United States v. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky, Roy Lawrence Bourgeois

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky, Roy Lawrence Bourgeois

973 F.2d 910, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23582, 1992 WL 217729

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided September 28, 1992·No. 91-8577·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

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), ce rt. 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 *911 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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), ce rt. 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 *911 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.

United States v. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky, Roy Lawrence Bourgeois, 973 F.2d 910, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23582, 1992 WL 217729 (11th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

973 F.2d 910 (United States v. John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky, Roy Lawrence Bourgeois) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related