U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–222 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–57

PROTECTING THE JUDICIARY AT HOME AND

IN THE COURTHOUSE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 18, 2005

Serial No. J–109–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

DAVID BROG, Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 58

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 2

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 63

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., A U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 79

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 81

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., A U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........... 4

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1

WITNESSES 

Alba, Samuel, Chief, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Utah, Salt Lake 

City, Utah ............................................................................................................. 20

Lefkow, Joan Humphrey, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, 

Chicago, Illinois .................................................................................................... 6

Obama, Hon. Barack, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .......................... 4

Reyna, Benigno G., Director, U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 16

Roth, Jane R., Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and 

Chair, Committee on Security and Facilities, Judicial Conference of the 

U.S., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ........................................................................ 14

Widup, Kim Richard, U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, 

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 18

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alba, Samuel, Chief, U.S. Magistrate Judge, District of Utah, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, prepared statement .......................................................................... 30

Association of Administrative Law Judges, Ronald G. Bernoski, Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin, prepared statement and attachment ............................................... 40

Fine, Glenn A., Inspector General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 65

Lefkow, Joan Humphrey, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, 

Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement ................................................................. 83

McQueen, Mary, President, National Center for State Courts, Arlington, Virginia, prepared statement ................................................................................... 88

Reyna, Benigno G., Director, U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, 

Washington, D.C., prepared statement .............................................................. 97

Roth, Jane R., Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and 

Chair, Committee on Security and Facilities, Judicial Conference of the 

U.S., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prepared statement and attachments ....... 111

Schuck, Thomas R., President, Federal Bar Association, Washington, D.C., 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 133

Widup, Kim Richard, U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, 

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 136

(1)

PROTECTING THE JUDICIARY AT HOME AND 

IN THE COURTHOUSE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:32 a.m., in room 

SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, Leahy, Schumer, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. The Judiciary Committee will now proceed 

with our hearing on Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the 

Courthouse. 

On February 28th of this year, an angry litigant—that is the 

characterization of Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow—shot and killed 

Judge Lefkow’s husband and aged mother. On March 14th, I wrote 

to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service to find out what security measures were in practice and what would be instituted following the terrible tragedy in Chicago. On April 11th, the Department of Justice responded that they were looking at the judicial facilities and off-site security, but nothing more than that. 

In the emergency supplemental recently passed, $11.9 million 

was appropriated for judicial security. On May 6th, I met with 

Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth, who is Chair of the Committee on 

Facilities and Security for the Judicial Conference of the United 

States. 

There is no doubt that the rule of law is the backbone of our civilized society. The capability of the judiciary to determine the rule 

of law without fear or favor is an indispensable prerequisite in our 

democratic society. Personal security, along with judicial independence, must be safeguarded at all costs. 

I intend to be very brief in my opening statement because every 

day on Capitol Hill is a busy day. This is more so because at 9:30 

the Senate will start to consider the nomination of Texas Supreme 

Court Justice Priscilla Owen for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 

Circuit, and it will inevitably implicate the so-called constitutional 

or nuclear option, so that a number of us will have to excuse ourselves, but the hearing will proceed in full. 

Judge Jane Roth was quoted in the Chicago Tribune yesterday 

with some of the same comments that she made to me when I met 

with her earlier this month that in contacts with the Department 

2

of Justice on judicial security, Judge Roth said, quote, at least 

quoted, ‘‘I think the Department of Justice feels that it is none of 

our business.’’

In conversations with a ranking Department of Justice official, 

Judge Roth again is quoted, ‘‘I told him we needed that information. He said it would be one independent branch meddling with 

another independent branch—separation of powers.’’ Well, fortunately, there is a third branch. It is called the Congress, and the 

Congress intends to act. 

Without going into a litany of studies which raise serious questions about the adequacy of the Marshals Service—and we have the 

officials here today, some of them, but this matter will go to the 

Attorney General ultimately, who has responsibility. 

A report issued by the Inspector General of the Department of 

Justice in March of last year found that the U.S. Marshals Service 

threat assessments are, quote, ‘‘untimely and of questionable validity,’’ and that the U.S. Marshals Service has, quote, ‘‘limited capability to collect and share intelligence, and lacks adequate standards for determining appropriate protective measures.’’

This Committee will act, Judge Lefkow, and I can assure you 

that the Congress will act. And there will be no talk about separation of powers. We have the authority to provide adequate security 

for judges and we are determined to do just that. 

Let me yield now to my distinguished ranking member, Senator 

Leahy, unless he wishes to yield to—

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to Senator 

Durbin, who has been also such a leader in this and has expressed, 

as has Senator Obama, the feeling of his own State on this tragedy, 

a feeling joined by others. So I just ask consent that my statement 

be part of the record. 

Chairman SPECTER. Your statement will, without objection, be 

made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. I am delighted now to recognize Senator 

Durbin, who discussed this entire matter with me shortly after 

February 28th, and we took the initial steps at that time, he and 

I, to proceed to where we are today with this hearing. 

Senator Durbin.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Chairman Specter. On 

behalf of Senator Obama, who is here today and will speak, and 

myself, I want to thank you for convening this hearing. I want to 

commend you for your leadership on this critical issue of judicial 

security, and I want to thank you as well for helping us secure an 

appropriation of $12 million to dedicate initially to this issue of judicial security. 

The gruesome crimes that were perpetrated against Judge 

Lefkow’s family on February 28th, as well as the crimes against a 

judge and other court officials in Atlanta a few weeks later, were 

attacks not only on innocent people, but on the Federal judiciary 

itself. Three Federal judges have been assassinated since 1978. 

3

Never, never before has a Federal judge’s family been a victim of 

these crimes. We must provide more protection for our judges and 

their families so that others will be spared the tragedy that Judge 

Lefkow and her family have been forced to endure. 

I am not going to go into detail here because I know we are anxious to hear from the judge. I do believe that we must make substantial changes in the Federal Marshals Service to meet this new 

challenge, and we will discuss those this morning. 

I am pleased that the Congress has accepted the amendment 

that Senator Obama, Senator Kennedy and I offered to appropriate 

$12 million for the Marshals Service to improve protection of Federal judges. I also think that we have to be careful in what we say. 

I know that we believe passionately in free speech in this country, 

but I believe that many public officials, both elected and otherwise, 

have made verbal attacks on the Federal judiciary which we should 

not tolerate. They are reprehensible. I will not list them. You have 

heard them. Some will be referred to during the course of this 

hearing. 

At this moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Judge 

Lefkow and her daughters to the Judiciary Committee. I want to 

acknowledge the family of Judge Lefkow’s husband, Michael. I 

know his two sisters and niece are here as well. It is an act of tremendous courage for them to be here. 

I know Judge Lefkow has declined many speaking invitations 

and interviews, but she felt that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was an appropriate forum to discuss her tragedy and to help 

us find ways to prevent such tragedies from happening again. 

A few weeks ago, I met with the judge in my Chicago office and 

I said to her, Joan, if you don’t want to do this for any reason, I 

fully understand. She said, I want to do this. And I admire your 

courage so much in making this decision. 

I am honored to introduce Judge Lefkow today not only because 

she is a constituent of mine, but also because I recommended her 

nomination for the Federal bench five years ago. The last time she 

was in this hearing room in June 2000, I introduced her to the 

Committee and said Judge Lefkow has a rare combination of intelligence, professional experience, temperament and devotion to public service. She is going to be an excellent Federal judge. 

Well, my prediction turned out to be true. She has served not 

only with excellence, but with bravery and distinction. Even before 

the heart-breaking tragedy she recently suffered, she incurred 

death threats in multiple cases involving high-profile parties. Nevertheless, she has been a noble public servant and she has persevered. 

Judge Charles Kocoras, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in 

the Northern District, wrote a letter to me a few weeks and here 

is what he said about Judge Lefkow, quote, ‘‘The sweetest Federal 

judge I have ever met, and whose own sense of fairness is a model 

for the world.’’ Boy, that is high praise. We are extremely fortunate 

to have Judge Lefkow on the Federal bench in Chicago. We are 

honored to have her with us today. 

I know that my colleague, Senator Obama, is here to say a few 

words, and I would defer to you now, Mr. Chairman. 

4

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say a brief 

word here. 

Chairman SPECTER. Senator Schumer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I too want to just thank you, Judge Lefkow, for coming here, for 

your strength. When we face tragedy, it is easy to just curse the 

darkness, and you are trying to shed some light and we all very 

much appreciate that. We have never met before, but the pain and 

the strength and the sadness on your face, I think, speaks volumes. 

I note in your testimony, which I have read, that you talk about 

all of this debasing of the Federal judiciary in rather nasty terms. 

We all know that judges have faced threats all along. I mean, we 

have in New York a unit of the police department which has to 

often guard judges because of threats, almost all of them in nonpolitical cases, but because it is the criminal justice system. Being 

a judge is not easy and it is sometimes dangerous. 

But when in the public dialogue it becomes acceptable just to 

debase judges in virulent and nasty terms, it sure doesn’t help the 

independence of the judiciary or the ideals that America stands for. 

I note in your testimony that you ask that these kinds of things 

stop and be denounced readily and quickly. If you don’t denounce 

them, they develop into a more virulent form. That has been what 

history shows us. 

I just hope we can begin to see that here in Washington that 

when people step over the line and talk about judges in ways that 

you shouldn’t talk about any human being, let alone people who 

are supposed to guard our independence, that united from one end 

of this town to the other we just say that has no place in our dialogue. That has happened yet. Maybe your being here will importune it to happen. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

We now recognize Senator Obama for an introduction of the 

judge. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Durbin, Senator Schumer. I very much appreciate this opportunity 

just briefly to introduce Judge Lefkow. Senator Durbin has already 

given you some sense of her background. 

I begin by just, as others have, thanking her for her incredible 

courage for appearing before the Committee. I know that she is 

blessed to have her four daughters here, as well as other family 

members. And I am sure that I speak for the entire Senate when 

I say that our thoughts and prayers are with you, Judge, during 

this difficult period. 

As an attorney from Chicago, I am also familiar with the work 

that her husband, Michael, did. He himself was a tireless activist 

5

and advocate on behalf of the less fortunate, as well as a loving father, and so he is missed in the Chicago community. 

Your mother, Donna Humphrey, I am sure was extraordinarily 

proud of you and the family as well. 

We do a lot of talking here in Washington, but too often we don’t 

discuss the issues that matter most. Protecting our judges is one 

of those issues, and so I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing with Senator Durbin. 

Judges have an extraordinarily difficult job. Everyday, they walk 

into that courtroom knowing that a decision they make could not 

only affect the lives of those appearing them, but the lives of millions who abide by our Nation’s laws. Judges are brave public servants who believe that our laws are an expression of our shared responsibility to one another as Americans. 

Joan Lefkow epitomizes this commitment to public service ever 

since she became a magistrate judge in 1982. As Senator Durbin 

mentioned, even after her life was threatened, she returned to the 

bench because she believed that the work she did helped to ensure 

all of us the kind of society that we have come to take for granted. 

Unfortunately, no judge should ever worry that upholding the 

law might endanger them or their family. Senator Durbin and I, 

as has been noted, recently were able to secure $12 million in next 

year’s budget to keep our judges safe, but more must be done. So 

I am looking forward to hearing this Committee’s ideas and working with this Committee in the future. 

My final note, I guess, would be that this hearing hopefully can 

help us with the political dialogue that has been referred to in recent months and years. All too often, politicians have a tendency 

to speak about judges not as public servants, but as obstacles who 

stand between those politicians and their partisan agendas. This is 

not what our judges are. This is not what Judge Lefkow is. 

She is a judge whose chamber was decorated with her children’s 

art work, a mother who prepared four separate meals to suit her 

daughters’ difference tastes, a student who attended an evangelical 

college to follow in the footsteps of her pastor, and a public servant 

who has made upholding the law her life’s work. We are grateful 

for that work. We hopefully will honor that work and the work of 

all Federal judges by the efforts in this Committee. 

I thank you so much, Judge, for taking the time to be here. You 

have my utmost respect and gratitude. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Lefkow, our Committee very much appreciates your presence. It is an enormously serious problem and 

your focus here will focus a great deal of attention not only on Capitol Hill, but in the country. And to repeat, the Congress will act 

to provide security for judges. 

Judge Lefkow has had a very distinguished career, has been a 

Federal judicial official since 1982. From 1982 until 1997, she was 

a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. From 

1997, she served as a bankruptcy judge until the year 2000, when 

she was appointed to the United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, where she serves at the present time. 

She has a bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College and a law degree from Northwestern University Law School. 

6

Judge Lefkow, again, thank you for your being here and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN HUMPHREY LEFKOW, UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Judge LEFKOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for your invitation to appear here today, 

and I do want to also thank you, Senator Durbin, for your great 

compassion that you have expressed to me and my family through 

this. I also would like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Dan 

Coates, who is an old friend of mine and was kind enough to come 

along and give me support today. 

I have prepared my statement and, with your indulgence, I will 

probably be reading quite a bit of it because it is difficult for me 

to get through this. 

I am the fourth judge since 1978 who has been the victim of an 

assassination as a result of what President Clinton wrote to me, 

‘‘the madness in the shadows of modern life’’; more specifically, as 

a direct result of a decision made in the course of fulfilling our duties to do justice without fear or favor. 

Among more than 1,000 letters of condolence that my family received are approximately 200 from judges, State and Federal, who 

know—each of them know in their own heart ‘‘this could have been 

me.’’ Five assassinations—that includes two for me—in 25 years 

tells us that judges are particularly vulnerable. By comparison—I 

looked into this—the last such tragedy within the Congress was in 

1978, and that was on foreign soil. And it tells us that something 

is wrong in the judicial protection arena. 

Let me briefly tell you what this has done not only to me and 

my children, but to my extended family of brothers and sisters, 

nieces, nephews and others. As Senator Obama just mentioned, Michael was a man whose excellent character and accomplishments 

at the bar and as a family man have been described in many recent 

news reports and I will not attempt to recount them. 

On a personal level, however, he was a man who at the age of 

64 looked to the future with hopefulness and anticipation. A litigant who was angry with me shot him in the head, and my aged 

mother, on February 28th of this year, for no reason other than 

that they were in his way on his road to murder me. He could have 

easily added my daughter, who is 16 years old and lived in our 

house, and me. 

2/28 is our own personal 9/11. Since 2/28, our family includes a 

daughter and her husband who have to explain to their young children why their grandfather is now with God and they will never 

see him again, two daughters who will not have their beaming father to walk them down the aisle at their weddings in the coming 

year, and two who will not have dad to be there to join the fun at 

their upcoming graduations from high school and college. From 

now on, they will have a father’s guidance only through the memory of what he was to them. 

Michael’s family includes, among others, four sisters and brothers, who have now lost their third sibling before the age of 65. An 

entire family has lost its ability to feel safe when we walk through 

7

the doors of our own homes. Beyond the family, there is a community of clients, friends, fellow church members and neighbors who 

simply miss this man and woman, who were a significant part of 

their lives in one way or another. 

The father who sent every report card to grandma so she also 

could rejoice in what the children accomplished is no longer there, 

and neither is the grandmother who made each of her 20 grandchildren and great grandchildren believe that that grandchild was 

her special favorite. Indeed, she was my children’s only grandparent. 

Finally, I am the wife who wakes up in the morning not to a cup 

of coffee presented by my husband of 30 years to reopen what we 

called the endless conversation of marriage, but to an open book 

that I was reading in an effort to banish the memories of 5:30 p.m. 

on the day our world changed forever. 

I say all this not to garner sympathy or pity. We have been overwhelmed by the kindness of others and I could not begin to adequately express our gratitude. Rather, I come to you with a plea 

that you who have the power continue to make judicial protection 

a priority, as is reflected in the recent passage of H.R. 1268, which 

includes $12 million to the Marshals Service for increased security 

for Federal judges, specifically for home intrusion detection systems, and that you be vigilant in monitoring judicial security so 

that sympathetic feelings translate into something real for us. And 

I come to you with a plea that each of you exercise leadership to 

use your voices to support the vital role of judges in sustaining a 

society based on the rule of law instead of right being defined by 

might. 

I understand Congress can’t eradicate all violence against judges, 

nor are we exempt from this madness in the shadows of modern 

life. But as I replay in my mind the events that led to our tragedy, 

I believe that several things might have prevented it and could prevent it from happening to even one more of our judges. 

The first is rapid distribution of the funds for home security systems. We, the judges, are very grateful that this money has been 

appropriated so rapidly and certainly appreciate it so much. Now, 

the judiciary, however, is concerned that all or part of this appropriation might be used to meet other needs of the Marshals Service. Obviously, had the Lefkow family had this system in our home, 

this horror could have been avoided. 

I hope that this Committee and the Senate will make it very 

clear to the Director of the Marshals Service, Mr. Reyna, your intent that this money be distributed to the judges in the field as 

quickly as the judiciary can make it possible, make the arrangements possible. 

As recently as last Friday, which was May 13th, I was spotted 

and harassed in a restaurant in downtown Chicago. Now, had that 

harasser come back rather than with a nasty sign and had a gun, 

obviously I wouldn’t be here today to speak with you. 

I also urge your support for legislation that prohibits the posting 

of personal information about judges, as well as other public officials, on the Internet without their written consent. I had in my 

local court asked that some online research be done about each of 

the members of the Committee just to try to illustrate to you what 

8

is out there on the Internet free of charge or for a mere $20, and 

it is really shocking what can be found on the Internet. 

As some of you may have heard, during the late fall of 2003 I 

became aware that I was being vilified on the Internet by a white 

supremacist organization that had a trademark case before me. As 

some may be aware, the circumstances resulted in prosecution and 

conviction of the principal of that group. I was labeled ‘‘a probable 

Jew’’ with ‘‘mixed-race grandchildren,’’ as if those were shameful 

things. 

But eventually my home address and other personal information 

were posted by this fringe group. The information, true and false, 

that was posted about me was readily available free of charge on 

the Internet. A small fee will give anyone who wants it access to 

Social Security numbers, loans, land transactions, the names of 

neighbors, and so forth. Although it may never be stopped entirely, 

this is a brave new world and I hope that something can be done 

to limit the commercial trafficking in such information which 

makes it out there for people to find. 

The third item for which the judiciary needs your support is adequate funding for adequate staffing of the United States Marshals 

Service. Others who are more knowledgeable than I, including 

Judge Roth, will be addressing you on these matters, and I also believe that you have been provided a letter that my Chief Judge, 

Charles Kocoras, wrote to you, Senator Specter, addressing these 

issues as well. 

This is my personal observation over the 22-plus years that I 

have worked in the Federal judiciary: There has been a reduction 

of support for the judges that corresponds with the increase in the 

demand for transportation of prisoners, apprehension of fugitives 

and other responsibilities associated with the federalization of 

criminal law. 

Although security is provided at all criminal case hearings, many 

officers are not trained U.S. Marshals, and on the civil side no security is provided unless the judge specifically requests it from an 

already strained district office. We need a trained deputy marshal 

present at all court hearings, criminal and civil, who can be our 

eyes and ears to identify and follow up on litigants who appear to 

be dangerous. 

How many times have I chastised myself for not recognizing this 

threat that became a reality? But this is neither my expertise nor 

do I believe it is appropriate that I should be thinking about 

whether someone is dangerous when I am trying to decide their 

case. 

In addition, my own experience with my current security detail 

suggests to me that there is a tremendous need for thinking and 

planning and training from the top of the Marshals Service. Let me 

be clear. I do not intend by these remarks to convey any criticism 

of either Marshal Kim Widup of the Northern District of Illinois, 

nor any individual deputy whom I have encountered on my protection detail since February 28th. 

Starting with the team who swept a shaken, disbelieving family 

into protective custody on that awful night, these deputies were the 

knot at the end of our rope for weeks, and not one of them has 

been anything but compassionate, available and committed beyond 

9

the call of duty. This has been a sacrifice for the entire Service, of 

course, as districts who have lent deputies for my detail are even 

more short-handed in their own locales than they were under normal circumstances. 

It is easy enough to blame the Service for problems, but the 

truth is that the Congress has never treated the U.S. Marshals as 

it has, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, giving it 

the respect and resources that it needs to fulfill the tremendous responsibilities that it has. 

The more that I learn about what is in place for judicial protection in the Marshals Service, the less sanguine I am that judicial 

security is anything but an ad hoc response to individual requests, 

and this is very disturbing to me. 

Judges do not invite anyone to file a lawsuit. The cases come to 

us because the prosecutor and individual or corporation is convinced that the court will protect the rights that they believe are 

granted to them by the Congress and the Constitution. Neither do 

we choose the issues. I know many judges who welcome the—I am 

sorry. I will back up here. Let me just start back. I am sorry. I 

skipped a little bit. 

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Lefkow, just take your time. You are 

fine. 

Judge LEFKOW. Okay. My final point—and it really follows directly from the whole issue about the Marshals Service—is that I 

would ask the members of this Committee who are particularly 

committed with responsibility for the judiciary to publicly and persistently repudiate gratuitous attacks on the judiciary, such as the 

recent statement of Pat Robertson on national television, and unfortunately some members of the Congress, albeit in more measured terms. We need your help in tempering the tone of the debates that concern the independence of the judiciary. 

I have come to know scores of judges during my 22 years as a 

magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge and district judge. Whether liberal or conservative, I have never encountered a judge in the Federal judiciary who can remotely be described as posing a threat, as 

Mr. Robertson said, ‘‘probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.’’

In this age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous. It seems to me that even though we cannot prove a causeand-effect relationship between rhetorical attacks on judges in general and violent acts of vengeance by a particular litigant, the fostering of disrespect for judges can only encourage those who are on 

the edge or on the fringe to exact revenge on a judge who displeases them. 

As I was saying, we don’t invite the cases. The cases come to us. 

These decisions can be very difficult, decisions such as whether a 

man’s heinous crime was a result of inability to understand the nature of his acts, or whether a decision by the next of kin to remove 

a feeding tube from a living human being should or should not be 

honored, or whether termination of a collectively-bargained pension 

plan is lawful. We call this winning and losing, but the terms are 

inadequate. This is never a game. These cases entail enormous consequences for the individuals involved and emotions can be powerful in these situations. 

10

I would like to just remind you, although, Senator Specter, you 

have already said this—and I thank you for your words—my Chief 

Judge, Charles Kocoras, wrote this: ‘‘No principle by which we live 

as Americans or govern and judge ourselves is worthier of greater 

respect and fealty than the doctrine of the rule of law. Respect for 

the rule of law and the civility it affords requires acceptance of the 

results the law ordains. If it comes to pass that [attacks on judges] 

are perpetuated because each person feels free in deciding for 

themselves what is right or just, then chaos and anarchy will not 

be far behind...’’

This very statement has been echoed by dozens of strangers in 

my mail. These ordinary citizens and voters understand what 

Judge Kocoras puts eloquently. This is the reason American judges 

are invited by developing democracies throughout the world to help 

establish an independent judiciary. Our system is the role model 

for the world. Without fearless judges, where are we as a Nation? 

I have no doubt that each of you is equally committed to this 

idea, but your voices as elected officials are magnified. Judges, by 

contrast, speak most often through our decisions. We need your 

leadership in this area, and the stakes are profound. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here 

today. I know that I speak for all my judicial colleagues throughout 

the Nation in expressing our appreciation for the time and attention that you are giving to our security needs, and it is very reassuring that you say that Congress will do something. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions anyone would have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Lefkow appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Judge Lefkow. 

Just a few questions. 

You made a comment about an incident where you were harassed in a public restaurant. What kind of security are you now 

getting? 

Judge LEFKOW. I have a full protection detail and they were 

present with me, yes. 

Chairman SPECTER. You made a comment about an incident involving white supremacists. Had you requested security protection 

at that time? 

Judge LEFKOW. I had security protection for a couple of days 

about the time that this gentleman was to be arrested and during 

the court hearings. I did not have protection thereafter, no, and I 

want to make sure that it is understood that I did not request it 

or demand it. But if I could use this as an opportunity to say that 

I think the judges don’t really know—it is not our expertise to 

know when we need protection. That is why I think we need someone in the Marshals Service or we need the Marshals Service to 

really study and analyze this issue as law enforcement people to 

help us understand, yes, you need protection. 

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Lefkow, my suggestion to you and 

your fellow judges would be not to be reluctant about requesting 

protection. It is true that you are not an expert in the field, and 

it may be that you feel a certain reluctance to have resources attached to your security, leaving it to somebody else. But the 

squeaky wheel gets the oil and there has been enough experience 

11

so that you are well within your rights and well within your prudence to ask for it. 

Tell us just a little bit more about what happened on this white 

supremacist case, what the circumstances were and what were the 

indicators that there could have been a problem and why you were 

only given protection for a couple of days. 

Judge LEFKOW. The case was a very non-controversial case. You 

would never call it a, quote, ‘‘heater’’ case or high-profile case. It 

was a trademark case. I began to learn about this happening when 

the opposing party to this supremacist organization was attaching 

copies of e-mail print-outs in the papers that were sent to me. 

By December of 2002, the United States Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, came to visit me and told me that there was a threat 

against my life. And he also told me that there was, shall we say, 

a mole or an inside informant in the organization. 

Chairman SPECTER. A threat against your life? 

Judge LEFKOW. Pardon me? 

Chairman SPECTER. A threat against your life? 

Judge LEFKOW. Yes, yes. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, it seems to me that would require 

some immediate protection from the Marshals Service. Did you get 

it? 

Judge LEFKOW. He asked me—Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I 

wanted protection, and based on what he said to me, I said, well, 

if they get my home address, let’s talk about this again. But as far 

as I knew, they didn’t know where I lived. And, you know, it is difficult for me to talk about this because I can say, you know, if I 

had done this, if I had done that, this might not have happened. 

But I never spoke—well, that is not true. The Marshals Service 

knew about this and I suppose—I don’t know, I don’t know. The 

way it was presented, I don’t feel that there was any system in 

place. It was just very much a local thing, and I knew that our 

Marshals Service couldn’t even get the prisoners to court on time. 

Chairman SPECTER. Judge Lefkow, I can fully understand your 

saying you don’t know, but when the U.S. Attorney reports a 

threat, the U.S. Attorney ought to take the initiative to see that 

you have protection. And when you say the Marshals Service knew 

about it, they should take the initiative to give you the protection. 

A threat against your life is no minor matter and it should not be 

your burden to have to ask for it or insist on it because of the natural reluctance that someone in your position would have. 

