Judge Biggers has just recussed himself in Wilson v. Scruggs. His explanation is interesting. He notes that the only thing he knows about the parties he learned by presiding over their criminal case, and that recusal is not required for things he learns judicially. He notes that the criminal case is over, but “the situation has now developed that substantive pretrial motions have been filed in the civil case while several post-trial motions involving the same defendants have been filed (currently under seal) in the criminal case, U.S. v. Scruggs et al. This situation results in the same judge having motions before him in two cases, one criminal and one civil, involving the same defendants and on issues that may overlap.”
I’d guess that this means that the government has filed motions in Scruggs I for a benefit for defendants cooperation for assisting in the case against DeLaughter– which could mean for Scruggs, Patterson, or Balducci (it can’t mean Langston, because his case is before Judge Mills. There may be one there, too, but that would not have resulted in Judge Biggers’s order).
There have been other interesting developments in the Wilson case involving motions and answers, and, if I ever get my head above water here at work, I will post about them.
Here’s the judge’s 0rder.