THE COURT : On Count 1 . Before accepting your guilty
plea, there a number of questions I will ask you to assure that
it’ s a valid plea. If you do not understand any of the
questions or at any time you wish to consult with your
attorney, you may let me know, because it is essential to a
valid plea that you understand each question before you answer.
Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT : All right. Will the clerk please swear
the defendant.
THE CLERK : (Oath administered. )
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, I do.
THE COURT : Do you understand now, Mr. Scruggs, that
you’re under oath; and your answers to these questions will be
subject to the penalty of perjury if you do not answer them
truthfully?
THE DEFENDANT : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT : What is your age?
THE DEFENDANT : Sixty-one.
THE COURT : And you have a law degree?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir.
THE COURT : And are you presently under the influence
of any drugs, medicines , or alcohol that would cloud yourthinking?
THE DEFENDANT : That impairs my thinking? No, sir.
THE COURT : All right. Do you think you fully
understand what is happening here today?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, I do.
THE COURT : Mr. Dawson, Mr. Keker, do either of you
have any doubt about the defendant’ s competence to enter a plea
at this time, Mr. Dawson?
MR . DAWSON : I do not, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Mr. Keker?
MR . KEKER : No, Your Honor.
THE COURT : The Court makes a finding that this
defendant is competent to enter a plea. Have you had an ample
opportunity, Mr. Scruggs, to discuss this case with your
attorney?
THE DEFENDANT : My attorney and my wife and my
family, yes, I have.
THE COURT : Are you satisfied with your attorney’ s
representation of you; that is, do you believe that he has
represented you competently and fairly in this case?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes. I ‘ m very proud to have had an
attorney of this caliber, and he is every bit a professional.
THE COURT : All right. Do you understand that under
the Constitution and laws of the United States that you are
entitled to a trial by a jury on this charge, Count 1 ?
THE DEFENDANT : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Do you understand that at a trial you
would be presumed to be innocent of this charge, and the
Government would be required to prove you guilty by competent
evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt before you could be
found guilty?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir.
THE COURT : Do you understand, that is, that you
would not have to prove that you were innocent; rather, the
burden is on the Government to prove you guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt?
THE DEFENDANT : I understand, sir.
THE COURT : And do you understand that during the
course of a trial the witnesses for the Government would have
to come into court, if you chose to go to trial, and testify in
your presence; that your attorney could cross-examine the
witnesses for the Government; he could object to evidence
offered by the Government; and he could also offer evidence in
your behalf? Are you aware of that?
THE DEFENDANT : I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Do you also understand that if you wish
to testify in your own defense, you would have that right to do
so; but, also, you have the right not to testify and no
inference or suggestion of guilt would be drawn if you chose
not to testify? Are you aware of that?
THE DEFENDANT : I am, sir.
THE COURT : If you plead guilty here today and I
accept your plea, do you understand that you’re going to waive
your right to a trial; you’re going to waive the other rights
that I ‘ve just discussed with you; there will be no trial; and
I will enter a judgment of guilty and sentence you on the basis
of your guilty plea after considering a presentence report?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT : Also, if you plead guilty, do you
understand that you will also have to waive your right not to
incriminate yourself since I may ask you questions about what
you did in order to satisfy myself that you are guilty as
charged; and you’ll have to acknowledge your guilt? Are you
aware of that?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir.
THE COURT : All right. Now, Mr. Scruggs, having
discussed these rights with you, your understanding of what
you’re waiving by entering a plea of guilty, do you still wish
go forward with this guilty plea?
THE DEFENDANT : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT : All right. Have you received a copy of
the indictment in this charge?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, I have.
THE COURT : And you’ve discussed with your attorneys
this charge, Count 1 , and any possible defenses that you might
have in this case?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir.
THE COURT : All right. In Count 1 , you’re charged
with the crime of conspiracy to attempt to bribe a state judge.
In order for you to be found guilty of this charge, the
Government would have to prove several elements. I ‘ m going to
read those to you at this time. Let me see. I ‘ve got a lot of
motions and papers up here.
All right. In this particular charge of Count 1 , there
are three elements that the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. I ‘ m going to enumerate them and then ask you
a few questions about them.