There are going to be a lot of people listening to your testimony, 

Judge Lefkow, and I would conclude—my red light is about to go 

on—with an urging of Federal judges or anyone who is subject to 

these kinds of threats not to be reticent. 

Senator Durbin.

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Lefkow, thank you. I am glad you are here today. I am 

glad your family is with you to be part of this testimony. 

Since the tragedy that you have lived through, I have had conversations with several of your colleagues on the bench. One or two 

called me and a few others I ran into and talked to, and they were 

stunned by what happened to you and then stepped back and realVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jul 06, 2005 Jkt 022222 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22222.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
12

ized how vulnerable they were. They started looking at the world 

and their jobs a lot differently. 

Without naming names, can you relate some of the conversations 

that you have had with your colleagues concerning their fears and 

their concerns? 

Judge LEFKOW. Well, one of my colleagues said that they had a 

home security system installed and they hadn’t been entirely vigilant about making sure it was on all the time, but obviously now 

it is on. I think it was just a tremendous—a wake-up call is not 

the right word. It was much more than that. It is like being run 

over by an 18-wheeler when this happens to one of your colleagues. 

Judge Kocoras has been very supportive and strong, and he really has come out in favor of having a trained marshal at all court 

hearings. I think we are all concerned that we—everyone understands you need protection in criminal cases, but the civil cases—

and indeed the judges who have been killed, they have all been 

civil cases where desperate people believe that they will find justice 

in Federal court. 

They have been through the State courts, they have been turned 

down. They think my civil rights will be protected in Federal court. 

And then if, as in my case, I dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction, 

it is an easy decision for me on that level because it was clear as 

a matter of law, but for this man it was the end of the road for 

him in terms of a peaceable solution to his problem. 

Senator DURBIN. I might just add, Mr. Chairman, that after the 

identity of the murderer was disclosed, we realized that he had 

come to our office with the same file, in desperation. That doesn’t 

happen frequently, but it happens, and I can understand why you 

stepped back and had to measure is this a real threat or is this 

what you can expect in the course of business that wouldn’t be 

something of major concern. 

So for your life, it has been changed dramatically, but for your 

colleagues on the bench, do you believe they are prepared to accept 

the changes that their lives would have to see if they moved forward with more security and more protection for their families? 

Judge LEFKOW. I do, I do. They want it. That is what I am hearing. They want it. 

Senator DURBIN. And what you said loud and clear was this $12 

million that Senator Obama and I worked for—you want to see 

that money as quickly as possible come through and be made available for home security systems for the judges that want it. 

Judge LEFKOW. Yes. As I understand it, though, that money is 

not necessarily earmarked for this purpose and we are hopeful we 

can work with the Marshals Service. But I just hope that everyone 

will understand that that is what the money is needed for now. 

Senator DURBIN. And, of course, I think Senator Obama and I 

both feel that that is what we want done, and we will work with 

you in that regard. 

The last point you went into is a delicate one because of our constitutional protection of free speech. People can say what they want 

to say and that is part of America. But some of the comments that 

you referred to from Reverend Robertson and some of the members 

of Congress clearly went over the line. To say that judges are a 

greater threat to America than bearded terrorists is sadly an incenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jul 06, 2005 Jkt 022222 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22222.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
13

diary remark which Mr. Robertson should have known better than 

to make that kind of remark. 

I just want to say that he has the right to say what he believes, 

but you are correct in arguing that all of us, regardless of party, 

liberal, conservative, should be denouncing these remarks as totally irresponsible. 

Judge LEFKOW. I agree with you. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you and your family for being here 

today. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

Senator Obama, would you care to ask a question or make a further comment? 

Senator OBAMA. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate you just 

allowing me to hear this testimony. I thought Judge Lefkow was 

incredibly eloquent under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, 

and I would just urge that we take this extraordinarily seriously 

and underscore maybe one point that I heard. 

As Senator Durbin indicated, in our interactions with the public 

oftentimes we have people come in who are in difficult straits, having a difficult time, display erratic behavior. Part of our job as public servants, I think, is to try to treat everybody who comes through 

our doors with respect. 

So I am just very sympathetic to the fact that Judge Lefkow may 

not be in a position to evaluate threats any more than I would be 

in these circumstances, and I just want to underscore the point 

that the initiative is going to need to come from the professionals. 

Obviously, all of us are now more mindful of the possibilities of 

these threats and will be on higher alert, but ultimately we have 

got to set up some systems and some structures whereby these 

threats are evaluated and appropriate protective steps are taken. 

My hope is that the Marshals Service, through not only additional 

money but additional planning and foresight, will be able to put 

such systems in place. 

So, Judge Lefkow, I just thank you again for your wonderful testimony. It is very much appreciated. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to participate. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Obama. 

Thank you very much, Judge Lefkow. We appreciate your family 

coming and we appreciate our former colleague, Senator Dan 

Coates, being with you as a longstanding friend. 

We turn now to the second panel: Judge Jane Roth; U.S. Marshals Services Director Benigno Reyna; the Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, Kim R. Widup; and Judge Samuel Alba, 

United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Utah. 

Judge Roth is testifying today in her capacity as Chair of the 

United States Judicial Conference’s Committee on Security and Facilities. She has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit since July of 1991 and had been a Federal judge in the District of Delaware from November 1985 until her appointment to the 

Third Circuit. She has a bachelor’s degree from Smith College and 

a law degree from the Harvard Law School. 

Regretfully, I am going to have to excuse myself at this point. I 

will be following the testimony very closely. I have met with Judge 

Roth, as I stated before when earlier this month she and former 

14

Chief Judge Edward R. Becker and I sat in Philadelphia and talked 

over these issues. 

This hearing started very early, as you all know, because we had 

expected a mark-up on asbestos at 9:30. On Capitol Hill, one thing 

consistently trumps something else and the current consideration 

of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen is the number one 

item on the agenda because, as I noted earlier, it implicates the potential for the so-called constitutional or nuclear option. I regret 

that more of our colleagues couldn’t be here, but it is a very busy 

place, and I can assure you that there will be a lot of attention paid 

to the transcript here. 

My distinguished colleague, Senator Sessions, has just arrived 

without an opportunity for me to ask his favor of presiding at the 

hearing, but I saw that our two counsel talked to him. 

May I now turn the gavel over to you, Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I would be honored to do as 

well as I can in your absence. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I am sure you will be exemplary, as always. Thank you very much. 

Senator SESSIONS [presiding.] Judge Roth, it is an honor to be before you. 

STATEMENT OF JANE R. ROTH, JUDGE, UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND FACILITIES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Judge ROTH. Well, our paths have crossed many times over the 

years and it is a great pleasure for me to be here today to testify 

before you. 

As Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and 

Facilities, I want to thank you for calling this important hearing. 

I would particularly like to thank my colleague, Judge Joan 

Lefkow, for her willingness to be here today and to share with you 

the personal tragedy which she recently experienced. I also want 

to thank Magistrate Judge Sam Alba for being here today. The testimony and personal experience of these judges reinforces my view 

that the manner in which security is provided to the judiciary is 

unsatisfactory. 

Simply put, we have an ongoing crisis in the relationship that exists between the judiciary, the United States Marshals Service and 

the Department of Justice. In a word, the relationship is dysfunctional. Unfortunately, it affects the security of judges, of their families and of everyone in the courthouse. It is a very serious matter, 

as Judge Lefkow’s presence here today indicates. 

I say this in spite of the dedication and hard work of the marshals serving in courthouses throughout the country. The problem 

is here in Washington, not out in the courts, where marshals work 

tirelessly to make do with inadequate resources. Despite the fact 

that judges are subject to an increasingly hostile environment, the 

judiciary is not able to participate in a meaningful way with the 

Marshals Service and the Department of Justice to ensure adequate resources for judicial security. 

15

Right now, the judiciary is excluded from three key areas—policy, planning and budget—in the determination of the need for resources. Our requests to examine staffing levels have been denied. 

Our requests to participate in the determination of adequate staffing levels have not been honored. 

Within that context, we need answers to the following questions. 

What policies are in place that govern how and when protective details will be assigned to judges and their families? What criteria 

are used in threat assessments? How are decisions about competing 

resource needs resolved? What is the process that establishes Marshals Service staffing levels for court security? Are these staffing 

levels being met? How are long-term resource needs determined 

and planned for? 

These processes should be transparent and not exclude the client 

to whom the services are provided. We need a meaningful place at 

the table if there is to be any real accountability for judicial security. I believe that legislation is the only acceptable solution to the 

problem. I say this because of the repeated failure of the Marshals 

Service and the Department of Justice to respond meaningfully to 

our requests for answers. 

I have provided you and your staff with draft language that is 

simple and straightforward. The proposed language would require 

the Marshals Service and the judiciary to jointly submit to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment a report that states 

what the security needs of the judiciary are and how they are to 

be addressed. Such a report will greatly assist your Committee in 

exercising its oversight responsibility over the judiciary’s security 

requirements, and it will serve as a vehicle for bringing the judiciary and the Department of Justice together in a more productive 

relationship. 

