Harrison Norris, Jr. v. United States
709 F. App'x 952
11th Cir.2017Background
- Norris, a federal prisoner, filed a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming Judge Jack Camp was mentally incompetent and racially biased, denying him a fair trial; the court previously rejected incompetence but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on actual bias.
- The central evidence was a recorded phone call between Judge Camp and his mistress (S.R.) where they discussed men who abuse women; S.R. relayed that Camp had said he "couldn’t help but want to give" certain defendants life sentences and discussed race in the abstract.
- At the evidentiary hearing S.R. and Camp testified the conversation concerned domestic abuse, that Camp did not use racial epithets, and that Camp’s comments reflected personal context and frustration with abuse, not racial bias.
- Two witnesses (Hardy and Kirk) testified that Camp used racial slurs on telephone calls; their testimony conflicted with earlier statements to an FBI agent and Kirk had memory impairment.
- Numerous colleagues, friends, and former clerks testified Camp was not racially biased and struggled with sentencing severity; the district court credited Camp and S.R., discredited Hardy and Kirk, and found no credible evidence of bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Camp was actually biased against Norris, violating due process | Norris: phone-recorded remarks and witnesses show Camp harbored racial bias affecting sentencing | Government/Camp: remarks reflect frustration with domestic-abuse facts; witnesses and colleagues refute racial animus; inconsistencies undermine accusers | Court: No actual bias; district court credibility findings affirmed |
| Whether recorded conversation showed impermissible racial statements by the judge | Norris: conversation contains admissions indicating racial predisposition | Camp/S.R.: discussion was about abuse; no racial epithets by Camp; he placated S.R. | Court: Conversation did not show race-based predisposition; district court credited this view |
| Credibility of witnesses alleging racial epithets | Norris: Hardy and Kirk corroborate racial slurs by Camp | Government: their statements to FBI and memory issues are inconsistent; other witnesses contradict them | Court: District court permissibly discredited Hardy and Kirk; credibility findings not clearly erroneous |
| Standard of review for §2255 factual findings | Norris: challenges district court factual findings | Government: appellate review is clear-error; great deference to district court credibility calls | Court: Applied clear-error standard and affirmed district court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (due process requires absence of actual judicial bias)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (disqualification required where serious risk of actual bias exists)
- Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2014) (clear-error review of §2255 factual findings)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for reviewing §2255 proceedings)
- San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (substantial-evidence requirement for factfinding)
- Rivers v. United States, 777 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2015) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
- United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) (appellate review will not disturb credibility findings absent exceedingly improbable testimony)