They would have to prove, first, that you and at least one
other person came to an agreement to commit the crimes of, one,
corruptly offering a thing of value to a person with the intent
to influence or reward an agent or state or local government in
connection with the business of that governmental agency and
that said corrupt offer involved something of value of more
than $ 5 ,000 at a time when the local government or agency
received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program;
and devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and to deprive
the state of Mississippi of its intangible right to honest
services, and for the purpose of executing that scheme and
artifice, to knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of
wire, writings, and sounds in interstate commerce in violation
of Title 18, Section 666 of the U . S . Code.
The second element that would have to be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt is that you knew of the unlawful purpose of
the agreement and joined in it willfully, that is, with the
intent to further its unlawful purpose. And third, that during
the existence of the conspiracy, that you and at least one of
the conspirators committed at least one of the overt acts
described in the indictment in order to accomplish the
conspiracy.
Now, the Government, as I said, would have to prove all
three of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you
think you understand this charge?
THE DEFENDANT : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Do you have any questions about it?
THE DEFENDANT : No, sir.
THE COURT : All right. Do you understand what the
maximum possible penalty is under Count 1 of this indictment?
THE DEFENDANT : My understanding, it’ s five years.
THE COURT : All right. And a fine?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir. I think I understand all
the penalties.
THE COURT : All right. There’ s five years’
incarceration, up to three years’ supervised release after
incarceration, up to a $250,000 fine.
Has anyone threatened you in any way or forced you to
plead guilty to this charge?
THE DEFENDANT : No, sir.
THE COURT : All right, Mr. Dawson, there has been a
plea agreement entered into that I have here. Would you state
the substance of this plea agreement into the record?
MR . DAWSON : May it please the Court, the United
States Attorney hereby proposes a plea agreement for the Court
that has the following provisions: The defendant agrees to
plead guilty under oath to Count 1 of the indictment, which
charges a conspiracy to corruptly influence a state circuit
judge and which carries the maximum possible penalties of five
years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine; three years’ supervised
release; and a mandatory special assessment of $100; all in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
The United States agrees to move the Court to dismiss the
remaining counts, 2 through 6 of the indictment, as to this
defendant at sentencing. There is no agreement as to the
sentence imposed, which shall be in the sole discretion of the
Court subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Both
parties reserve their right to speak at sentencing.
The defendant agrees, pursuant to 18 U . S . C . Section 3013,
to pay the clerk of the court of the United States District
Court, prior to sentencing, the mandatory $100 special
assessment fee for pleading guilty to Count 1 .
There is – – this agreement does not bind any prosecuting
authority of any state or other federal district, nor does it
bind the Attorney General of the United States with respect to
any matter, criminal or civil, involving federal criminal tax
laws – – or civil tax laws, for that matter. The defendant and
the Government also acknowledge that there are no other
agreements, other than this agreement, filed with the Court.
I would add one thing with respect to the Paragraph 5
concerning the other authorities. I want to make it painfully
clear that the investigation with respect to the Wilson matter
that is currently under investigation – – that this plea
agreement and this plea has no affect with respect to any
charging decision or subsequent prosecution with respect to
that case.
THE COURT : All right. Mr. Scruggs, you’ve heard the
U . S . Attorney state his understanding of the plea agreement
that you entered into with the Government. Did he accurately
state it as you understand it to be?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir, he did.
THE COURT : Mr. Keker, was it accurately stated as
you understand it to be?
MR . KEKER : Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT : All right. Has anyone offered you or
made any promise to you in addition to this plea agreement to
cause you to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT : No, sir.
THE COURT : Has anyone made any prophesy or promise
what sentence you would receive in this case?
THE DEFENDANT : No.
THE COURT : Did you, as charged in Count 1 of this
indictment, enter into a conspiracy to bribe a state court
judge?
THE DEFENDANT : I did.THE COURT : All right. Mr. Dawson, would you state,
summarily, what the evidence is that the Government could
present in support of this charge if it were to go to trial?
MR . DAWSON : Thank you, Your Honor. May it please
the Court, were this case to go to trial, the Government would
prove through judicial notice, presentation of documentary
evidence, tape recordings, and factual testimony of lay
witnesses that between March of 2007 and November of 2007, in
the Northern District of Mississippi, Timothy R . Balducci,
Richard F . “Dickie” Scruggs, and others conspired to bribe a
state circuit court judge.
The evidence would show that in March of 2007 a lawsuit
was filed in the circuit court of Lafayette County,
Mississippi, styled Jones et al. v . Scruggs et al. , being Civil
Action No. L07-135. The case was assigned to State Circuit
Judge Henry Lackey, and defendant Richard F . “Dickie” Scruggs
and the Scruggs Law Firm were named as defendants in that
$26. 5 million lawsuit.
During the latter part of March 2007, during a meeting at
the Scruggs Law Firm, the Jones v . Scruggs case was being
discussed. Knowing that Timothy R . Balducci and Judge Lackey
had been friends for many years, the coconspirators asked
Balducci to explore the possibility of influencing the judge.
On or about March 28th, 2007, Mr. Balducci met with Judge
Lackey and explained to the judge that he would consider it a
personal favor if the judge would resolve the lawsuit in favor
of Dickie Scruggs and Scruggs Law Firm. During that same
conversation, Balducci expressed a desire to have Judge Lackey
become of counsel with his law firm upon his retirement, a
position which would result in Judge Lackey being paid by the
firm simply to allow the use of his name on the firm
letterhead.
On or about May the 9th, 2007, Timothy R Balducci told
Judge Lackey that his relationship with Dick Scruggs was such
that they could talk very privately; and that if the judge was
inclined to rule in Scruggs’ favor, everything would be good.
Balducci assured Judge Lackey that the only other person in the
world who knew about their discussions was Dickie Scruggs.
Later, on September the 21st, 2007, Balducci agreed to pay
the judge $40,000 in cash. Immediately after the meeting with
Judge Lackey and agreed on a – – and agreeing on the $40,000
figure, Balducci placed a four-minute call to the Scruggs Law
Firm.
On September the 27th, 2007, Balducci delivered an initial
installment of $20,000 in cash to Judge Henry Lackey in his
chambers in Calhoun City, Mississippi. Balducci then traveled
to Oxford, Mississippi, to the Scruggs Law Firm.
On October the 18th, 2007, Richard “Dickie” Scruggs had a
telephone conversation with Steven A . Patterson wherein they
discussed the order. Scruggs and Patterson was to have – –
Scruggs asked Patterson to have Balducci leave the order on his
desk and pick up a package. On that same day, Timothy R .
Balducci delivered $10,000 in cash to Judge Lackey, picked up
an order from Judge Lackey and delivered it to the Scruggs Law
Firm and picked up a package containing a $40,000 check.
On November the 1st, 2007, Balducci delivered a final
$10,000 cash payment to Judge Lackey and obtained an amended
order favorable to the Scruggs Law Firm. Later that day,
having been confronted and having agreed to cooperate with the
Government, Balducci wore a body recorder and engaged Richard
F . “Dickie” Scruggs in recorded conversations regarding the
judge’ s exposure and the need to pay him an additional $10,000.
Dickie Scruggs agreed to take care of it and asked
Balducci for advice on how to handle that. Balducci agreed to
prepare jury instructions for which he would be paid the
$10,000 to reimburse him for the additional payment to the
judge.
On November the 5th, 2007, Richard F . “Dickie” Scruggs
caused an e -mail to be – – I believe November 2nd caused an
e -mail to be sent to Timothy R . Balducci forwarding part of the
false documentation to cover the additional $10,000. That same
day, Balducci traveled to Oxford and took delivery of the
Scruggs Law Firm $10,000 check.
Finally, the Government would put on evidence, documentary
and testimony, to show that Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey
was an agent of both Lafayette County, Mississippi, and the
Administrative Office of Courts; and that the bribe paid to
Judge Lackey was in connection with a business transaction or a
series of transaction of both Lafayette County and the
Administrative Office of Courts for the state of Mississippi.
Also, the Government would show that both agencies
received, within a one-year period of the offense charged,
benefits in excess of $10,000 under a federal program involving
a grant, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of
federal assistance.