I would also like to thank you and the rest of the Senate for providing almost $12 million for judicial security, including home 

alarm systems for judges. This bill was recently signed into law by 

President Bush. It is worth noting that this request for home alarm 

systems came from the judiciary, not from the Marshals Service. 

In the bill, this amount specifically included home security systems. The judiciary needs to start planning now with the Marshals 

Service for its implementation. We are concerned that the Marshals Service is not prepared to do so now. We want to start today. 

Today’s hearing reflects your appreciation for the seriousness of 

the issue. We hope you will support our request for legislation that 

will result in judicial security decisions being made in a more rational, realistic and collaborative fashion. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions that the 

Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Roth appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Judge Roth. We take seriously the 

comments that you have made. 

Our next witness is Mr. Ben Reyna. He was appointed by President George Bush to serve as Director of the United States Marshals Service on October 29, 2001. He began his law enforcement 

career in 1976 with the Brownsville Police Department in the city 

16

of Brownsville, Texas. During his 25-year career, he rose through 

the ranks and served six years as chief of police in Brownsville. 

In 1997, he was appointed to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education by then-Governor 

Bush. He was appointed presiding officer in 2000, where he served 

until is current position. He has served in various positions for 

many Federal programs, including from 1998 to 2001 as regional 

law enforcement technology expert with the Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center, which is part of the White House Office 

of National Drug Control Policy, and as law enforcement adviser to 

the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee in the United 

States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas. 

He received his bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from the 

University of Texas-Pan American and he is a graduate of the Federal of Bureau of Investigation National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. 

Mr. Marshal, we are delighted to have you with us and would be 

pleased to hear your comments at this time. 

STATEMENT OF BENIGNO G. REYNA, DIRECTOR, UNITED 

STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. REYNA. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I certainly want to also thank the prior members of the Committee who 

were here earlier. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate the support that you have given 

the United States Marshals Service in the past, and we look forward to working with you in addressing the challenges we face in 

preserving the integrity of the judicial process. 

I am pleased to be joined this morning by the Honorable Jane 

Roth, Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; the Honorable 

Samuel Alba, Magistrate Judge, District of Utah; and United 

States Marshal of the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable 

Kim Widup. I am proud to be here today to represent the thousands of dedicated deputy marshals and law enforcement professionals who make up this country’s oldest Federal law enforcement 

profession. 

The protection of the judiciary is one of the most important functions in American Government. If Federal jurists are to preside 

over cases and render verdicts free from fear of threat and intimidation in a safe environment, then judicial security must continue 

to be a priority for our Government. A secure judiciary is fundamentally necessary in the preservation of justice, in maintaining 

the rule of law and in protecting the rights of all citizens. 

While the judicial security mission traditionally has been defined 

as protection of Federal judges and the physical protection of Federal courthouses, the full resources of the Marshals Service are devoted to the protection of the judicial process. 

We are an agency steeped in history and service and we stand 

proud of our record. Each day, the men and women of the Marshals 

Service place their lives on the line to carry out this agency’s primary mission—protecting the integrity of the judicial process of 

this great Nation. We do this in many ways, many of which the 

17

public will never hear or think about. Please allow me to give you 

some examples. 

Today, somewhere in the Northeast, we will pick up a Federal 

judge who is under our protection and safely take them to court. 

Then at the end of the day, we will take him home again, ensuring 

his safety. Today, in Chicago, deputy United States marshals will 

produce 18 defendants in front of a judge in is courtroom in the 

Dirksen Building. Many of these defendants are accused of violent 

acts, and the safety of the judge on the bench and everyone in that 

courtroom will be maintained by deputy United States marshals. 

Today, we will screen countless visitors in Federal courthouses 

all across this country, and the safety of judges, lawyers, witnesses, 

jurors and court personnel will be maintained by deputy United 

States marshals. As we speak, from Oklahoma City alone, the 

United States Marshals Service’s air fleet is flying more than 400 

criminal defendants en route to courtrooms in cities all across this 

Nation. Both the defendants and judges that they will appear before will be protected by deputy United States marshals. 

How do I know this? I know this because in the Marshals Service 

we do this everyday. We do this while successfully completing the 

other missions which have been mandated to the Marshals Service 

by Congress. We investigate inappropriate communications, which 

include threats to judges, Federal prosecutors, witnesses and jurors. We do this an average of 60 times a month as part of the judicial process. 

We continue to protect witnesses from intimidation and from 

threat of harm as they provide testimony that is critical in highprofile trials as part of the judicial process. We transport prisoners. 

In the past week, deputy United States marshals safely moved 

more than 6,000 prisoners all across this country as part of the judicial process. 

We arrest violent fugitives. In fact, last week we arrested 638 defendants wanted on felony warrants issued by the court as part of 

the judicial process. As part of the judicial process, every single defendant in the Federal system goes through the United States Marshals Service, and on any given day we have over 50,000 prisoners 

in our custody. Most of this work is done with very little fanfare. 

It is work that doesn’t make the news, but it is done with professionalism and it is vital to the judicial process in this country. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I assure you that 

the men and women of the United States Marshals Service perform 

these duties and many others in a safe and secure manner and 

with the highest level of commitment each day. We appreciate your 

support in providing resources as we work with the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts in enhancing outside security for 

members of the judiciary. 

My written testimony has been submitted to the Committee. I 

want to thank you again for your invitation and support of the 

Marshals Service, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyna appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, sir. 

Next, we will have Mr. Kim Widup, who is the United States 

Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois, one of our largest U.S. 

18

Marshal districts. Prior to his appointment, he was a supervisory 

special agent or criminal investigator at the Federal level for 25 

years, specializing in public corruption, white-collar crime and complex criminal investigations. 

Among his many assignments, he was senior criminal investigator in the Office of the Inspector General’s Headquarters Investigation and Protective Operations Division from 1992 to 1994, the 

lead investigator and supervisor to the Office of Independent Counsel investigating a former Agriculture Secretary, Assistant Special 

Agent in Charge for the Midwest Region of the Office of Inspector 

General in Chicago, and Chief of Investigations for the Whitewater 

investigation under Independent Counsel Robert Ray. 

Marshal Widup, we are delighted to have you here and hear your 

perspective on courthouse security, since where the rubber meets 

the road, I guess it is your responsibility there in the courthouses 

of the Northern District of Illinois. 

STATEMENT OF KIM RICHARD WIDUP, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Mr. WIDUP. Yes, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the role of the United States 

Marshals Service in protecting the Federal judiciary. It is vital to 

our democracy that those who work within our judicial system do 

so without any fear or intimidation. 

Recent tragic events in Chicago and Atlanta highlight the need 

for securing our courts and protecting those who work in them. I 

am a 26-year veteran of Federal law enforcement and have been 

the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois 

since April 2002. I have personal knowledge of the important task 

of protecting judges and our judicial process, and I was serving as 

United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois when 

Bart Ross murdered the husband and mother of District Judge 

Joan Lefkow. 

During my law enforcement career, I have received many hours 

of protective operations training from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the U.S. Secret Service and agency-sponsored courses. I supervised the protective detail of the Secretary of 

Agriculture and have been involved in the supervision of numerous 

protective assignments within the Marshals Service for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Since my appointment by President Bush to serve as U.S. Marshal, I have witnessed firsthand the vital importance of protecting 

our Federal judicial process. Just last month, members of my staff 

provided a safe and secure environment at the United States district courthouse in Chicago as white supremacist Matthew Hale 

was sentenced for his role in the solicitation of the murder of Judge 

Lefkow. 

We have recently had several violent street gang proceedings, 

and in the recent past the cases against an Iraqi intelligence officer 

and Al Qaeda financier Enaam Aranout, both of which required extensive security measures by my staff. 

19

Last year, we had the trial and sentencing of a defendant who 

was responsible for smuggling a handcuff key to Jeffrey Erickson 

approximately ten years ago. Erickson, in turn, murdered a deputy 

United States marshal and a court security officer before being fatally shot by the same court security officer. 

Because failure is not an option, our security planning and execution needs to be the very best it can be. I have an excellent relationship with United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, as well as 

both the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois and the 

Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. My chief deputy and 

I meet with them, the clerk of the court and others who have a 

stake in protecting the judicial process on an as-needed basis. 

Additionally, threats against our judges, U.S. Attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys and others are brought to our attention on a regular basis either as direct threats or inappropriate 

communications. In the Northern District of Illinois, three deputy 

Marshals Service marshals are assigned full-time to investigate 

these potential threats. 

In our district, we also enjoy a close working relationship with 

our colleagues in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Joint 

Terrorism Task Force, the Chicago Police Department, the Cook 

County Sheriff’s office, as well as other State, local and Federal law 

enforcement agencies. Because of these relationships, once a threat 

is received, a collaborative effort is undertaken to investigate and 

resolve the situation, to run every lead possible to get to the source 

of the situation. 

