Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge sentences ex-marshal to three months [for lying about sex with McVeigh alternate juror]
Associated Press | August 3, 2002 | wire

Posted on 08/03/2002 8:33:10 AM PDT by Wallaby

Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

Judge sentences ex-marshal to three months

Associated Press
August 3, 2002, Saturday, BC cycle
12:28 AM Eastern Time

OKLAHOMA CITY

A federal judge sentenced a former deputy U.S. marshal on Friday to three months in prison for lying about a sexual affair with an alternate juror in the trial of bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Benny Bailey pleaded guilty in May to lying to U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, who had asked him about the relationship when McVeigh's attorney raised the issue in 1998.

Matsch oversaw the federal trials of McVeigh and co-defendant Terry Nichols. On Friday, two federal prosecutors testified on Bailey's behalf and another federal judge supported Bailey by saying it was out of character for him to lie.

Bailey had asked Nottingham to depart from the guidelines and to impose only probation because his lie was atypical of his behavior.


"What was at issue here was nothing less than the integrity of the McVeigh verdict."
But U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said a prison term was necessary because of the seriousness of perjury and to deter others from committing perjury.

"What was at issue here was nothing less than the integrity of the McVeigh verdict," Nottingham told Bailey, who retired in 2000 as a supervisory deputy marshal after 30 years as a federal employee.

Nottingham ordered Bailey, 53, to serve three months of home detention after he is released from prison and to pay a $2,000 fine.

The judge said sentencing guidelines specify confinement of between 6 and 12 months under the circumstances in Bailey's case.

Bailey apologized to Nottingham. Outside the courtroom, he said he must "do what I've got to do and go on about my business."

McVeigh was convicted in 1997 and executed last year for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in which 168 people died.

McVeigh's attorney, Rob Nigh, had asked to look into an anonymous letter claiming Bailey and the juror had an affair during the trial and he tried to convince her of McVeigh's guilt. Matsch denied the request.

The affair, Nigh's effort to see if it affected McVeigh's trial and Matsch's secret inquiry did not become public until last year when Bailey was charged with a crime.

The alternate juror did not take part in deliberations because alternate jurors were not needed to replace any of the 12 active jurors.

The affair began after the trial, according to the indictment of Bailey.

Nigh later said he did not believe Matsch would have allowed him to investigate the tip even if Bailey had told the truth, according to Bailey's lawyer, Peter Bornstein.

"Mr. Bailey did not lie to protect himself, but to protect the integrity of the McVeigh verdict," Bailey's attorney said in a court filing.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mcveigh; okcbombing; oklahomacity

1 posted on 08/03/2002 8:33:11 AM PDT by Wallaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
"Don't get your meat where you get your bread"
2 posted on 08/03/2002 8:38:53 AM PDT by ErnBatavia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
Wait a minute... lawyer and pundit Gerry Rivers assures me no one has ever been prosecuted for lying about SEX! How is this possible?
3 posted on 08/03/2002 8:42:32 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
There are probably thousands of people in jail right now for lying about sex in the course of a criminal case.
Rivera's statement applied to civil cases, and to the best of my knowledge he's correct.
4 posted on 08/03/2002 8:48:53 AM PDT by Mohammed El-Shahawi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
I thought lying about sex was okay now. I am soooooo confused.
5 posted on 08/03/2002 8:50:06 AM PDT by PackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mohammed El-Shahawi
Actually MSNBC paid off on his challenge. And it was a civil case, but the irony is inescapable. A male VA patient sued because his female government psychiatrist performed oral sex on him during therapy session. Talk about ingratitude.
6 posted on 08/03/2002 9:03:31 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
I stand corrected, and actually I now remember that one. I agree. Talk about ingratitude.
7 posted on 08/03/2002 9:05:55 AM PDT by Mohammed El-Shahawi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
Golly. gee, but it's only about sex. Is Clinton the only
felon not to be sentenced (or even tried) for perjury? (Along with the entire senate). All this time I though if it was about sex it was ok to lie and cheat and commit perjury.
8 posted on 08/03/2002 11:02:03 AM PDT by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl; OKCSubmariner
fyi
9 posted on 08/03/2002 12:01:37 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: *OKCbombing; Alamo-Girl; Gary Aldrich; amom; archy; aristeides; anymouse; AtticusX; backhoe; ...
"Nigh later said he did not believe Matsch would have allowed him to investigate the tip even if Bailey had told the truth, according to Bailey's lawyer, Peter Bornstein."

"Mr. Bailey did not lie to protect himself, but to protect the integrity of the McVeigh verdict," Bailey's attorney said in a court filing."

Justice in action ping.

10 posted on 08/03/2002 1:14:28 PM PDT by glorygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII
disgusted Ping!!!

"A federal judge sentenced a former deputy U.S. marshal on Friday to three months in prison for lying about a sexual affair with an alternate juror in the trial of bomber Timothy McVeigh. "

11 posted on 08/03/2002 1:21:13 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
Thnx for the ping
12 posted on 08/03/2002 1:21:53 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; spectre; Valpal1; Amore; Henrietta
Not all is what it may seem!! Should anything really be a surprise anymore?
13 posted on 08/03/2002 1:42:46 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mohammed El-Shahawi
There are probably thousands of people in jail right now for lying about sex in the course of a criminal case. Rivera's statement applied to civil cases, and to the best of my knowledge he's correct.

I don't really see where Section 1623 of Title 18 of the US criminal code really makes any distinction. Former Marshal Bailey is a convicted felon now:

US Code, Title 18, Section 1623:
False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)

Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)

This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c)

An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if -

(1)

each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)

each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d)

Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e)

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence

14 posted on 08/03/2002 2:37:01 PM PDT by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Thanks, Kim...and I'm with ya on this.
15 posted on 08/03/2002 5:06:37 PM PDT by GummyIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: glorygirl
That works out well, then, since the integrity of the McVeigh verdict is based on lies.
16 posted on 08/03/2002 10:50:30 PM PDT by Plummz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby
...to protect the integrity of the McVeigh verdict.

What integrity?

They couldn't kill him fast enough.

17 posted on 08/04/2002 1:22:31 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson