 2 0 - A C o u r t h o u s e S q u a r e

    P o s t O f f i c e B o x 1 1 3 6

    O x f o r d , M i s s i s s i p p i 3 8 6

    6 6 2 - 2 8 1 - 1 2 1 2

    T O D D P . G R A V E S , E S Q .

    N A T H A N G A R R E T T , E S Q .

    G r a v e s , B a r t l e & M a r c u s

    1 1 0 0 M a i n S t r e e t

    S u i t e 2 6 0 0

    K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i 6

    8 1 6 - 2 5 6 - 3 1 7 3

    F o r t h e D e f e n d a n t

    S y d n e y A . B a c k s t r o m :

    F R A N K W . T R A P P , E S Q .

    P h e l p s D u n b a r

    1 1 1 E a s t C a p i t o l S t r e e t

    P o s t O f f i c e B o x 2 3 0 6 6

    J a c k s o n , M i s s i s s i p p i 3 9

    6 0 1 - 3 5 2 - 2 3 0 0

    J . R H E A T A N N E H I L L , J R . ,

    T a n n e h i l l & C a r m e a n , P L

    4 0 0 S o u t h L a m a r B o u l e v a

    P o s t O f f i c e B o x 1 3 8 3

    O x f o r d , M i s s i s s i p p i 3 8 6

    6 6 2 - 2 3 6 - 9 9 9 6

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    16/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    ( C A L L T O O R D E R O F T H E C O U R T )

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g h t . W e h a v e s e v e r a

    f o r h e ar i n g t hi s m o r n in g . T h e o r de r i n w h ic h w e

    t a k e t h e m u p i s t h e m o t i o n b y M r . T o n y F a r e s e t o

    c o u n s el f o r Z ac h S c r u gg s . W e ' l l t ak e t h a t u p f i

    w e ' l l t a k e u p t h e m a t t e r o f w h e t h e r M r . K e n C o g h

    a l l o w e d t o r e p r e s e n t M r . S c r u g g s a f t e r h e ' s p r e v

    r e p r e s e n t e d a c o - d e f e n d a n t w h o m a y b e a w i t n e s s

    M r . S c r u g g s .

    T h e n w e ' l l t a k e u p t h i s m o t i o n b y t h e d e f e n

    p r e v i o u s m o t i o n f i l e d f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e a n d a n e

    p r e t r ia l m o ti o n d e ad l i n e . A n d t he n w e ' ll t a k e u

    d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n f o r d i s c o v e r y , a d d i t i o n a l d i s

    A s f a r a s t h e m a t t e r o f M r . T o n y F a r e s e , h i

    w i t h d r a w e a r l i e r w a s d e n i e d b e c a u s e t h a t w o u l d h

    M r . Z ac h S c ru g g s w it h o u t c o u n s el . I u n d er s t a n d,

    M r . Z ac h S c ru g g s h as e m p lo y e d ot h e r c ou n s e l . A n

    M r . F ar e s e ' s m o t i o n t o w i th d r a w w i l l b e g r a n t ed .

    l o n g e r c o u n s e l i n t h e c a s e .

    A s f a r a s M r . C o g h l a n i s c o n c e r n e d - - i s h e

    M R . K E K E R : I ' m J o h n K e k e r f o r M r . S c r

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    17/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    M r . K e k e r , y o u o r a m e m b e r o f y o u r f i r m h a d c a l l

    a n d h a d a s k e d t o g i v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n a s t o w h y M

    s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o r e p r e s e n t M r . S c r u g g s .

    M R . K E K E R : Y e s , s i r . M r . C o g h l an h a d

    r e p r e s e n t e d D e f e n d a n t S t e v e P a t t e r s o n f o r a b r i e

    t h e t i m e o f b a i l a n d m a y b e f o r t h e f i r s t w e e k o f

    p r o c e e d i n g s u n t i l M r . P a t t e r s o n c h o s e t o g e t d i f

    M r . P a t t e r s o n h a s s a w - - h a s b e e n c o u n s e l e d

    c o u n s e l , M r . E a s t l a n d , a n d h i s o t h e r c o u n s e l t h a

    y e s t e r d a y , a n d h a s s i g n e d a w a i v e r r e c o g n i z i n g h

    r e c o g n i z i n g M r . C o g h l a n ' s d u t i e s t o h i m , w h i c h c

    i s t o k e e p a t t o r n e y / c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e s s a c r o s a n c t

    A n d M r . S c r u g g s h a s b e e n c o u n s e l e d b y m e a b

    p i t f a ll s a n d pr o b l e m s t h a t c ou l d p o s si b l y c om e u

    s i g n e d a w a i v er . W e h a v e b o t h t he P a t t e rs o n w a i

    S c r u g gs ' w a i ve r h e r e in w r i t in g . A n d I ' m h e r e t

    M r . C o gh l a n a nd I h a v e ta l k e d . I t ' s M r . S c r u g gs

    h a v e m e b e l e a d co u n s e l. I f , f o r an y r e a so n , M r

    e n d s u p t e s t i f y i n g i n t h e c a s e , I ' l l e x a m i n e h i m

    M r . C o g h l a n e x a m i n i n g h i m i n e x c e s s o f c a u t i o n .

    A n d t h i s i s a m a t t e r , w h i c h , a s t h e G o v e r n m

    Case 3:07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Document 319 1 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    18/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    c a n k e e p h i m a n d t h i n k t h a t h i s k n o w l e d g e o f t h i

    p r o c e d u r e s , f e d e r a l p r o c e d u r e , f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l

    t h i n g s a r e d o n e l o c a l l y w i l l b e o f g r e a t a s s i s t a

    c a s e .

    A n d t he y ' r e he r e - - a s I sa y , t h ey ' r e he r e .

    o f M r . S c r u g g s o r M r . C o g h l a n , t h e y ' r e r e a d y , w i

    t o a n s we r i t . I f y o u w an t e d t o t a k e t h em b a c k i

    s c r u b t h e m d o w n , y o u c o u l d - - w h a t e v e r y o u n e e d

    p r e p a r e d t o d o .

    T H E C O U R T : L e t m e g e t t h e G o v e r n m e n t '

    t h i s i s s u e .

    M R . D A W S O N : M a y i t p l e a s e t h e C o u r t ,

    M r . C o g h l a n i s a v e r y f i n e l a w y e r a n d a p e r s o n a l

    o f t h e a s s i s t a n t s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y '

    h a s c o nt i n u i ng m a t t e rs w i t h us f r o m t im e t o t im e

    o u r e x p e r i e n c e , c e r t a i n l y , h e i s , a s I s a y , a f i

    v o i c e o f r e a s o n .

    H a v i n g s a i d t h a t , t h e p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s t

    a l l u d e d t o i n o u r b e n c h m e m o r a n d u m , w h i c h w a s f u

    C o u r t a n d t o c o u n s e l , I t h i n k n o w h a v e b l o s s o m e d

    c o n f l i c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o M r . P a t t e r s o n , w h o e n t

    Case 3:07 cr 00192 NBB SAA Document 319 1 Filed 03/02/1

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    19/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    r e p e a ti n g t h at w h i c h wa s i n t he m e m o r an d u m . T h e

    a d d i t i o n t o t h e i s s u e s t h a t w e r e s e t f o r t h i n t h

    a b o u t t h e p o t e n t i a l a n d a c t u a l c o n f l i c t s a n d a l l

    p e r m u t a t i o n s o f t h o s e c o n f l i c t s - - t h e C o u r t h a s

    i n t e r e s t i n s e e i n g t h a t t r i a l s a r e c o n d u c t e d u n d

    e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a n d t h a t t h e

    p e r c e i v e t h e t r i a l s a s b e i n g f a i r a n d i n a c c o r d a

    h i g h l y e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s .

    I f t h e - - a n d a s w e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e m e m o r a

    t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t , i f t h e C o u r t w o u l d b e l e a n i n

    a c c e p t i n g t h e w a i v e r s , w o u l d b e - - i t w o u l d b e n

    t h e C o u r t t o p e r s o n a l l y a d d r e s s b o t h M r . P a t t e r s

    M r . S c r u g g s a n d v o i r d i r e t h e m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t

    u n d e r s t a n d i n g .

    A n d I a m f u l l y a w a r e t h a t M r . S c r u g g s a n d M

    b o t h a r e e d u c a t e d a n d s o p h i s t i c a t e d p e o p l e ; b u t

    e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e a r e c o n f l i c t i s s u e s

    e v e n r e c o g n i z e a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t c o u l d p o p u p m

    d i s r u p t , p o t e n t i a l l y c a u s i n g a m i s t r i a l , s e v e r a n

    s o r t o f t h i n g , t h a t I k n o w t h e C o u r t w a n t s t o a v

    w a n t t o a v o i d .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    20/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    o n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e o f W h e a t v . U n i t e d S t a

    b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s i s a d a n g e r o u s a r e a , a n d i t i s

    u n c e r ta i n t y . B u t w e s t i l l b e l i e ve , a s we s a i d i

    m e m o r a n d u m , t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s g r a n t e d w i d e l a t i

    m a t t e r s .

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i gh t . T h an k y o u. W e

    a n a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t a d e f e n d a n t a f t e r h e ' s

    r e p r e s e n t e d a d e f e n d a n t i n t h e s a m e c a s e a n d t h e

    c a l l e d u p o n t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e o r b e a p a r t o f t h e

    w o u l d c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e p r e v i o u s c l i e n t a n d t h e

    c l i e n t ' s t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h i s p r e s e n t c l i e n t c

    n o t p a s s t h e " s m e l l " t e s t .

    A n d i f i t w e r e f o r t h e - - i f i t w a s t h e s i t

    t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t - - p r e s e n t d e f e n d a n t h a s n o o

    c o u n s e l t h a t h e c o u l d c a l l o n o r c o u l d e m p l o y t o

    d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n t c o u n s e l , t h a t w o u l d b e a s i t

    w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e C o u r t o r m a k e t h e C o u r t l e a n m

    a l l o w i n g M r . C o g h l a n i n .

    M r . C o g h l a n - - I a g r e e w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t '

    a n e x c el l e n t at t o r n e y. H e ' s i n t h i s C o ur t v e r y

    i s a l w a y s - - d o e s a g o o d j o b a n d w e l l r e c e i v e d a

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    21/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    A n d , s o , f o r t h o s e r e a s o n s , t h e m o t i o n t o r

    M r . C o gh l a n a s p a r t o f th i s d e fe n s e t e am w i l l be

    I ' m s u r e C o u n s e l c a n f i n d o t h e r l o c a l c o u n s e l t o

    w h o a r e a l s o e x c e l l e n t a t t o r n e y s i f t h e y w i s h t o

    N o w , a s f a r a s t h e m o t i o n b y t h e d e f e n d a n t s

    m o t i o n f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e t h a t w a s p r e v i o u s l y f i l

    g o i n g t o s p e a k ? M r . T r a p p ?

    M R . T R A P P : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r . Y o u r H o n

    t h a t o ut o f a n a bu n d a n ce o f c a ut i o n . W e w o u ld w

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i gh t . F i ne . T h at t a

    t ha t. A ll r ig ht . T he n - -

    M R . K E K E R : Y o u r H o n o r , c o u l d w e g e t s

    j o i n e d b e c a u s e o f t h e C o u r t ' s o r d e r s , a n d i t w a s

    a b u n d an c e o f ca u t i o n be c a u s e o f t h e C ou r t ' s or d e

    u n d e r s t a n d t h a t a l l m a t t e r s a r e u n s e a l e d , a n d t h

    g o a h e a d a n d f i l e o u r p l e a d i n g s a n d q u o t e w h a t ' s

    a n d s o on ? B e c a u se t h a t ' s t h e - - w e d o n ' t ha v e

    t o t h a t b u t - -

    T H E C O U R T : R i g h t . T h e w a y I ' m l o o k i n

    d i s c o v e r y n o w , M r . K e k e r , i s t h a t a n y t h i n g t h a t

    h a s f u r n i s h e d y o u i n t h e f o r m o f d i s c o v e r y i s a v

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    22/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    M R . D A W S O N : N o , Y o u r H o n o r .

    T H E C O U R T : A ll r ig ht . G oo d. O ka y.

    b r i n g s u s t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l d i s c

    d e f e n da n t s h av e a s k e d f o r . I u n d e r st a n d t ha t c o

    y e s t e rd a y a f te r n o o n ab o u t t he s e i s s ue s . N o w , d o

    c o u n s e l n o w h a v e a l i s t o f t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t y o u

    d e f e n d a n t s s a y t h e y ' r e e n t i t l e d t o a n d t h e G o v e r

    y o u ' r e n o t t h a t y o u w a n t t o g i v e t o m e ?

    M R . K E K E R : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r . A n d i f w

    i t s o m e o f t h e r e s o l v e d m a t t e r s j u s t t o p u t o n t

    w e ' v e b e e n t o l d , I ' m p r e p a r e d t o g o t h r o u g h t h a t

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i gh t . T h at w i ll b e f

    w h a t y o u h a v e t o s a y .

    M R . K E K E R : Y o u r H o n o r - - a n d I w i l l u

    t h a t w e u s e d i n o u r d i s c o v e r y m o t i o n a n d p a r t i c u

    r e p l y b r i e f . T h e y ' r e A - 1 , A - 2 , A - 3 , a n d s o o n .

    c a t e g or y w a s re c o r d e d s t a t e me n t s o f th e d e f en d a n

    t o l d t h a t w e h a v e t h e m a l l w i t h a n e x c e p t i o n , w h

    G o v e r nm e n t ha s a g r ee d t o p r o v i de . A n d t he e x c ep

    r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t t h e a g e n t s o r s o m e b o

    n o n p e r t i n e n t o r r e l e v a n t .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    23/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T H E C O U R T : O k a y . N o w , a s I un d e r s ta n

    c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t w e r e r e c o r d e d , t h e a g e n t s l i s

    o f i t . T h e y - - i f t h e y 'r e o f t he o p i n i on t h a t t

    h a s n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h t h i s c a s e - - f o r e x a m p l e ,

    m a y b e t a l k i n g a b o u t w h a t t h e y h a d f o r d i n n e r l a

    t h e y s t o p l i s t e n i n g .