Throughout our 215-year history, the United States Marshals 

Service has given the highest priority to our judicial security mission and we are proud of our accomplishments. However, we must 

keep ever vigilant and ready. Judge Lefkow mentioned Friday 

night in Chicago while she was having dinner under the protection 

of the U.S. Marshals Service—she had a security detail that 

evening—an individual came up and slapped an offensive note on 

the window where she was dining and the person ran. 

Our deputies—one of them pursued him. The rest of the deputies 

stayed to protect the judge. It is a sad situation that people can 

write such notes, but there were deputies on the scene and they 

were there to protect the judge, as she has been everyday since 

February 28th of this year. Again, we must keep ever vigilant and 

ready. With threats against the judiciary on the rise, it is vitally 

important that we all work together to maintain a safe and secure 

environment for our justice system. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Widup appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Marshal. 

Judge Samuel Alba has served as a United States Magistrate 

Judge in the District of Utah since August of 1992 and has been 

Chief Magistrate Judge since 2003. Prior to his appointment, he 

was a shareholder in Prince, Yates and Gelzoller from 1987 to 

1992, and was first assistant and chief of the criminal section with 

the United States attorney’s office from 1980 to 1987 and worked 

20

on criminal defense matters both at a private firm and at the Federal public defender’s office in Phoenix, Arizona, from 1972 to 1980. 

I should have asked my colleague—

Senator KYL. Where did he graduate from? 

Senator SESSIONS. —where did he graduate from law school. He 

got his undergraduate degree from Utah State University and his 

law degree from Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 

Senator Kyl, what comments do you have? 

Senator KYL. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not my alma mater, 

but it is a fine law school. I welcome Sam here today. 

Thanks, Sam, for being here. 

Senator SESSIONS. Judge Alba. 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL ALBA, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DISTRICT OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Judge ALBA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee today and offer some 

comments. I know that my statement pales by comparison with the 

tragic events of the Lefkow family. I make it, however, to demonstrate how the United States Marshals Service fails to provide 

adequate resources when situations are presented which impact judicial security at home. 

Even with my local Marshals Service marshal’s concern, headquarters in Washington was non-responsive or is inconsistent in its 

response to these requests. It has rigid procedures, some unknown 

to the judiciary, in place which only exacerbate the situation. 

For the last few months, I have been conducting preliminary proceedings in a case involving 12 members of a violent white supremacist criminal organization primarily within the Utah State 

prison system. Twice in the last few months, I have been notified 

by members of the United States Marshals Service and FBI representatives that credible threats have been made against the female African American Assistant United States Attorney assisting 

with the prosecution and another prosecutor. 

I have conducted a number of proceedings where I have had 

these defendants in front of me. The first time, I brought them in 

in three separate groups—my hearing is quite small and that is all 

that I could accommodate—to warn them that this would not be 

tolerated. The second time, I had to borrow Judge Benson’s ceremonial courtroom to accommodate all 12 of the defendants in court for 

this proceeding. 

It was at that time that I seated them in what is usually reserved for the press, in the press box, for control purposes. Each 

of the defendants had two deputy marshals or prison security officers assigned to them, plus a third officer who was stationed nearby. These are violent individuals. 

The courtroom was full with many of the defendants’ family 

members and friends seated in the audience. I imposed certain restrictions on them which implicated their ability to continue visits 

with their families, and it implicated the families as well. After 

being told of these new restrictions, the defendant seated closest to 

the bench stood up and shouted objections and obscenities to me.

21

I ordered the United States deputy marshal who was closest to 

him to put him down in his seat. This defendant then spit into the 

face of the deputy marshal who was trying to carry out my order. 

Almost instantaneously, at least four other handcuffed, shackled 

defendants leaped to their feet, spewed profanity-laden protests, 

spat, kicked and scuffled with the United States marshals and 

other court security officers. 

A deputy marshal, fearing for the safety of a female defense attorney who was seated between two of these defendants, lifted the 

woman over the wall separating the press box from the bench. The 

scuffle went on for a couple of minutes, until deputy marshals and 

other security personnel were able to get the defendants under control. I consider this a very serious threat. They were trying to get 

at where I was on the bench in a direct response and immediate 

response to my ruling. 

As a result of these actions, within the next couple of days I had 

a meeting with investigators from the United States Marshals office and the judicial security inspector. I advised them of my concern for my safety and for my family’s safety. They informed me 

at the time that both Assistant United States Attorneys who were 

the subject of these threats were receiving United States Marshal 

protection details, and both of them, through the Department of 

Justice, had also had home intrusion security systems installed in 

their homes. 

I requested the inspector to go to my house and speak with my 

wife. He advised her that the United States Attorney’s office had 

identified between 125 to 150 sympathizers of this criminal organization on the outside and gave several suggestions for protecting 

our home and our family, including setting up a security system. 

Within a couple of days, I made that specific request of the marshal and of my clerk to seek some funding to accomplish that. I 

was advised that none was available. The marshal had contacted 

headquarters and they had told him that under the threat matrix, 

I did not qualify for a detail, and I also did not qualify for any 

home security system to be provided for me at home. In desperation, my wife and I turned to the local authorities, who expressed 

greater concern and to this day they send individual patrols into 

our neighborhood every evening and patrol through our street. 

The impact on my family was intense. Within a few days of this 

incident occurring in court, I had to travel out of State to attend 

a meeting of the Defender Services Committee. The first night I 

was gone, my wife and son were alone. Our dog was insistent late 

in the evening. She went to the back door and let him out. He 

stayed out for about 30 minutes, barking. Finally, he came back 

into the house. The rest of the night, my wife was petrified. 

We have been to our son’s elementary school and notified the 

principal and the teacher of concerns that we had. They were 

aware through the newspaper and other media stories of what was 

going on, and this heightened their concern as well. As a result of 

these threats, we have had to install a system which cost us in excess of $4,000 in our home. 

Unbeknownst to me until this month, a fellow United States 

magistrate judge in the District of Maryland had received a temporary home security system from his district marshal’s office after 

22

the marshals had detected not an overt threat, but a series of signs 

that he may be targeted. That occurred in the fall of 2004, just a 

few months before my request for a temporary home alarm system. 

That request reportedly was approved by the marshals headquarters office that had disapproved the request from my district 

marshal. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that you help Federal judges be safe and 

secure both at the courthouse and in our homes by providing oversight so that the Marshals Service will have the resources and staff 

necessary to fully provide the judicial protection for which they are 

statutorily responsible. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Alba appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Judge Alba, for those comments 

that I think do indicate the seriousness of the issue with which we 

are dealing. It is absolutely critical that our legal system function, 

and when that system is threatened by groups of people who are 

willing to utilize violence against the very system itself, the integrity of our Government, our laws and our authorities that enforce 

the law, then we are confronted with a challenge we cannot fail to 

meet. We just have to meet it. 

I have been in Iraq and talked to judges there, and when you 

know the daily threat they are under, you know what that kind of 

violent threat can do to a legal system and how hard it is to conduct one under those threats. We have to do whatever is necessary 

to protect our people and to prosecute, detain and lock up those 

who would violate the system. I couldn’t be more convinced of that. 

I have a statement from Senator Russ Feingold for the record 

and I will, without objection, make that a part of the record. 

Marshal Widup, you are there in the courthouse and you deal 

with the Federal judges. You indicated that you had a good relationship. It appears that in Utah and in Judge Roth’s circuit, they 

don’t feel as comfortable with it. What do you do that works? 

When I was United States Attorney, there was a court security 

committee, and it met and worked, although it wasn’t always pleasant. Usually, the judges wanted to do A and the marshal wanted 

to do B. I took the side of the marshals and it wasn’t much longer 

that I didn’t get any notice of the meetings. So the judges and the 

marshal went at it, presumably, without my moderation of the discussion. 

But it would appear to me that there has been some tension for 

some time, so what have you done in your district to try to alleviate that? 

Mr. WIDUP. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. We do 

still have the court security meetings and those tensions still do 

exist at different times. There is a balance in Chicago, as in our 

other courthouses, that we have to strike, which is the public’s access to the Federal courts and the security of the facility itself. 

That causes difficult decisions at different times as far as how do 

we restrict the public’s access in entering the courtroom. 

In our particular case, we have a screening point that is set up 

on the first floor of the building at which individuals entering the 

23

courthouse was be screened. They must be x-rayed and they must 

show identification to enter the building. 

Senator SESSIONS. Could I just interrupt you a little bit? 

Mr. WIDUP. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Without getting into the details of that system, which I think in the courthouse I used to practice in in Mobile, Alabama, is pretty good, I guess my question is what do you 

do to communicate with the judges? How does that committee 

work? 

If you get a request as Judge Alba had for security, how do you 

respond? When do you have to go to Washington and how does it 

work? Are they happy in the Northern District of Illinois or would 

your judges like to see more support from the Marshals Service? 

Mr. WIDUP. I am sure our judges would like to see more, particularly in light of the recent tragedy involving Judge Lefkow and her 

family, but we do communicate, as with anything. The chief judge 

communicates with me directly on a frequent basis. I have a judicial security inspector who meets with all of the judges when they 

have an issue that they need to speak to him about. I have addressed the judges as a group and individually, both in the district 

and in the circuit. 

