U.S. v. Liteky, 91-8577
| Citation | 973 F.2d 910 |
| Decision Date | 28 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-8577,91-8577 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Patrick LITEKY, Charles Joseph Liteky, Roy Lawrence Bourgeois, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Peter Thompson, Thompson, Lundquist & Sicoli, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendants-appellants.
G.F. Peterman, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, HILL and ESCHBACH *, Senior Circuit Judges.
In 1990, Charles Liteky, Patrick Liteky, and Father Roy Bourgeois spilled blood on federal property as part of a protest against the United States' involvement in El Salvador. The defendants were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1361, which prohibits "willfully injur[ing] ... any property of the United States...." Before the trial, the defendants requested that the district judge recuse himself, see 28 U.S.C. § 144; 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), because he had presided over Father Bourgeois' 1983 conviction, which also related to a protest regarding United States policy toward El Salvador. But matters arising out of the course of judicial proceedings are not a proper basis for recusal. United States v. Alabama, 828 F.2d 1532, 1540 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1210, 108 S.Ct. 2857, 101 L.Ed.2d 894 (1988); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 614 F.2d 958 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888, 101 S.Ct. 244, 66 L.Ed.2d 114 (1980); Davis v. Board of School Comrs., 517 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 188 (1976). Therefore, the district court properly rejected the motion. The defendants also contend that the district court denied them a fair trial. After carefully reviewing the defendants' arguments as well as the record on appeal, we have concluded that those arguments are without merit.
We AFFIRM the convictions.
* Honorable Jesse E. Eschbach, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kniatt v. State
...that `matters arising out of the course of judicial proceedings are not a proper basis for recusal.'" (quoting United States v. Liteky, 973 F.2d 910, 910 (11th Cir.1992))). The Court first described the contours of the extrajudicial-source doctrine, which it described as being "more standar......
-
U.S. v. Cooley
...we focus on in this case is an extra-judicial appearance. The United States Supreme Court has granted review in United States v. Liteky, 973 F.2d 910 (11th Cir.1992), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2412, 124 L.Ed.2d 636 (1993) (No. 92-6921), in which the question presented is wheth......
-
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc.
...of apparent partiality under Sec. 455(a) must stem from an extrajudicial source is now before the Supreme Court in United States v. Liteky, 973 F.2d 910 (11th Cir.1992), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2412, 124 L.Ed.2d 636 (1993). The Court has granted certiorari in Liteky to resol......
-
Liteky v. United States
...outside such proceedings nor (2) displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. P. 556. 973 F. 2d 910, SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and O'CONNOR, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed......