UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN PATRICK LITEKY, CHARLES JOSEPH LITEKY, ROY LAWRENCE BOURGEOIS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
PER CURIAM. 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 injurpng] ... 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. • Conclusion We AFFIRM the convictions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994)…nt that will stand’ ”). I agree, then, with the Court’s rejection of the per se rule applied by the Court of Appeals, which provides that “matters arising out of the course of judicial proceedings are not a proper basis for recusal” under § 455(a). 973 F. 2d 910 (CA11 1992). But the Court proceeds to discern in the statute an extrajudicial source interpretive doctrine, under which the source of an alleged deep-seated predisposition is a primary factor in the analysis. The Court’s candid struggle to find a p…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Org. for Women, Inc. v. United States, 425 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1976)
- Birdie Mae Davis v. Bd. OF Sch. Comm'rs OF Mobile Cnty., 517 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Davis v. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs of Mobile Cnty., 425 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1976)
- In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation v. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Hawkins v. City of Birmingham, 449 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1980)
- Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. Atl. Richfield Co., 449 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. The State OF Ala., 828 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1987)
- King v. United States, 487 U.S. 1210 (U.S. 1988)
- Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Cntys. Joint Apprenticeship & Training Comm. & Training Bd. v. Eldredge, 487 U.S. 1210 (U.S. 1988)