Your Honor, at all times during the course of this
investigation, Judge Henry Lackey was acting in an undercover
capacity cooperating with the F B I and nothing herein is to
imply that Judge Lackey had any complicity in any criminal
activity. And with the Court’ s permission, I ‘ d like to file a
copy of this factual basis with the Court.
THE COURT : Very well. You may do so.
(PASSING DOCUMENT TO CLERK)
THE COURT : Mr. Scruggs, you have heard the United
States Attorney state what evidence he could present against
you on this particular charge if the case were to go to trial.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’ s summary of what you did?
MR . KEKER : Your Honor, could I interrupt to say that
much of the prosecutor’ s summary – – we discussed it – – is based
on discovery and information that we have learned during the
process of preparing this case. We believe – – and I ‘ve
discussed with Mr. Scruggs – – that the prosecutors could prove
what they say they are proving.
Much of that is, as you know, based on testimony of people
and under circumstances where Mr. Scruggs was not there and
doesn’ t have firsthand knowledge of it. But we agree that
that’ s what they can prove, and that that’ s an adequate factual
basis for the plea.
THE COURT : All right. Mr. Scruggs, then, did you do
what the prosecutor just said you did, as far as your acts in
this charge are concerned?
THE DEFENDANT : I joined the conspiracy later in the
game. It’ s not exactly as the prosecutor allocuted, in that
there was no intent to bribe the judge; it was an intent to
earwig the judge, Judge Lackey; and that that – – the earwigging
idea was not originated by me or anyone in our firm, although
we went along with it, at the beginning of – – sometime in
March.
THE COURT : Well – –
MR . KEKER : But then later – – what about later? You
got to say something about later.
THE DEFENDANT : I did join the conspiracy after that.
THE COURT : So you agree – – are you telling me that
you did join the conspiracy, and you did furnish some money to
give to Judge Lackey in return for him issuing an order in your
favor in this case? Is that what you’re saying? Do you
disagree with that?
THE DEFENDANT : That’ s what I ‘ m saying.
THE COURT : All right. The Court finds , then, that
there is a factual basis for this defendant to plead guilty to
this charge. Richard Scruggs, do you plead guilty or not
guilty to Count 1 of this indictment?
THE DEFENDANT : I plead guilty, Your Honor.
THE COURT : Since you acknowledge that you are in
fact guilty as charged in Count 1 ; you know what your right is
to a trial; you know what the maximum possible punishment is;
and then the Court’ s finding you’re also voluntarily pleading
guilty; the Court will accept your guilty plea and enter a
judgment of guilty on your plea.
Now, is there any reason, in the opinion of counsel or the
defendant, why the Court should not obtain the customary
presentence investigative report prior to sentencing?
MR . DAWSON : No, Your Honor.
MR . KEKER : No, Your Honor.
THE COURT : All right. You’re under bond at this
time, Mr. Scruggs. If you’re allowed to remain under this bond
until sentencing, do you agree to remain bound by it and to
appear before the Court at such times as the Court might direct
in the future?
THE DEFENDANT : I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT : All right. With that understanding,
you’ll be allowed to remain under your bond until sentencing,
which the Court will not set a specific date on at this time.
It will probably be in 30 to 45 days.
And also, Mr. Keker, before you leave this morning, let
your client talk with the probation officer to start the
presentence report.
MR . KEKER : Yes, sir.
THE COURT : All right.
MR . KEKER : And, Your Honor, when the sentencing is
set, since I ‘ve got to travel, could I consult with somebody
about dates? Because I ‘ m going to be starting a trial
probably – –
THE COURT : March 18th?
MR . KEKER : Well, no. It’ s been moved to April 29th
or something like that.
THE COURT : Okay.
MR . KEKER : But I ‘ d just like – – if I can consult so
that I can talk to the judge and make sure I can get down here.
I ‘ll be in Los Angeles.
THE COURT : You’ll be given some advance notice.
MR . KEKER : All right. Thank you.
THE COURT : All right. With that understanding, you
gentlemen may be excused; and we’ll take up the next case.
MR . KEKER : Thank you, Your Honor.
MR . DAWSON : Thank you, Your Honor.
(THE PLEA ENDED AT 10:29 a . m . )
Magnolia Tribune
