John Patrick Liteky, Charles Joseph Liteky and Roy Lawrence Bourgeois v. United States (510 U.S. 540)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 7, 1994 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 510 U.S. 540 · 114 S. Ct. 1147
- Decided
- March 7, 1994
- Term
- October Term 1993
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 455(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code requires a federal judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This case presents the question whether required recusal under this provision is subject to the limitation that has come to be known as the “extrajudicial source” doctrine. I In the 1991 trial at issue here, petitioners were charged with willful destruction of property of the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1361. The indictment alleged that they had committed acts of vandalism, including the spilling of human blood on walls and various objects, at the Fort Benning Military Reservation. Before trial petitioners moved to disqualify the District Judge pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 455(a). The motion relied on events that had occurred during and immediately after an earlier trial, involving petitioner Bourgeois, before the same District Judge. In the 1983 bench trial, Bourgeois, a Catholic priest of the Maryknoll order, had been tried and convicted of various misdemeanors committed during a protest action, also on the federal enclave of Fort Benning. Petitioners claimed that recusal was required in the present case because the judge had displayed “impatience, disregard for the defense and animosity” toward Bourgeois, Bourgeois’ codefendants, and…
Excerpt of a 31,739-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.