usa v zach scruggs: motion to reconsider order disallowing discovery
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