We also have a deputy marshal assigned to each judge as a contact person for that judge. In the event that that judge notices anything that occurs in their courtroom that they find to be out of the 

ordinary, whether a deputy is present or not, that liaison between 

the deputies and those judges continued everyday and that particular deputy tries to keep the judge informed. 

But, Mr. Chairman, we do have the press of a huge prisoner population in our district, as we do in many other districts, and this 

causes conflict at times with the judiciary in the sense that courts 

get backed up. And we have a practice in the Northern District of 

Illinois that we will have one deputy marshal or one of our hired 

contract guards to each in-custody defendant that we produce in 

court, plus an additional deputy. 

Senator SESSIONS. So that is three for every defendant? 

Mr. WIDUP. No. We call it one plus one. If we have five defendants, we will have at least five deputies on the defendants and a 

sixth deputy in there as well. Now, many times we have more, depending on the severity of the offender, the offense, and frankly the 

unrest of the crowd. 

But when we have these proceedings like this and we get backed 

up, we communicate to the judges. And, thankfully, in Chicago our 

judges will work with us and they understand that there may be 

a delay in the next court proceeding because we have to assign 

more deputies to an earlier proceeding. But this is again done with 

constant communication between us and the judges. 

But there are breakdowns that occur. Judges get backed up and 

they get irritated, but fortunately for us we do communicate with 

them and we try to address each of their issues. And they are not 

shy at all about picking up the phone and letting me know. 

Senator SESSIONS. When you do have a threat that is more unusual, you have advanced notice of that and you staff that courtroom appropriately, do you not? 

Mr. WIDUP. Yes, we do. 

24

Senator SESSIONS. I mean, that is the system for doing that. 

Marshal Reyna, have you ever dealt with what they call a stun 

belt? Has that ever been considered in the Marshals Service for a 

violent criminal? 

Mr. REYNA. The answer is yes, and I will let Marshal Widup at 

the district level explain that. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. Apparently, you can’t shackle a prisoner, under the court rulings, in front of the jury except in the 

most extreme circumstances. And if you know you have a violent 

person that could be dangerous to the marshals and the judges and 

everyone, I understand there is a device called a stun belt that 

could be put on them under their clothes. 

Mr. WIDUP. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do have those in the Marshals Service and we do have them in the Northern District of Illinois. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you used it? 

Mr. WIDUP. No, we haven’t. It is an involved process, with the 

final part of it being the defendant has to agree to wear the stun 

belt in order to use that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I thought you might say something like that. 

The reason I learned this, Senator Kyl, is because in looking at the 

complaints against Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the California Supreme Court ruled eight to one that a stun belt worn under the 

clothes, not visible to the public, by a very violent criminal was unconstitutional or something. They reversed the conviction over that 

defendant having worn it. She dissented it, and they blame her for 

being an extremist. But I think this was before the killing that we 

heard about this morning and before the Atlanta killing, and I 

think maybe we need to review that State court decision because 

it seems to me that could be a help. 

My time is up. 

Judge Roth, we are delighted to have you here. I am sorry I 

didn’t get to address any questions to you, but we admire your 

service very much. 

Senator Kyl, thank you for your leadership here. Senator Kyl is 

a thoroughgoing lawyer and practitioner in courts for many years, 

including the Supreme Court of the United States, and he cares 

about these issues very much. 

Senator KYL. Well, thank you, Senator Sessions, and let me 

begin by saying that in the Arizona Federal court system I am 

aware that there is a very close relationship between the judges 

and the marshals. They meet together frequently. That is the way 

it should be. I know they have a lot of confidence in each other. 

The judges certainly have a lot of confidence in the marshals there. 

But there are incidents around the country that suggest that all is 

not well, some of which has been testified to here today. 

Mr. Reyna, I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to 

some of the things that were said after your testimony to advise 

us what you think the proper response to those points is. 

Mr. REYNA. Thank you, Senator Kyl. The Marshals Service conducts many missions that it has been tasked by Congress. There 

is no doubt that the most important mission is to protect the judicial process. And we say protect the judicial process and the integrity of that process because not only do we have the responsibility 

25

of protecting the over 2,000 Federal judges that we are responsible 

for, but we also have the responsibility to protect the approximately 5,500 prosecutors in those courts, the jurors, the witnesses 

and other members of the court family. 

So what happens in every district is an extreme amount of coordination on a daily basis, and we appreciate the patience and the 

hard work that the judges at the district level do each single day 

so that we are able to adequately address their needs. 

One of the things that does occur, as Marshal Widup was pointing out, is that there are some stress factors that the Marshals 

Service will experience. For instance, any new law enforcement initiative in a certain region of the country will create a different 

workload within the Marshals Service. 

For example, in Arizona we received a letter from the supervisor 

of ICE indicating that 500 agents would be added to their ranks 

to support their mission along the southwest border, which is obviously very needed. Well, we certainly appreciated that heads-up, so 

to speak, but it also indicated to us that it would require, obviously, additional resources to deal with the already difficult situation on the southwest border. So that requires—

Senator KYL. May I just interrupt you? I think that one of the 

questions here is are you asking for adequate resources. If there 

are inadequate, whose responsibility is it to ask for more? And, secondly, is there any specific response to what you have heard here 

today with respect to—and I will be very specific—the criticisms of 

the Marshals Service? 

Mr. REYNA. Senator Kyl, certainly we always request that the 

Congress support the President’s budget. Over the last five fiscal 

years, the President’s budget, had it been fully funded as requested, we would have achieved an additional 462 positions that 

are vitally needed in every district and in every area of the Marshals Service. 

Regarding the criticism and the concern of communication, a lot 

of the communication, as you indicated from your past experience, 

happens at the local level through the various committees, through 

the various meetings that happens sometimes one-on-one with the 

judges in each individual court and the Marshals Service. 

At the national level, we discuss a lot of the issues, some formally through the Security and Facilities Committee, which is responsible and works with us on all issues involving facilities and 

security in those facilities. In addition to that, there are other discussions that occur on a daily basis between the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and many of the other operational matters, 

including the administrative necessities that have to be undertaken. 

We certainly support the issues and the areas that Judge Roth 

has articulated as far as some of the regulatory changes that need 

to be made so that we can better protect the judiciary and give us 

those necessary tools. She has articulated those. We support those. 

There are other areas that we also have undertaken to ensure 

that we timely assess any threats that come into the judiciary, and 

we assess them pursuant to a process that we have in place and 

responds to Magistrate Alba’s concerns. One of the things that I 

would like to articulate regarding Magistrate Alba’s comments is 

26

that every threat assessment in every district has to be handled by 

the local marshal. It is handled also in consultation with not only 

the person that received the threat, but also the Security and Facilities Committee. 

Depending on the threat level and the type of threat that it is, 

where it is one that is perhaps very direct, maybe not overt, or no 

threat at all, is what is going to make the determination. The Marshals Service does not have the funding up until recently to support full-time security alarm systems. We are very pleased that 

that has occurred because it will allow us to enhance off-site security, which is an issue of the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts and the entire judiciary. 

In the case involving Magistrate Alba, in our conversation when 

I learned about this matter with Marshal Anderson from the District of Utah, he indicated that the matter had been resolved at the 

local level and there was no further request of involvement from 

headquarters on that matter. 

One of the things that I want to articulate here today, Senator 

Sessions and Senator Kyl, is that we certainly encourage all Federal judges to allow us to exercise our ability to protect the judges, 

to report all type of communications, whether it be perceived inappropriate or any area that they feel uncomfortable with. It is important that we address all the issues. It is important that we review all those potential threats, or perhaps concerns. We would 

rather address hundreds of concerns that turn out to be nothing 

than fail to address one that was not brought to our attention. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one 

follow-up question of Judge Roth. There is a suggestion that legislation may be required to better reflect the views of judges. That 

is obviously a last resort here. At least it seems to me to be a last 

resort. We ought to be able to have structures in place in which 

judges and marshals can visit together and identify the needs and 

have it properly followed up. 

What is your view of that? 

Judge ROTH. I agree it is a last resort. I have been Chair of the 

committee for five-and-a-half years. I have had numerous discussions with the Attorney General and with Mr. Reyna over our need 

to help determine what is needed for judicial security. 

We have no progress to report in this effort. We still don’t know 

how the staffing for judicial security is arrived at. We don’t know, 

that having been determined, whether that is being fulfilled. We do 

know across the country that marshals from the districts are confidentially reporting to us—they will get fired if they do it publicly, 

but they are reporting to us what their staffing patterns are, how 

those staffing patterns are going down in recent years. 

I know of one district where, in 2002, there were a number of—

in the 60s—deputy marshals that should have been there. There 

were about eight less that were actually there. They were forecasting for 2005 that there would be in the high 80s needed. In 

2005, they have 50-some. 

