Former Massey CEO Don Blankenship leaves the federal courthouse on Friday with his lead defense lawyer, Bill Taylor. Photo by Joel Ebert

A new motion filed today by defense lawyers for former Massey CEO Don Blankenship indicates that the government’s next witness is going to be David Hughart, a former longtime Massey official who previously pointed the finger at Blankenship.

Here’s part of today’s motion:

Defendant Donald L. Blankenship, through counsel, moves the Court for access to relevant portions of cooperating witness David Hughart’s presentence report and to the sealed portion of his plea hearing. The government does not oppose these requests. The defense also asks the Court to decide this motion expeditiously, because the government informed the defense after the court had recessed on Friday, October 9, 2015, that it intends to call Mr. Hughart as a witness on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.

Friday’s court session ended with prosecutors calling Sandra Davis, Blankenship’s former secretary, who helped them get into evidence a long list of memos, emails and reports — as well as those records of Blankenship’s telephone calls, some of which were played to jurors just before they went home for the three-day weekend.

Prosecutors had not finished their questioning of Davis yet, and defense lawyers still get to cross-examine her. But the new defense filing suggests Hughart may be next on the prosecution’s witness list.

Readers who have followed the Upper Big Branch investigation will recall that Hughart was sentenced to 42 months in prison after he pleaded guilty in a deal with prosecutors.  There was a notable exchange in federal court in Beckley — during Hughart’s plea hearing — when he implicated Blankenship:

Judge: Am I to understand that there was a practice or policy there to give pre-notifications of inspections when MSHA investigators appeared on the property?

Hughart: Yes, your honor.

Judge: And as the president, did that policy come from you or through you to others on the site?

Hughart: Yes, ma’am, absolutely.

Judge: And, in other words, you had an agreement, I take it — and if I’m wrong, you tell me. I don’t want to put words in your mouth — with other officers and employees there that this type of notification would be given if an MSHA investigator came onto the site. Is that accurate or not?

Hughart: Yes, agreements with higher-ups and people lower.

And then there’s the big moment:

Judge: And when you say agreements with higher-ups, what officers are you talking about or people involved with this corporation?

Hughart: The chief executive officer.

Defense lawyers now want to get parts of Hughart’s pre-sentence report and a sealed portion of the transcript of a court hearing. Here’s why:

Based on statements made at Mr. Hughart’s sentencing hearing, the report also contains information about (1) his cooperation and agreements with the government, (2) relevant criminal conduct for which he was not prosecuted, (3) his substance abuse, and (4) his mental health, all of which constitute impeachment material under Brady and/or Giglio. The government has informed the defense that it is willing to disclose a redacted presentence report if the Court permits it to do so. The defense understands that the government has emailed to the Court a redacted copy of the presentence report and the full presentence report so that the Court can determine whether the redacted report is an adequate disclosure.

As we’ve written before: