SCRUGGS HEARING: Part 3, read the other 2 first or be confused

OXFORD – 2:20 p.m.

Norman: Mr. Langston’s attorney, Tony Farese, may be a witness. But Mr. Langston asks that he be allowed to remain in the courtroom.

Biggers: That’s fine.

Prosecutor Clay Dabbs: You’re been questioned many times. What were you asked to do?

Langston: To gibe truthful testimony. (Says his interviews focused mainly on Wilson v Scruggs and Ed Peters)

Dabbs: On Feb. 21, 2008, you were in this courtroom, do you remember?

Langston: Yes, I do. I did not testify.

Dabbs: Before the hearing, do you remember a conversation with Norman about Zach Scruggs?

Langston: I did. It was brief. I was in the witness room by myself. Norman came in a hurry and asked me, Did Zach know?” I said Yes. (Thought he meant did Zach know if we hired Ed Peters.) In egvery other statement, I took great pains to exonerate him, that he knew nothing about any criminality.

Dabbs: Were you aware of Norman’s comments to the court later that day? That Zach was fully aware of Wilson?

Langston: I hae been made aware of them. “Fully aware” is not what i intended to communicate to him.

Dabbs: It was a miscomunication with Norman?

Langston: yes

Mike Moore: A miscommunication, you say? You were the government;’s chief witness in the Wilson case.

Langsotn: They had two others. I don’t think I was the chief witness.

Moore: You were interviewed by the FBI. Did they create 302 forms from those interviews? How many ties?

Langston: Several. (Said he didn’t see them) with FBI AGent John Quaka.

Moore: Your honor, again we renew our requests for those 302s. Mr. Langston, did youe ver tell the FBI that Zach was criminally involved with Wilson?

Langston: Quite the oppositel. I tole him he was not aware of any improper conduct. I always said that.

Moore: The 302 exculpate him?

Langston: Yes. Mr. Farese was adamant to be specific because of conflict issues. (He says he spoke with numerous people about Zach’s lack of involvement.)

Moore: Why would Norman miscommunicate abut Zach?

Langston: I don’t know what was in Mr Norman’s mind. From myu end, I thought he was asking about hiring Peters. (Langston said he wrote about this in an affidavit to the Bar. He also said Farese never spoke to him about any information gained from his brief representation of Zach.)

Moore: Even after you read Zach’s e-mail to Jones?

Langston: I still don’t believe Zach was involved. I was lead counsel in Wilson. I was in a position to know who was involved. (Never told FBI, others that Zach knew Peter was paid $50K, or later rest of $1 million.) Never. (Or that a federal judgeship was dangled over DeLaughter’s head?) I never told him that.

Moore: Are you aware that on 2/21 your attorney or anyone else tried to straighten out the untruthfulness about Zach?

Langsotn: I know Tony approached someone during the break that the statement was incorrect.

Moore: But a month later, what did the goernment say in response to the motion to reconsider the 404B evidence?

Langston: No substantial change to require the court’s re-evaluation fo evidence against Zach Scruggs.

2:42 – Norman calls Tony Farese.

Farese: Says he told Norman “fully aware” by Zach was incorrect.

Norman: And I kind of blew you off, said we’ll get to it later? Were you satisfied from the pleadings that they had accurate information about what the government would say?

Farese: Yes. I talked to Mr. Moore twice, and he asked it I stood with what I said on 1/7/08 about Zach not being a trget or a suspect in Wilson. Joey still said Zach was unaware of Wilson.

Norman: Did it need any more clarification?

Farese: No, I did not.

Norman gets Farese to say that 404B evidence is powerful and doesn’t require a criminal ct to be used.

CRobertson: (Asked about call to Moore)(

Farese: I have never been an agent of the government and wasn’t when I was speking with Mr. Moore. He called me.

2:52 – no more witnesses, Dabbs says.

Biggers: The court will consdier this matter, as well as the motion for summary judgement. I will give you my ruling in writing within 48 hours.

(Biggers then talked about petitioner’s request to have Dickie Scruggs brought to Oxford to testify March 23. Judge said he will need a statement from Dickie Scruggs that he is willing to testify and will not take the 5th, when he gets here. The marshals say it willtake 30 days to get him here, unless they want to pay for marshals to escort him here by car.)

CRobertson: Says will get judge information as soon possible. Want to discuss with Dickie Scruggs.

They consider whether a deposition is preferable. CRobertson says will know in 24 hours.

Chris Robertson: We renew our request for more exculpatory material.

Biggers: Wherea re the 302s?

Norman: DAbbs has them. WE will provide.

(Biggers also sounds like after the 2010 Supreme Court’s ruling on Skilling, and other decisions, the original charges against Zach SCruggs would not be “viable” on Counts 2-3-4, and part of Count 1.)

Norman did not accept the judge’s ideas and said the “oly issue is whether the defendant can demonstrate factual innocence” for the May 23 hearing.

(The lawyers quibbled back and forth.)

3:06 – Biggers says hearing is adjourned.

Click video to hear audio