And how is the gap being made up? In two ways. Number one 

is by contract prison guards, deputy sheriffs, local policemen who 

are brought in on a daily contract basis to help handle prisoners. 

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice has just come 

27

out with a report very critical of this program that there is inadequate training and there is inadequate background of these contract guards. We hear reports from local judges that these guards 

are falling asleep in the courtroom because they have been working 

all day at their county or State job and then they come in. We find 

this unacceptable. 

Another way that the gap is being filled is by not doing certain 

requirements that deputy marshals should be doing, such as being 

present in the courtroom when any defendant, whether that defendant is in custody or not in custody, is in the courtroom. In 

criminal cases, defendants can be dangerous. When you are sending them to jail, their families can create problems and we need to 

have at least one deputy United States marshal in the courtroom 

during a criminal proceeding. Director Reyna is aware of this. He 

has supported this position, but the Marshals Service is not producing the deputy marshal staffing to fulfill this function. 

The courts pay for court security officers. They are supervised by 

the Marshals Service. We pay for them. We find more and more 

around the country that these court security officers are being used 

for functions that are deputy marshal functions, such as prisoner 

guarding which the court security officers are not trained for. 

These are a few particular, specific examples that we see of the 

results of lack of funding. We feel that we have enough concrete 

examples that we should be able to participate in determining what 

is needed for judicial security and whether that standard is actually being met. Having failed to get it from our conversations with 

the Department of Justice and the Marshals Service, we are turning to you saying please help us. 

Senator KYL. I appreciate that. Let me just conclude by saying 

that throughout the entire criminal justice process at the Federal 

level, and also at the State level in States like mine, the problem 

of illegal immigration has put a huge burden on both the Federal 

and the State government. Nothing is funded adequately. There 

isn’t adequate courtroom space, sufficient judges, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, marshals, detention space, transportation 

opportunity, or anything else. The situation is the same in our 

State court systems, especially in those counties that are along the 

border. 

Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the Congress. And, Mr. 

Reyna, if you are correct, there would be 462 additional positions 

had Congress funded pursuant to the President’s budget. Then that 

responsibility lies with the Congress. I think it is important that 

this Committee document the information that we have received 

here and before passing legislation that simply puts into practice 

the custom of getting advice from judges, we ought to look at our 

appropriations process and short-circuit the whole proposition. 

Every one of these areas needs additional funding. Everyone understands that and it is a matter of prioritization. But when we 

hire an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents, for example, we are 

going to get a certain number of additional criminal defendants in 

court and the tale of that initial commitment is going to be felt 

throughout the entire system. That is just one of the areas, I appreciate, but at least in my area it is what is driving the need for 

more resources throughout the entire system. Our area is the fastVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jul 06, 2005 Jkt 022222 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\22222.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
28

est growing in terms of need, precisely because of that phenomenon. 

I am amazed that the Marshals Service is able to do as well as 

it does, and again I want to express my appreciation, as I know the 

judges do, too. But we have got to do better and I think this hearing has helped to highlight that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Kyl, I am going to offer for the record, 

if there is no objection, the statements of Senator Durbin, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Glenn Fine, and Senator John Cornyn. 

I am being called to a mark-up where we need a quorum in the 

HELP Committee. I would love to turn the chairmanship over to 

you, and you will do so ably. 

Senator KYL. Unless there is anything else from the witnesses, 

I have nothing else. 

Senator SESSIONS. Judge Roth, you noted that there is a crisis 

and we have a dysfunctional relationship here. I believe, Mr. 

Reyna, that is something that the courts and you need to work on. 

We have just got to have that kind of communication. That is important. You need to listen to the requests of the courts, and you 

may not be able to fulfill them all, but there should be able to be 

a circumstance in which requests are made clearly and that you respond, recognizing that in the huge system that you have, the 

whole United States, there will be glitches that don’t always go the 

way you would like. 

I will just make this observation which I think is a fact and is 

a danger for the Treasury of the United States, and that is we cannot, judges or anyone else, U.S. Attorneys, staff the Marshals Service for the five most busy days in a court’s life and those personnel 

are then not utilized for 300 days of the year. They don’t really 

have enough work to do. The stress will be on you, the individual 

marshals, the head marshal in Washington, to try to be able to 

draw from other districts. 

When we had big cases in my small district of the Southern District of Alabama, deputy marshals came in to help handle those 

cases and supplement the people there when maybe there was a 

down time in their district, but stress in our district. It is really 

hard to do that, but I think if you continue the trend to be flexible 

to respond to what Judge Alba is talking about—presumably, you 

eventually did get the alarm system you needed. Is that correct? 

Judge ALBA. I did, but I had to pay for it myself. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you indicated that the money has been 

now appropriated for that, Mr. Reyna? 

Mr. REYNA. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. So in the future, a magistrate judge would be 

able to get that system put in if he had a real threat? 

Mr. REYNA. The $12 million has been received. We will be working with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to develop a 

process by which to address those matters of off-site security, and 

specifically alarm systems. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think when you have got a family and 

you have got a group of people that actually acted in court as he 

said they did, that indicates to me that these people are capable 

of killing somebody and we have to be responsive to that. So it is 

29

a tough business, and I think, as Senator Kyl, we ought to look at 

the number of people you have, but be lean. We don’t have any 

money to waste, do we, not with the deficit we have got? 

So we want you to be effective in utilizing the resources, and I 

think from what I am hearing from this discussion today we need 

to make sure that we analyze your next appropriation and see if 

we can get you some more people. 

Judge Roth or anyone else, do you have anything to add before 

we adjourn? 

Judge ROTH. Could I, Mr. Chairman? I would appreciate it. Let 

me add two things. The shortfall in Marshals Service staffing appropriations reflects what the OMB has presented to the President. 

It does not necessarily reflect what the Marshals Service at the beginning sad was necessary. 

Senator SESSIONS. Right. 

Judge ROTH. That figure is often, I think, inevitably cut down by 

the Department of Justice, and then cut down again by OMB. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I understood Mr. Reyna to say that the 

President actually requested more of Congress than we gave him. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. REYNA. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that is the third cut. 

Judge ROTH. The President requested less of Congress than the 

Marshals Service really needed, and we want to know what the 

Marshals Service really needed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Or what they wanted. 

Judge ROTH. Well, we want to know if they needed it, and from 

the shortfalls we are seeing, some of it was urgently needed. 

We are also concerned about intelligence analysis by the Marshals Service. Are they really assessing threats in the way that 

threats should be assessed? You need protection in many cases 

where there is not a direct threat on a judge. In fact, the judges 

have been assassinated in no case actually received a direct threat, 

and we feel that the Marshals Service’s analysis of intelligence 

needs to have a more intricate scope in the present day of terrorist 

threats. 

We are concerned that they are operating under the old system. 

Unless you get a direct threat, you don’t get anything, and our concern in Judge Alba’s situation was that he fell within that category 

when I think very definitely he did need protection. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well said. Thank you for an excellent discussion. You have raised a very important point. The rule of law is 

central to American freedom and prosperity, and we cannot allow 

it to be eroded by violence and threats in the courthouse. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

30


22222.001
31


22222.002
32


22222.003
33


22222.004
34


22222.005
35


22222.006
36


22222.007
37


22222.008
38


22222.009
39


22222.010
40


22222.011
41


22222.012
42


22222.013
43


22222.014
44


22222.015
45


22222.016
46


22222.017
47


22222.018
48


22222.019
49


22222.020
50


22222.021
51


22222.022
52


22222.023
53


22222.024
54


22222.025
55


22222.026
56


22222.027
57


22222.028
58


22222.029
59


22222.030
60


22222.031
61


22222.032
62


22222.033
63


22222.034
64


22222.035
65


22222.036
66


22222.037
67


22222.038
68


22222.039
69


22222.040
70


22222.041
71


22222.042
72


22222.043
73


22222.044
74


22222.045
75


22222.046
76


22222.047
77


22222.048
78


22222.049
79


22222.050
80


22222.051
81


22222.052
82


22222.053
83


22222.054
84


22222.055
85


22222.056
86


22222.057
87


22222.058
88


22222.059
89


22222.060
90


22222.061
91


22222.062
92


22222.063
93


22222.064
94


22222.065
95


22222.066
96


22222.067
97


22222.068
98


22222.069
99


22222.070
100


22222.071
101


22222.072
102


22222.073
103


22222.074
104


22222.075
105


22222.076
106


22222.077
107


22222.078
108


22222.079
109


22222.080
110


22222.081
111


22222.082
112


22222.083
113


22222.084
114


22222.085
115


22222.086
116


22222.087
117


22222.088
118


22222.089
119


22222.090
120


22222.091
121


22222.092
122


22222.093
123


22222.094
124


22222.095
125


22222.096
126


22222.097
127


22222.098
128


22222.099
129


22222.100
130


22222.101
131


22222.102
132


22222.103
133


22222.104
134


22222.105
135


22222.106
136


22222.107
137


22222.108
138


22222.109
139

Æ


22222.110