    M R . K E K E R : W e l l , t h e r e ' s s o m e o f t h a t

    m i n i m iz a t i o n. T h e n t he r e ' s s o m e w he r e t he y d i dn

    l i s t e ni n g , b ut t h e y d id t u r n ou t t o b e ir r e l e va n

    T h u r s d a y , w e g o t t h e c a l l l o g s , w h i c h a r e t h i s t

    ( i n d i c a t i n g ) w h i c h w i l l b e v e r y , v e r y h e l p f u l t o

    t h r o u g h , b e c a u s e t h e r e ' s e n o u g h o f a d e s c r i p t i o n

    u s t o b e a b l e t o f i n d t h e - - w e d o n ' t h a v e s u c h

    a n d g o t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d a s k t h e m , C a n w e h a

    b e c a u s e - - a n d i f w e h a v e a d i s p u t e a b o u t i t , w e

    h a v e t o c o m e b ac k t o C o ur t . B u t I d o n' t t h i nk w

    h a v e a d i s p u t e .

    W e d o h a v e l o t s o f p h o n e r e c o r d s t h a t d o n ' t

    c e r t a in l i s ts t h a t w e h a ve . T h i s i s n o t a q u e s t

    f a i t h ; i t ' s s i m p l y a q u e s t i o n o f e v e r y b o d y t r y i n

    r e a l l y f a s t . A n d i t ' s g o i n g to t a k e u s a w h i l e

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    24/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    e x c e p ti o n s . T h e s e c on d o n e , w r i t t en r e c o r ds , i n

    w e r e t o l d t h a t M r . B a l d u c c i w e n t t o t h e S c r u g g s

    N o v e m b e r 5 t h a n d t h e 1 9 t h ; a n d t h e r e a r e n o r e c o

    v i s i t s. W e h a d a s k e d f o r t h o s e . B u t i f t h e r e 's

    t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g t o f i g h t a b o u t .

    W i t h r e s p e c t t o s t a t e m e n t s o f c o - d e f e n d a n t s

    w e b e l i e v e t h a t w e ' r e e n t i t l e d t o t h o s e i f t h e y

    G i g l i o m a t e r i a l , i f t h e y ' r e f a v o r a b l e t o t h e d e f

    e x c u l pa t o r y . A n d t h e ki n d o f ex a m p l e th a t I w an

    Y o u r H o n o r ' s a t t e n t i o n i s a n e x a m p l e t h a t I s a w

    M r . P a t t e r s o n p l e d .

    M r . P a t t e r s o n a p p a r e n t l y - - I a s s u m e w o u l d

    w h a t h e s a i d t o y o u , w h i c h w a s , c o n t r a r y t o w h a t

    s a y s , h e d i d n o t - - t h e r e w a s n o t a c o n s p i r a c y f

    a t t h a t m e e t i n g w h e r e i t ' s a l l e g e d t h a t P a t t e r s o

    a n d p e o p l e f r o m t h e S c r u g g s L a w F i r m g o t t o g e t h e

    M r . P a t t e r s o n a p p a r e n t l y h a s s a i d t o t h e G o

    d i d n ' t j o i n - - I d i d n ' t t h i n k t h a t m e e t i n g w a s a

    T h a t ' s t h e k i n d o f B r a d y m a t e r i a l t h a t w e b e l i e v

    g i v e n t o u s , a n d t h a t t h a t t r u m p s w h a t e v e r r u l e

    i m p o s e a b o u t Je n c k s . I m e a n , i t ' s n o t s o m e t hi n g

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    25/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    w i l l b e s o .

    M R . K E K E R :T h a n k y o u , Y o u r H o n o r . A n

    t o A - 4 , s t a t e m e n t s o f a l l e g e d c o - d e f e n d a n t s - - a

    t h e y do n ' t ha v e a n y. A n d , so , t h at ' s n o t a n i s s

    T H E C O U R T : W h e r e a r e y o u ? W h a t l i s t

    b y ?

    M R . K E K E R : I ' m l o o k i n g a t o u r r e p l y i

    o u r m o t i o n f o r d i s c o v e r y , a n d I ' m n o w u p t o p a g e

    w h i c h i s B , d o c u m e n t s a n d o b j e c t s .

    T H E C O U R T : O k ay . A l l r i gh t . I ' m w i t

    M R . K E K E R : A n d t h o s e t h r e e b u l l e t p o i

    o n t h a t p a g e w e d i s c u s s e d , a n d t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o

    t h e y ' d g i v e n us a l l o f th a t . A n d , s o , t h e r e 's n

    t h o s e t h r e e b u l l e t p o i n t s .

    T H E C O U R T : O k a y .

    M R . K E K E R : W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a f f i d a

    a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r t h e L a n g s t o

    d i s c u s s e d t h a t a n d l e a r n e d t h i s m o r n i n g t h a t t h e

    t o g i v e u s t h a t se a r c h wa r r a n t a f f i d a vi t a s w e' v

    t h a t ' s - - w e h a v e n ' t g o t t e n i t y e t , b u t w e ' l l g e

    I b e l i e v e .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    26/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h e y i n t e n d t o f i l e a 4 0 4 ( b ) n o t i c e i n t h e f u t u r

    t o t h a t W i l s o n c a s e a n d w h a t e v e r y b o d y , I g u e s s ,

    r e a d i ng a b o u t i n t h e p ap e r , M r. L a n g s to n ' s p le a

    t h a t w i l l b e t h e s u b j e c t o f l i t i g a t i o n a b o u t w h e

    i t ' s p ro p e r 4 04 ( b ) e v id e n c e . A n d i t - - b a s i c al l

    d o u b l ed t h e c a s e . B u t w e' l l g et t o t ha t i n a m i

    T H E C O U R T : O k a y . S o t h e r e ' s n o i s s u e

    M R . K E K E R : T h e r e ' s n o i s s u e o n t h a t ,

    T h e r e i s a n i s s u e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e t e n - d a y r e

    B - 2 o n p a g e 6 . A n d t h i s i s w h a t t h e i s s u e i s :

    c o u r t s h a v e o r d e r e d t h e t u r n i n g o v e r o f t e n - d a y

    w i r e t a p s , o t h e r c o u r t s h a v e n o t .

    B u t t h e r e a s o n t h e y ' r e i m p o r t a n t i n t h i s c a

    t h e r e ' s , w e b e l i e v e , a n i m p o r t a n t F r a n k s v . D e l a

    a b o u t w h a t w a s o m i t t e d f r o m t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t a

    t h e w ir e t a p a p p l i ca t i o n s t h a t we r e s u bm i t t e d t o

    t h a t - - a n d o u r a r g u m e n t w i l l b e o n m o t i o n s t h a t

    b e e n p r o p e r l y f u l l y o u - - p r o b a b l e c a u s e w o u l d n

    e s t a b li s h e d . A n d w e ' ve r a i s ed i n t h a t m o t i o n t o

    o f t h o s e t h i n g s .

    I m e a n , f o r e x a m p l e , o n S e p t e m b e r 2 7 w h e n M

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    27/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T h e t e n - d a y r e p o r t s a r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e a u

    j u d g e . I n t h i s c a s e , I u n d e r st a n d i t w a s y o u .

    s e e - - b e c a u s e t h e r e ' s a w i l l f u l n e s s e l e m e n t t o

    t o s e e w h a t t h e y ' r e p r o v i d i n g y o u i n a s k i n g f o r

    w i r e t ap a p p l ic a t i o ns . A n d o u r a r g u m e nt w i l l be ,

    w h a t ' s i n t h e r e , t h a t i f f a v o r a b l e e x c u l p a t o r y i

    M r . S c r u g g s i s w e l l - k n o w n t o t h e a g e n t s a n d t h e y

    y o u a b o u t i t , t h e n t h a t s h o w s w i l l f u l n e s s , w h i c h

    i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f F r a n k s v . D e l a w a r e. S o - -

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , l e t ' s s e e n o w . I w a

    G o v e r nm e n t ' s r e s p o n se t o t h is . T h i s i s an a r e a

    a g e n u i n e i s s u e b e t w e e n c o u n s e l .

    M R . K E K E R : I a g re e . Y e s , s i r.

    T H E C O U R T : S o l e t m e - - i s t h a t a l l y

    a b o u t w h y y o u s h o u l d b e p r o v i d e d t h e t e n - d a y r e p

    G o v e r n m e n t ?

    M R . K E K E R : Y e s , s i r , I ' m d o n e w i t h t h

    T H E C O U R T : A s I u n d e r s t a n d w h a t y o u ' r

    t h e r e w a s a - - i n t h o s e t e n - d a y r e p o r t s , t h e r e w

    a p p l i c a t i o n t o c o n t i n u e t h e t e n - d a y - - t h e w i r e t

    a d d i t io n a l ti m e . T h e n th e r e wa s k i n d o f a sy n o p

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    28/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T H E C O U R T : T h a t ' s w h a t y o u w a n t .

    M R . K E K E R :

    Y e s , s i r , t h a t ' s w h a t w e w

    T H E C O U R T : O k a y . L e t me h ea r fr o m t h

    t h a t i s s u e , t h e n w e ' l l g o t o t h e n e x t o n e .

    M R . S A N D E R S : A s t o t h a t i s s u e , Y o u r H

    m e n t i o n e d t h a t h e - - t h e r e m a y b e a F r a n k s v . D e

    t h e a ff i d a v it s . T h e c as e s - - m o s t o f t h e c as e s

    d i s c u s s e d t h i s i s s u e , t e n - d a y r e p o r t s , r e f e r t o

    c o u p l e o f t h e m I r e f e r t o i n m y r e s p o n s e , t h e C h

    a n d t he O r o zc o d e c is i o n . T h i s is t h e pr e c i s e i s

    d i s c u s s e d i n t h o s e o p i n i o n s .

    A n d t h e p o i n t t h e c o u r t s m a d e t h e n , i n t h o s

    i t s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t - - i s i f t

    t h e r e a r e F r a n k s i s s u e s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t s , f o r t

    a p p l i c a t i o n s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n t h o s

    d e t e r m i n e d a n d a r e t o b e d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e f a c

    a p p l i ca t i o n s. I f t h e y be l i e v e t h e y n e ed t o s e e

    t h e i n t e r i m f r o m t h e f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e e x

    t h e y ' v e g o t t h e p h o n e c a l l s t h e m s e l v e s .

    S o i f i t ' s t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s o m e t h i n g

    f r o m t h e C o u r t a f t e r o u r f i r s t a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    29/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T h e y ' ve g o t th o s e ph o n e ca l l s . I t ' s cl e a r

    r e g u l a r p h o n e c a l l s d u r i n g t h a t 3 0 - d a y p e r i o d t h

    e x t r e me l y r e le v a n t a nd e x t r em e l y i n cr i m i n at i n g .

    p o i n t in p r o v id i n g t e n- d a y r ep o r t s . T h e r u le s d

    f o r t e n- d a y r ep o r t s . T h e s t at u t e s d on ' t p r ov i d e

    r e p o r t s .

    T h e c a s e s t a l k a b o u t t h i s i s b e s t d e t e r m i n e

    t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s a n d t h e a f f i d a v i t s a n d t h e o r d e

    l o g s , an d w e ' ve p r o v i de d a l l of t h a t t o t h e m . I

    t h a t , w e ' v e p r o v i d e d r e c o r d i n g s o f t h e p h o n e c a l

    S o t h e r e ' s j u s t n o t h i n g o u t t h e r e t o s u p p o r t a n y

    t h e s e t e n - d a y r e p o r t s .

    I n a d d i t i o n t o t h a t , t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f l a y

    w h a t w e a r e t o p r o v i d e t o t h e m a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y

    s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e d i t , b u t i t ' s s i m p l y n o t t h

    b e l i e v e i t ' s 1 8 , s u b s e c t i o n 7 t a l k s a b o u t w h a t t

    i s t o g i v e t h e m a n d d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t h a t w e g i v

    r e p o r ts . T h e y ' ve g o t -- t h e t e n - d a y r e p o r ts a r e

    s u m m a r i e s o f w h a t t h e y ' v e g o t .

    M R . K E K E R : M a y I r e s p o n d v e r y b r i e f l y

    H o n o r ?

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    30/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    s p e c i f i c h e r e , t h e y g o t a w i r e t a p u p a n d r u n n i n g

    2 7 .

    O n S e pt e m b e r 2 7 , B al d u c c i g i v e s mo n e y to J u

    S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , J u d g e L a c k e y s a y s , " N o w , t h i s m o n e

    S c r u g gs , r i g h t ?" B a l d u cc i s a y s , " N o . " " S c r u gg s

    t h i s , r i g h t ?" B a l d u c ci s a y s , " N o . " A n d t h e n l a

    b a c k an d g e t a n e x t en s i o n o f t h at w i r e ta p . T h e y

    e x t e n s i o n o f - - t h e y g e t a w i r e t a p o n P a t t e r s o n '

    I f t h e r e ' s s o m e t a i n t e a r l y o n h e r e , w e n e e

    p r o v e th a t i t wa s d e l i be r a t e an d s o o n . T h e t e n

    a r e p a r t o f t h i s p a t t e r n o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o t

    w i l l be i m p or t a n t fo r u s t o m a ke t h a t s h o w i ng .

    t h e y ' re m a te r i a l t o t he d e fe n s e . T h e r e fo r e , t h e

    d i s c o ve r a b l e u n d e r R u l e 1 6 . T h a t ' s t h e - -

    T H E C O U R T : I s y o u r i s s u e , y o u r r e q u e s

    p o s s i b l e B r a d y m a t e r i a l t h a t y o u m i g h t f i n d i n t

    i s i t b a s e d o n a l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t m i g

    c o n t i n u e t h e w i r e t a p ?

    M R . K E K E R : I t ' s b a s e d o n t h e f a c t t h a

    w o u l d b e e v i d e n c e , d e p e n d i n g o n w h a t ' s i n t h e m o

    o f d e l i b e r a t e n e s s o n t h e p a r t o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t ,

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    31/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h e n t h a t ' s g o i n g t o b e p a r t o f o u r s h o w i n g , n o t

    s h o w i n g , b u t p a r t o f o u r s h o w i n g o n t h i s i s s u e o

    d e l i b e r a t e n e s s a n d r e c k l e s s n e s s .

