In his first extensive remarks since he reversed himself in a drug ruling, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. said Friday that political pressure had nothing to do with his decision to reinstate key evidence.
Baer has been widely criticized, including by President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, for throwing out $4 million worth of drugs and the confession of a drug courier in a case before his court. Baer reversed his decision April 1."While I was surprised by the firestorm that developed, to me it constituted little more than political posturing in an election year," Baer said from the bench in a hearing on whether he should recuse himself.
"This position comes with life tenure and no one, not even the president of the United States, can take it away unless . . . they catch your hand in the cookie jar," Baer said.
Later, Baer rejected a request from Carol Bayless's lawyer to recuse himself from the case.
The Detroit woman has been jailed since police found 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin in the trunk of her rental car in the Washington Heights neighborhood of upper Manhattan.
Police said they pulled Bayless over after men who had just put several duffel bags into her trunk spotted officers in an unmarked car and hurried away.
Baer ruled in January that police lacked probable cause to arrest Bayless because it was not unusual for people to flee from officers in an area with a history of police corruption.
But last week, after taking the unusual step of reopening a hearing to determine whether the evidence could be allowed at trial, Baer changed his mind. He said additional testimony from police and Bayless convinced him to reverse his ruling.
The Clinton administration initially issued a statement saying Baer's ruling was wrongheaded and that the president might ask the judge he had appointed in 1994 to quit. Dole said Baer should be impeached if he didn't resign.
Those remarks prompted Attorney General Janet Reno and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to defend the independence of the judiciary and speak out against threatening judges who make unpopular deci-sions.
Four federal appellate judges from New York, meanwhile, issued a statement calling the White House threats "extraordinary intimidation" and a threat to the Constitution.