Maybe the Rule of Law will also sing “in perfect harmony” after the Court considers the trio of documents filed in USA v Scruggs this morning. Patsy Brumfield reports on one – Petitioner’s Memorandum In Reply to the Government’s Response to Motion of David Zachary Scruggs for Depositions (linked here and in Scribd’ format below) – in Scruggs offers more reasons to question key players under oath.
Scruggs’ new filing insists that advance testimony will help sort out issues for the court, especially from former Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, ex-Booneville attorney Joey Langston and FBI Agent William Dulaney…In today’s motion, which responds to a government motion last week, Scruggs says prosecutors “cannot substitute (their) spin for evidence developed under the crucible of cross-examination of witnesses under oath.
Since the two other briefs filed today lend context to the Scruggs’ Reply, SLABBED looks to these before introducing the arguments set forth in the Reply.
In Petitioner’s Bench Memorandum Regarding Procedural Default (linked here and in Scribd’ format below) Scruggs’ attorney, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson, notes “the Government seems to be laboring under confusion regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to hear the entirety of the issues raised in the Section 2255 Petition” before clearing the confusion with citations of applicable law: (emphasis added)
…the Government has repeatedly attempted to narrow the scope of the Court-ordered hearing, most recently to avoid discovery about the truth behind the three issues raised in the Petition. In case there is any doubt about the proper scope of the hearing and the proper scope of necessary and appropriate discovery, Petitioner submits this bench memorandum concisely explaining the law of procedural default.
This Court has three different and independent bases for jurisdiction over this Petition.