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g h t . T h e m o t i o n - -

    t h e - - th e t e n -d a y r e p or t s w i ll b e d e n ie d . C o u n

    a c t u a l t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t h a t w e r e m a d e a n d t h e - -

    j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i n t h e C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , o f a d d i n g

    o f m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g i n t h i s c a s e b y t u r

    s y n o p s e s o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s .

    A n d i f t h e r e ' s a n y B r a d y m a t e r i a l a n y w h e r e ,

    b u r d e n o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o - - i n t h e s e t e n - d a y

    t h e b u r d e n o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o p r o d u c e i t , j u s t

    b u r d e n o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t t o p r o d u c e i t f r o m a n y

    a n d n o t t h e p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l o o k

    i n t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s f i l e t o s e e i f t h e y c a n f i n d

    m a t e r i a l .

    A l l r i g h t . W h a t i s y o u r n e x t a r e a ?

    M R . K E K E R : N e x t o n e , Y o u r H o n o r , o n p

    I t ' s t he B a l d uc c i / J u dg e L a c ke y r e c o rd i n g s . A n d

    h a s t o l d u s t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o r e c o r d i n g s b e t w e e

    a n d J u dg e L a c ke y p r i o r t o M a y 4. A n d w e ha d a s k

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    32/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h o s e n o n r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t s a r e B r a d y a n d G i g l i

    w e ' r e en t i t l ed t o i t . B u t a p pa r e n t ly , t h e r e' s n

    i s su e t h er e . F r an k .

    M R . T R A P P : Y o u r H o n o r , m a y I a d d r e s s

    a l s o ? I h a d m a d e a r e q u e st . T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

    p r o d u ce d t o u s tw o t a p e c a s s e tt e s . O n e m a rk e d M

    m a r k e d M a y t h e 4 t h . T h e r e ar e q u o t es t h a t co m e

    3 r d t a p e i n t h e a f f i d a v i t o f t h e F B I a g e n t , M r .

    W h e n w e a s k e d i n i t i a l l y - - t h o s e t w o c a s s e t

    3 r d a n d t h e M a y 4 t h c a s se t t e , co n t a i n ed t h e s am e

    w e s i m p l y a s k e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o g i v e u s a c

    t h o s e tw o r e c or d i n g s . F o r t h is t a p e r ec o r d i ng t

    t o u s m a r k e d M a y 3 r d , Y o u r H o n o r , t h e y h a v e a l o

    s t a r t ta p i n g an d t h i n gs o f t h at n a t u r e. A n d w e

    w a s - - t h e y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h a t w a s a M a y 3 r d r e c

    N o w , t h e r e a s o n a l l o f t h i s i s m o r e r e l e v a n

    m y c l i e n t t h a n a n y b o d y i s t h a t O v e r t A c t N o . 5 a

    t h e i n d i c t m e n t b o t h r e f l e c t a c o n t e n t i o n t h a t m y

    e - m a i le d a M a y 4 o r d e r to T i m B al d u c c i on M a y t h

    4 t h o r Ma y 3 r d , w h i c h e ve r - - I gu e s s i t 's n o w M a

    l e a r n e d t h a t y e s t e r d a y - - o r r e a l l y t h i s m o r n i n g

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    33/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h o u g ht s o f w ha t J u d g e L a c k e y o u g h t t o c o n s i de r .

    t o t h e p o i n t I w a n t t o m a k e a t t h i s p o i n t , i f t h

    m i n d , i s i f t h e r e ' s a c t u a l l y n o t a r e c o r d i n g f o r

    w o u l d a s k t h a t w e b e g i v e n a c o p y o f w h a t e v e r r e

    o f t h e M a y 3 r d c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n J u d g e L a c k e y

    B e c a u s e i f t h e r e a r e q u o t e s w i t h i n t h e a f f i

    M r . D e l a n e y - - t h e r e a r e q u o t e s i n t h e i n d i c t m e n

    t h a t a r e s u p p o s e t o r e f l e c t d i r e c t q u o t e s o f w h a

    t h a t c on v e r s at i o n . A n d a s ou r m o t i on f o r a co n t

    t h i s C o u r t , t h i n g s h a v e b e e n t a k e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y

    c o n t e x t ; a n d w e a r e e n t i t l e d t o s e e t h a t - - f r o m

    q u o t e - - w h a t e v e r t h a t q u o t e w a s e x t r a c t e d f r o m ,

    t o s e e i t ; a n d p l e a s e t h e C o u r t o r d e r i t b e p r o v

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g h t . O n wh a t g r o u n d

    t o c l e ar t h i s up n o w . O n w h a t g r o u n d s d o y o u co

    w o u l d b e e n t i t l e d t o t h a t , i f t h e r e w a s ?

    M R . T R A P P : B e c a u s e , Y o u r H o n o r , w e b e

    r e f l e c t i o n o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n B a l d u c c i a n

    i t ' s c on s i s t en t w i t h th e o t h er s t h a t th e y ' v e p r o

    s e c o n d l y , Y o u r H o n o r - -

    T H E C O U R T : O k a y . B u t a t t h a t p o i n t ,

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    34/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    h a v e t a k e n t h a t q u o t e , w h a t e v e r i t w a s r e c o r d e d

    t h a t q u o t e i n o r d e r t h a t w e c a n s e e t h e t r u e c o n

    i t ' s m a d e .

    M R . K E K E R : Y o u r H o n o r , t h e q u o t e w o u l

    k n o w n go v e r n me n t a g e nt , J u d ge L a c k e y. T h a t ' s w h

    r e p o r te d w h a t h a p p e n ed . I f t h e y d i d n ' t re c o r d i

    p l a c e th e y c o ul d h a v e go t t e n it i s J u d ge L a c k ey .

    p u t s i t i n t h e af f i d a v it , p u t s q u o t e s ar o u n d it .

    t h a t i t ' s i n c o r r e c t .

    T H E C O U R T : I a g r e e t h a t w o u l d b e a b a

    o v e r . A l l r i g h t . I ' m g o i n g t o a s k f o r t h e G o v e

    r e s p o ns e o n t h i s . M r . S an d e r s , y o u c a n u s e t hi s

    C o u n s e l w o n ' t h a v e t o k e e p s h u f f l i n g h i s p a p e r s

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r . Y o u r H o n o r , j

    c l e a r , t h e r e wa s n o r e co r d i n g o f t h e M ay 3 r d c on

    t h a t ' s - - w e 'v e c l a ri f i e d t h a t . W e d i d g i v e th e

    c a s s e tt e s . O n e h a d Ma y t h e 3r d w r i t te n o n i t; o

    4 t h w r i t t en o n i t . T h a t w a s a m i s t a k e. T h e y w e

    s a m e c o n v e r s a t i o n , a n d i t w a s m a d e o n M a y t h e 4 t

    T h e q u o t e s t h a t t h e y c o n t i n u e t o r e f e r t o c

    s t a t e me n t s fr o m J u dg e L a ck e y t o A g e n t De l a n e y.

