Zach Scruggs files Motion to Allow Discovery for upcoming hearing on his Motion to Vacate

Although the Government seems to have conceded that the charge to which Defendant pled guilty (misprision of earwigging) is now a legal nullity, the Government seems to assert that Defendant is guilty of some or all of the bribery charges that the Government previously dismissed. However, under Department of Justice Guidelines, the Government was required to pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case … Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges may not be dismissed…. Any sentencing recommendation made by the United States in a particular case must honestly reflect the totality and seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and must be fully consistent with the Guidelines and applicable statutes and with the readily provable facts about the defendant’s history and conduct. …Likewise, federal prosecutors may not “fact bargain,” or be party to any plea agreement that results in the sentencing court having less than a full understanding of all readily provable facts relevant to sentencing.
Policy Memo. of the Attorney General, 9/22/2003 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Government assured the Court in March, 2008 that “all the facts and circumstances” of this case amounted to merely misprision of earwigging. See Motion, D.E. 303 at 19 (quoting the prosecutors).

Zach’s attorney is Edward “Chip” Robertson, former Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court. Robertson writes with the very strong pen of a man confident of his knowledge of the law, wasting not a word. I point that out because I’m not certain it’s possible for anyone to summarize the points in his brief; but, I’m certain I cannot. Robertson’s motion with Exhibit A (Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Documents and Other Things) is below the jump in scribd format.

Judge Biggers, who has a strong pen of his own, may very well grant this Motion with a “Hell, yes, I want to know”. Read it and see if you don’t agree.

[scribd id=48844265 key=key-28oxzstklbnniwsvch3a mode=list]

2 thoughts on “Zach Scruggs files Motion to Allow Discovery for upcoming hearing on his Motion to Vacate”

  1. Nowdy,

    I continue to be captivated by your coverage of this case. How can one not be ? Particularly in light of this leader line:

    “…Although the Government seems to have conceded that the charge to which Defendant pled guilty (misprision of earwigging) is now a legal nullity,…”

    As I have commented previously on this very subject matter you have given us insight to … in my opinion, Eudora Welty couldn’t have written a more demonstrative and colorful Mississippi story than your telling of this ‘earwigging’ fiasco.

    Whitmergate

  2. Thank you, Gate. It’s going to be interesting to see what sort of reaction this motion gets elsewhere.

    Probably a lot of you-know-whats are going to pucker over the wording of Zach’s list of “requests” – better that energy be spent soul-searching.

    I don’t think he was just throwing things against the wall to see if any would stick – and the reference to “the government’s conspiracy” is telling.

    IMO, “the government’s conspiracy” was actually a Jim Jones-like-cult i.e., a few leaders who lured others in with Scruggs-kool-aid.

    Judge Biggers was definitely given a few sips – unknowingly IMO as I believe he was among the betrayed. We’ll know for certain when he decides this motion.

Comments are closed.