Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US GA: Wire: Ruling Upheld In Bailey Case
Title:US GA: Wire: Ruling Upheld In Bailey Case
Published On:1999-05-17
Source:Associated Press
Fetched On:2008-09-06 06:18:29
RULING UPHELD IN BAILEY CASE

Appeals Court: Judge Wasn't Biased

ATLANTA -- (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday upheld a lower court's
ruling on $1.6 million spent by lawyer F. Lee Bailey defending a millionaire
drug smuggler -- except in the case of a $1,000 suit of clothes.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
Bailey's contention that U.S. District Judge Maurice Paul, who jailed Bailey
in 1996 in Tallahassee for contempt in the same case, should have recused
himself.

Bailey, who was ordered by Paul to pay $423,737 to the court for
overspending on the case of drug smuggler Claude Duboc, said that Paul was
biased. The appeals panel -- composed of Circuit Judges J.L. Edmondson and
Ed Carnes and Senior Judge James L. Watson of the U.S. Court of
International Trade -- found otherwise.

"We will affirm a district judge's refusal to recuse himself unless we
conclude that the impropriety is clear and one which would be recognized by
all objective, reasonable persons," the ruling said.

The judge jailed Bailey for 43 days in a dispute over $16 million in stock
held by Duboc, who eventually pleaded guilty to crimes involving the import
of illegal drugs.

Bailey, whose celebrity clients have included Dr. Sam Sheppard and O.J.
Simpson, said the stock was his fee for defending Duboc. The government said
the stock was part of Duboc's forfeiture deal. Bailey was released from jail
after surrendering the stock, subtracting for his expenses.

Paul determined that Bailey had incurred $1.2 million in legitimate
expenses, but because Bailey had spent more than that, he was ordered to pay
the $423,000.

Bailey challenged Paul's calculations, including the disallowance of $1,013
for a suit for Duboc to wear to a Canadian court appearance.

"We will accept that spending over $1,000 for a suit -- at government
expense -- might be unreasonable, but we think Bailey deserves to be repaid
for the cost of a less expensive suit," said the appeals court, which upheld
Paul's figures on the other expenses.
Member Comments
No member comments available...