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    35/119

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    36/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    I f - - I t h i n k t h e y ' r e a r g u i n g t h a t t h e i r g r o u n d s

    p r o d u c e t h a t i s t h a t w e ' v e s o m e h o w b e e n d i s h o n e s

    s o m e t hi n g d i sh o n e s t in a n a f fi d a v i t . T h a t ' s s i m

    c a s e .

    B u t t h e y c o u l d d o t h a t w i t h a n y t h i n g w e ' v e

    G i v e i t t o u s ; we d o n ' t be l i e v e y o u . I t c o m es o

    L a c k e y' s s t a te m e n t . J u d g e La c k e y g av e t h a t s t a t

    G o v e r nm e n t . T h a t c le a r l y f a l l s w i t h i n t h e J en c k

    M R . K E K E R : W e d o n ' t n e e d t h e w h o l e s t

    n e e d t h e p a r t o f t h e s t a t e m e n t w h e r e J u d g e - - t h

    t h e i n d i c t m e n t u n d e r O v e r t A c t 4 , q u o t e , " T h e y h

    t h e i r st r a t e gy . " I f t h e st a t e m en t d o e s n' t s a y t

    t h o s e w o r d s , i t ' s m a t e r i a l t o t h e d e f e n s e t o b r i

    m o t i o n s .

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , y o u ' l l b e g i v e n t h e

    n o t e s -- J u d g e L a c k e y 's s t a t em e n t a t a l a t e r da t

    p o i n t , n o . A t a la t e r d a t e . A n d w e ' l l g e t i n t o

    t i m i n g a t a l a t e r t i m e d u r i n g t h i s h e a r i n g .

    M R . K E K E R :

    U n d e r st o o d . Y o u r H o n o r , t

    4 , r e c or d i n g s o f d e f e nd a n t s , w e ' v e t al k e d a bo u t .

    p a g e 7 a r e t r a n s cr i p t s . A n d t h i s i s j u s t t o r e p

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    37/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    W e t a l k e d a b o u t g e t t i n g t r a n s c r i p t s t h a t t h

    u s e a n d t r a n s cr i p t s o f t h e s e ca l l s i n mi d - D e ce m b

    t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y w e r e b e i n g p r o o f r e a d , a n d w e w

    t h e m . W e ' v e b e e n a s k i n g b a c k a n d f o r t h . A n d a s

    s t a t e of p l a y is t h i s : M r . S a nd e r s p l an s b y n ex

    w e e k f r o m F r i d a y , w h a t e v e r t h a t i s , e i g h t d a y s ,

    h e r e , t o g i v e u s a l i s t o f t h e c a l l s f o r w h i c h t

    t r a n s c r i p t s .

    M r . S a n d e r s i s n o t i n a p o s i t i o n , w a s n ' t y e

    t e l l u s w h e n t ho s e t r a ns c r i p ts w i l l b e a v a i l ab l e

    t r a n s c r i p t s t h a t t h e y p l a n t o u s e i n t h e t r i a l a

    1 6 m a t e r i a l ; t h e y ' v e g o t t o t u r n t h e m o v e r .

    A n d o n c e w e g e t t h e m , w e c a n a n t i c i p a t e s o m

    d i s p u t e s a b o u t w h a t - - t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e t r a n s

    t o t a l k a n d e v er y b o d y wo u l d w an t t o g o ba c k a n d

    w e ' l l r e s o l v e m o s t o f t h o s e , b u t m a y b e s o m e o f t

    t o b e b ro u g h t to y o u . A n d t h en w e n e e d t o l o o k

    t r a n s c r i p t s a n d t h i n k , W e l l , w e n e e d t h e s e o t h e r

    o r , W e ne e d m o re t h a n t he y p l a n t o p u t i n. A n d

    m a k e o ur o w n t ra n s c r i pt s f o r th a t . S o t h a t' s g o

    b i g p r o b l e m a n d a c a u s e o f g r e a t d e l a y .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    38/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    a n d i f y o u w a n t t o l i s t e n y o u c a n ; b u t i t ' s a l o

    r e a d i t . W e c a n ' t d o t h a t n o w . A n d I ' m n o t - -

    o n i t , b u t i t ' s n o t f i t t i n g i n t o t h e s c h e d u l e t h

    u p f o r m o t i o n s a n d t r i a l o n t h i s c a s e .

    T H E C O U R T : W h a t ' s y o u r p o s i t i o n o n t h

    M r . S a n d e r s ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r . W e ' v e

    t h i s wi t h d ef e n s e co u n s e l. A g e n t De l a n e y i s w o r

    v i r t u a l l y - - o r n o t v i r t u a l l y , i s w o r k i n g e v e r y

    t r a n s cr i p t s . W e d o n 't h a v e a t e a m a v a i l ab l e t o

    t r a n s cr i p t s , b u t t h a t' s w h a t h e ' s d o in g . A s r e c

    m o r n i n g , h e b r o u g h t t h e m - -

    T H E C O U R T : W h e n y o u s a y " h e ' s w o r k i n g

    d o e s t h a t m e a n ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : H e i s s i t t i n g a t a t y p e w

    e a r p h on e s a n d i s t y p i ng . H e ' s n ot n e c e s sa r i l y s

    b u t h e i s - - a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , a s r e c e n t l y a s

    h e b r o u g h t u s a g r o u p o f t r a n s c r i p t s t h a t w e p l a

    t o t h e m w h i l e t h e y ' r e s t i l l h e r e i n t o w n .

    M R . K E K E R : T h a t ' l l b e t h e f i r s t t r a n s

    s e e n , wh i c h i s g r e a t . A n d a g ai n , I ' m no t c a s ti n

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    39/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t r a n s c r i p t s o f t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t

    i n t r o du c e a t th e t r i a l? O f c o u rs e , t h e tr a n s c ri

    e v i d e n c e .

    M R . K E K E R : W e a g r e e , Y o u r H o n o r ; b u t

    g o i n g t o l o o k a t t h e m - -

    T H E C O U R T : I t ' s j u s t a n a id f or t he j

    a r e a l w a y s i n s t r u c t e d a n d w i l l b e i n s t r u c t e d t h a

    a n y c o n f l i c t i n t h e r e c o r d i n g s w i t h t h e c o n v e r s a

    d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e t r a n s c r i p t , t h e y ' r e t o d i s r

    t r a n s cr i p t a nd g o b y t he r e c o rd i n g . S o i t ' s n o t

    t h i s t r a n s c r i p t i s e v i d e n c e .

    M R . K E K E R : W o n ' t t h e t r a n s c r i p t g o i n

    r o o m , Y o u r H o n o r , a s a n a i d ?

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , p o s s i b l y .

    M R . K E K E R : Y e ah . I m e an , I u n de r st a n

    t h e r u l e s , b u t - -

    T H E C O U R T : I k n o w y o u d o .

