The “portrait of Judge Neal Biggers” gives Zach Scruggs a procedural break

Judge Biggers grants motion to disqualify

From the order.

The court is not finding that Mr. Norman had any malicious motive or intent behind his
omission to correct the previous misstatement of what evidence was available as to Zach
Scruggs. The court has always known Mr. Norman to be a conscientious and capable attorney of
high integrity, and there has been nothing presented in this record to show otherwise.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s failure to correct the misrepresentation was probably a
matter of neglect rather than an intentional wrongdoing; but, as set forth above, that neglect is
inexcusable under the law and the facts of this case. In accordance with U.S. v. Kitchin, the
court finds a “reasonable possibility that a specifically identifiable impropriety” – that is, a
failure to correct a misstatement to the court – occurred. While the evidence presented does not
substantiate that Mr. Norman “knowingly [made] a false statement of material fact or law to” the
court, he came to know that his statement was false, and he failed to correct it – which is, in
essence, a violation of Mississippi Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).1

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Robert
Norman is well taken, should be, and the same is, hereby, GRANTED, and he is hereby
disqualified from further representing the Government in the prosecution of this Section 2255
motion.

NMC
5/11/11