Hardly the “breaking news” it was several days ago – and even then not a surprise:
“The government respectfully differs” with Scruggs’ view that he was forced to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit and that his former counsel was secretly working with the government for another client…”
Although SLABBED was otherwise engaged when Patsy Brumfield broke the story of the Government’s Response in Opposition to Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate, “Unbelievable” was the reaction on bellesouth’s blog and even the blogging lawyer of north Mississippi was taken aback by the government’s mention of polygraph tests:
“Sid Backstrom attempted to corroborate the petitioner’s denials, but failed an FBI polygraph. David Zachary Scruggs also failed an FBI polygraph showing deception when he said he knew nothing about money changing hands”.
Others found it “unbelievable” that the Government’s Response made mention of the polygraph tests. In her day-after story, Patsy Brumfield had comments from Scruggs’ attorney, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson:
“Robertson said he’s surprised they breached a confidentiality agreement about the polygraph, saying its results aren’t reliable or admissible as evidence. (emphasis added)”
Clearly, the Government needed an argument that would likely cause Judge Biggers to flip his wig and deny Zach’s motion. The reliability of the 404(b) “wig” the Government put in Judge Biggers’ “ear” when the case appeared headed to trial was refuted by the recently obtained documentation incorporated into Zach’s motion – and the Government had little choice but to include a related admission in its opposition response: Continue reading “No surprise, little substance – not much thinking evident in Government’s cognitive map – USA opposes Zach Scruggs’ Motion”