    M R . K E K E R : - - t r a n s c r i p t s n e e d t o b e

    T H E C O U R T : E x ac t ly . I a g re e . A n d w h

    a n t i c i p a t e y o u c a n d o t h i s , g e t i t c o m p l e t e d ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : I f I c o u l d , Y o u r H o n o r ,

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    40/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    a l r e a dy p a r t i al l y t r a n s cr i b e d . T h e y ' r e n o t c o m p

    m i g h t be s o m e th a t h a v en ' t b e en s t a r t ed a t a l l y

    s u r e . T h e t ra n s c r ip t s I tu r n e d o v e r t o M r . S an d

    m o r n i n g - - t h e r e w e r e s e v e n o f t h e m - - r e l a t e t o

    r e c o r d i n g s t h a t w e r e d o n e i n C a l h o u n C i t y a n d s o

    r e c o r d i n g s t h a t M r . B a l d u c c i m a d e .

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , M r . S a n d e r s , h a v e y o

    D e l a n e y - - I w o u l d h o p e t h a t t h e F B I c a n p u t m o r

    t h i s t h a n o n e m a n l i s t e n i n g t o t h e m a n d t y p i n g .

    M R . D E L A N E Y : W h a t ' s b e e n g o i n g o n , Y o

    t h a t w e h a v e a s t e n o t h a t t a k e s t h e r e c o r d i n g a n

    t h e t a pe a n d d oe s a f i r st d r a f t. A n d t h en I h a v

    t h r o u g h t h a t a n d m a k e t h e c o r r e c t i o n s a n d a d d i t i

    o m i s s i o n s i n t h e r e .

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g h t . H a v e y o u , M r .

    t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s a t t o r n e y s , f u r n i s h e d t o M r . D e l

    s p e c i f i c r e c o r d i n g s y o u w a n t e d t r a n s c r i p t s o f ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s, Y o ur H o no r . N o t e v

    g o t o n es t h a t he ' s n o t ye t c o m pl e t e d . A n d a s he

    t h o s e , w e ' r e r e p e a t i n g a n d r e p e a t i n g a n d l i s t e n i

    o v e r a n d a g a i n , o b v i o u s l y , d e c i d i n g p r e c i s e l y w h

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    41/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T H E C O U R T : N o . W h e n e v e r y t hi n g w i l l

    M R . S A N D E R S : ( I n d i c a t i n g ) .

    M R . D E L A N E Y : D o y o u h a v e a r o u g h i d e a

    t a l k i n g a b o u t ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : P r o b a b l y - - I d o n ' t k n o w

    c a l l s , s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t .

    M R . D E L A N E Y : O n e t o t w o w e e k s .

    M R . S A N D E R S : O n e t o t w o w e e k s , Y o u r H

    h e s a y s h e c a n d o i t w h e n I - - I c a n g e t h i m t h e

    e n d o f t h e w e e k e n d .

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i gh t . O k ay .

    M R . K E K E R : I n f a i r n e s s t o A g e n t D e l a n

    h e ' s no t g o in g t o fi n i s h i t i n o n e o r t w o w ee k s .

    g o i n g t o k n o w w h a t t h e y w a n t u n t i l a f t e r - - u n t i

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , t h a t ' s t r u e . I u n d e

    M r . S a n d e r s i s s a y i n g h e c a n g i v e M r . D e l a n e y t h

    w a n t s t r a n s c r i p t s o f .

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r .

    T H E C O U R T : B e f o r e M r . D e l a n e y f i n i s h e

    t h a t h e w a s f u r n i s h e d .

    M R . D E L A N E Y : Y o u r H o n o r , I d o h a v e w i

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    42/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h a t ' s g o i n g t o d i m i n i s h t h a t l i s t s o m e w h a t .

    T H E C O U R T : T o d a y i s t h e 1 6 t h . S a y t w

    T h a t ' l l b e t h e 3 0 t h i t w i l l b e i n t h e h a n d s o f t

    b y . Y o u k no w , t h is d o e s n o t a pp e a r t o b e a bi g

    b e c a u s e , a s I s a i d , t h e t r a n s c r i p t s a r e m e r e l y a

    l i s t e ni n g t o t h e c o nv e r s a ti o n s . T h e d ef e n d a nt s

    d e f e n d a n t s w a n t e d - - w e l l , t h e y c o u l d m a k e t h e i r

    t r a n s c r i p t s a n d c o m p a r e t h e m i f t h e y w a n t e d t o o

    f u r n i s h e d .

    M R . K E K E R : W e w er e - - w e c an a n d m a y b

    w e w e r e t o l d i n D e c e m b e r t h a t w e ' d g e t t h e t r a n s

    t h e n w e' d g o f ro m t h e r e. W e - - t h is i s n o as p e r

    g o i n g t o b e d o n e - - i f y o u r e m e m b e r , d i s c o v e r y w

    d o n e b y D e c e m be r 2 7 t h . S o w e ' v e b e e n w a i t i ng .

    o u t w h a t t h e s t a t e o f p l a y i s ; w e ' r e g o i n g t o h a

    s t a r t d o i n g o u r o w n . B u t i t ' s j u s t a p r o b l em .

    p r o b l e m t h a t ' s a n y b o d y ' s f a u l t ; i t ' s j u s t a p r o b

    h o p i n g t h a t w e ' r e r e a l i s t i c a b o u t i t i n s e t t i n g

    t h a t ' s a l l .

    T H E C O U R T : I u n d e r st a n d . I d o n o t c o

    t r a n s cr i p t s d i s c o v er y . T h a t ' s s o m e t h in g t h ey ' l l

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    43/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    g o o d m o t i o n , w e ' v e g o t - - w e c a n ' t j u s t g i v e y o u

    d o n ' t th i n k . I d o n ' t th i n k y ou ' d l i k e i t m u c h,

    l i s t e n t o t h e m .

    T H E C O U R T : T h at ' s r i gh t . O k ay . W e ll

    t h i s u nd e r a d vi s e m e n t. J a n u a ry 3 0 t h , tr a n s c ri p t

    w i l l b e f i n i s h e d .

    M R . K E K E R : A n d , Y o u r H o n o r , t h e 6 t h ,

    s e a r c h o f t h e S c r u g g s L a w F i r m - - a n d n o w t h i s s

    e x p a n de d t o t h e s e ar c h o f t h e L an g s t o n L a w F ir m .

    c a s e s , a g e n t s s e a r c h e d t h o s e f i r m s a n d t o o k a w a y

    a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l a n d h a v e t u r n e d t h a t o v e r t o

    i n d e p e n d e n t p r o s e c u t o r s n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e a c t u

    T h e y ' r e g o i n g t h r o u g h i t l o o k i n g f o r r e l e v a

    T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s a g r e e d t o a p r o c e d u r e t h a t w e

    i n o u r m o t i o n , w h i c h i s t h a t t h e t a i n t t e a m w o u l

    j u s t t u r n o v e r w h a t e v e r i t w a s t o t h e s e p r o s e c u t

    w o u l d g i v e u s s o m e t h i n g a k i n t o a p r i v i l e g e l o g ;

    w o u l d kn o w w h at t h e y ' re g o i n g t o t u r n ov e r . A n d

    o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t o n p r i v i l e g e g r o u n d s , w e c o u l d

    w i t h t he m . A n d i f w e c o u l d n' t r e s o lv e i t w it h t

    b r i n g i t t o y o u .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    44/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t c o

    i s w h a t , f r o m t h o s e s e a r c h e s , d o e s t h e G o v e r n m e n

    i n t r o du c i n g at t h e t r ia l ? A s I u n d er s t a n d i t , y

    m e a n , I d i d n o t i s s u e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r t h e L

    F i r m . B u t a s I un d e r s ta n d i t , t h e S c r ug g s L a w F

    i n t e r e s t e d i n w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s e c h e c k s w e r e -

    n o t t h e r e w a s s o m e c o v e r - u p o f t h e m o n e y t h a t w a

    B a l d u c c i t o m a k e i t l o o k l i k e i t w a s m o n e y f o r a

    w o r k i n g o n a n d t o s e e i f t h e r e w a s a n y s u c h c a s e

    I s t h a t b a s i c a l l y w h a t y o u ' r e i n t e r e s t e d i n ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r , Y o u r H o n o r . T

    a d d i t io n t o a n e - m a i l . W e w e r e l o o k i n g f o r a s p

    t h a t w a s s e n t , w i t h r e g a r d t o w h a t y o u ' r e t a l k i n

    T H E C O U R T : A l l r i g h t . N o w - - so d o y

    t h a t w ou l d b e -- t h o s e ma t e r i al s w o u l d b e d i s co v

    w o u l d b e i f y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o s h o w - - i n t r o d u c e d

    t h e t r i a l t h a t c a m e f r o m t h a t s e a r c h .

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r , Y o u r H o n o r . A

    w i t h th e m a bo u t t h is y e s te r d a y . T h e i nf o r m a ti o n

    l o o k i n g f o r w i t h t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t o f t h e S c r u g

    s o s p ec i f i c t h a t i t' s - - t h i s wo n ' t b e a n i s su e .

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    45/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    a d d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e i n t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t , " a n y

    d o c u m en t s . " I t h i n k th e r e w as s o m e a dd i t i o na l l

    t h e y we r e c on c e r n ed m a y be v o l um i n o u s . I t ' s no t

    w e ' v e d i s c u ss e d i t w i t h th e m . S o I t hi n k w e r e s

    i s s u e .

    T H E C O U R T : I s i t r e s o l v e d w i t h y o u , M

    M R . T R A P P : W e l l , t h e r e ' s a p a r t i c u l a r

    t h e y w er e l o o ki n g f o r wh e n t h ey c o n d u ct e d t h e s e

    c o p i e d t h e c o m p u t e r s i n t h e S c r u g g s L a w F i r m t o

    p a r t i cu l a r e -m a i l . I t ' s O ve r t A c t 5, Y o u r Ho n o r

    o f t h e i n d i c tm e n t . I t ' s th e s p ec i f i c wi r e t ha t

    f o u n d a t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s f o r C o u n t 5 o f

    i n d i c t m e n t .

    W e h a ve n ' t b ee n a b le t o lo c a t e it . A n d w e

    w h e n e v e r t h e t a i n t t i m e t e a m g i v e s a r e p o r t - - w

    b a s e d o n w h a t w e k n o w n o w , t h a t t h e y w i l l c o n f i r

    w e r e n ot a b l e to l o c a t e i t . T h a t p u ts u s - - it '

    f o r t h e m t o b r i n g B a l d u c c i i n t o s a y , " I s e n t o n

    k n o w wh y i t 's n o t on t h e ir c o m pu t e r . " I t ' s a l o

    d i f f i c u l t f o r u s t o p r o v e t h e n e g a t i v e o f t h a t ,

    S o w e n e e d t o k n o w n o t o n l y t h e r e p o r t b u t

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    46/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    t h e n e g a t i v e a t t r i a l .

    A n d t h e n , s e c o n d l y , w e o u g h t t o - - I d o n ' t

    r e c e i v e d a n y m a t e r i a l s t h a t t h e y h a v e s e i z e d o r

    M r . B a l d u c c i a n d h i s f i r m a s i t e x i s t e d a t t h e t

    b e g a n co o p e r at i n g w i th t h e U ni t e d S t at e s . A n d w

    t h e - - b a s e d o n t h a t M a y 4 t h r e c o r d i n g , w h i c h w e

    e a r l i e r , Y o u r H o n o r , t h a t M r . B a l d u c c i d i d t h a t

    w o u l d b e i n h i s o f fi c e , no t t h e S c r u g g s' . S o t h

    T H E C O U R T : W h e n c a n y o u f u r n i s h t h e m

    t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t w e r e s e i z e d f r o m t h i s p a r t o f

    M R . S A N D E R S : T h e d o c u m en t s s e i z e d? W

    M r . T ra p p i s r i g h t . W e ' v e - - t h e t e a m is s t i ll

    t h r o u gh t h i s s e r v e r . A p p a r en t l y , th i s i s a t i m e

    p r o c e ss . T h e y ' ve n o t c o nt a c t e d u s w i t h an y t h i ng

    T H E C O U R T : A n d t h i s i s o n t h e S c r u g g s

    s e a r c h ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r .

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , h a v e y o u m a d e a n y e f

    t h e m a n d g e t s o m e e s t i m a t e f r o m t h e m o r t e l l t h e

    g e t o n i t ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y o u r H o n o r , I w a s a c t u a l

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    47/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    T H E C O U R T : A n d w h e r e i s t h a t t a i n t t e

    M e m p h i s ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : Y e s , s i r .

    T H E C O U R T : W e l l , d o y o u h a v e a n y i d e a

    g o i n g t o f u r n i s h i t t o y o u ?

    M R . S A N D E R S : A g e n t D e l a n e y m a y h a v e .

    M R . D E L A N E Y : I ' m s o r r y , Y o u r H o n o r .

    M R . S A N D E R S : D o w e h a v e a n y i d e a w h e n

    i s g o i n g t o f u r n i s h w h a t h a p p e n e d i n t h e i r s e a r c

    M R . D E L A N E Y : W h e n I s p o k e w i t h t h e e x

    w e e k , Y o u r H o n o r , t h e y g a v e m e a t i m e t a b l e o f o n

    w i t h t he w o r k th e y h a d do n e . T h e y a l so e x p l ai n e

    s p o k e to t h e m , a n d w e d is c u s s ed s o m e t hi n g s . A n

    g o i n g t o g o b a c k a n d c o n d u c t a f o l l o w - o n s e a r c h

    i t e m s l i s t e d i n t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t .

    A g a i n , a s M r . S a n d e r s s a y s , t h i s i t e m i s s o

    d o n ' t a n t i c i p a t e i t w i l l t a k e a g r e a t d e a l o f t i

    a s f a r a s I k n o w , w e ' r e p r o b a b l y l o o k i n g a t o n e

    T H E C O U R T : O k ay . A l l r i gh t .

    M R . K E K E R : A n d t h e n w e h a v e - - t h e r e '

    I u n d e r s t a n d i t , s e i z e d a t M r . L a n g s t o n ' s o f f i c e

    Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 319-1 Filed 03/02/1

  • 8/7/2019 USA v Zach Scruggs: Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing Discovery

    48/119

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    9

    10

    11

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    e v i d e n c e .

    B u t I s u s p e c t t h a t s o m e o f t h o s e d o c u m e n t s

    t h a t t he y ' l l wa n t t o u se . A n d I d o n' t k n o w i f i

    t a i n t t e a m , b u t s o m e t a i n t t e a m i s g o