S. HRG. 109–397 Pt. 3

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL

APPOINTMENTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, FEBRUARY 15, MARCH 1, MARCH 14, AND MARCH 29, 2006

Serial No. J–109–4

PART 3

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL 

APPOINTMENTS 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–736 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–397 Pt. 3

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL

APPOINTMENTS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, FEBRUARY 15, MARCH 1, MARCH 14, AND MARCH 29, 2006

Serial No. J–109–4

PART 3

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 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 7, 2006

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 158

PRESENTERS 

Rockefeller, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia 

presenting Thomas E. Johnston, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Southern District of West Virginia ..................................................................... 2

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of West Virginia presenting Thomas E. Johnston, Nominee to be District 

Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia ............................................. 3

Fortuno, Hon. Luis G., a Representative in Congress, and Resident Commission, from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico presenting Aida M. DelgadoColon, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico ............... 4

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Batten, Timothy C., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern 

District of Georgia ................................................................................................ 7

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 8

Delgado-Colon, Aida M., Nominee to be District Judge for the District of 

Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................... 87

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 88

Gordon, Leo Maury, Nominee to be Judge of the United States Court of 

International Trade .............................................................................................. 63

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 64

Johnston, Thomas E., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of West Virginia ................................................................................................... 31

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 32

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 147

Customs and International Trade Bar Association, Melvin S. Schwechter, 

President, Washington, D.C., letter .................................................................... 149

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 155

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 156

FEBRUARY 15, 2006

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................ 159

Page

IV

PRESENTERS 

DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio presenting Jack 

Zouhary, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio ..... 163

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California presenting Stephen G. Larson, Nominee to be District Judge for the Central 

District of California ............................................................................................ 160

Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting 

John F. Clark, of Virginia, Nominee to be Director of the United States 

Marshals Service .................................................................................................. 161

Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting 

John F. Clark, of Virginia, Nominee to be Director of the United States 

Marshals Service .................................................................................................. 162

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEES 

Clark, John F., Nominee to be Director of the United States Marshals Service .......................................................................................................................... 246

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 247

Larson, Stephen G., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 165

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 166

Zouhary, Jack, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of 

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 217

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 218

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Benigno Reyna to questions submitted by Senator Durbin ........... 280

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Biddle, Louise W., Riverside California, letter ...................................................... 298

Boozman, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, letter .............................................................................................................. 299

Clouse, Richard R., Partner, Cihigoyenetche, Grossberg & Clouse, Rancho 

Cucamonga, California, letter ............................................................................. 301

Doskow, Charles S., Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, University of 

LaVerne, Ontario, California, letter ................................................................... 302

Dunn, Donald J., Dean and Professor of Law, University of LaVerne, Ontario, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 303

Juarez, Carlos L., Attorney at Law, San Bernardino, California, letter ............. 304

Lightfoot, Michael J., Lightfoot Vandevelde Sadowsky & Levine, Los Angeles, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 305

McNamara, Paul G., Omelveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California, letter . 306

Nasatir, Michael D., Nasatir, Hirsch, Poderesky & Genego, Santa Monica, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 307

Porter, John M., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, San Bernardino, 

California, letter ................................................................................................... 309

Ramirez, Manuel A., Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Riverside California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 310

Roth, Diane Catran, Roth & Roth, LLP, Riverside, Califronia ............................ 312

Sessions, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 313

Trask, Grover, District Attorney, County of Riverside, Riverside California, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 314

Voinovich, Hon. George, U.S. a Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 315

Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of of Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 317

MARCH 1, 2006

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 323

Page

V

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, A U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 410

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 416

PRESENTERS 

Coleman, Hon. Norm, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota presenting 

Patrick Joseph Schiltz, of Minnesota, Nominee to be Dirstrict Judge for 

the District of Minnesota ..................................................................................... 326

Craig, Hon. Larry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho presenting Norman 

Randy Smith, of Idaho, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit .. 323

Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho presenting Norman 

Randy Smith, of Idaho, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit .. 325

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Schiltz, Patrick Joseph, of Minnesota, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota ........................................................................................... 360

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 361

Smith, Norman Randy, of Idaho, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 329

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 330

MARCH 14, 2007

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 565

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 571

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 417

PRESENTERS 

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting Gray 

Hampton Miller, of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern 

District of Texas ................................................................................................... 421

Hutchison, Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting 

Gray Hampton Miller, of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Southern District of Texas .................................................................................. 420

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey presenting Michael A. Chagares, of New Jersey, Nominee to be Circuit Judge 

for the Third District ........................................................................................... 418

Menendez, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 

presenent Michael A. Chagares, of New Jersey, Nominee to be Circuit 

Judge for the Third District ................................................................................ 419

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Chagares, Michael A., of New Jersey, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the 

Third Circuit ......................................................................................................... 423

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 424

Freeman, Sharee M., Nominee to be Director, Community Relations Service, 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 524

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 525

Miller, Gray Hampton, of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ............................................................................................ 468

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 469

Sedgwick, Jeffrey L., Nominee to be Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 499

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 500

Page

VI

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Jeffrey L. Sedgwick to questions submitted by Senators Leahy 

and Kennedy ......................................................................................................... 557

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Anti-Defamation League, Michael Lieberman, Washington Counsel, and Jess 

N. Hordes, Washington Director, Washington, D.C., letter .............................. 563

Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter .......................................................................................................... 569

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, Executive Director, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 570

MARCH 29, 2007

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 718

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 573

PRESENTERS 

Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, presenting Thomas M. Golden, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 576

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

presenting Brian M. Cogan, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of New York ............................................................................................ 577

Voinovich, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio presenting 

Michael Ryan Barrett, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of New York .................................................................................................. 574

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Barrett, Michael Ryan, of Ohio, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio .............................................................................................. 624

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 625

Cogan, Brian M., of New York, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of New York ............................................................................................ 655

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 656

Golden, Thomas M., of Pennsylvania, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania ........................................................................ 580

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 581

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES 

Barrett, Michael Ryan, of Ohio, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio .............................................................................................. 624

Batten, Timothy C., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern 

District of Georgia ................................................................................................ 7

Chagares, Michael A., of New Jersey, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the 

Third Circuit ......................................................................................................... 423

Clark, John F., Nominee to be Director of the United States Marshals Service .......................................................................................................................... 246

Cogan, Brian M., of New York, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern 

District of New York ............................................................................................ 655

Delgado-Colon, Aida M., Nominee to be District Judge for the District of 

Puerto Rico ........................................................................................................... 87

Freeman, Sharee M., Nominee to be Director, Community Relations Service, 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 524

Golden, Thomas M., of Pennsylvania, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania ........................................................................ 580

Gordon, Leo Maury, Nominee to be Judge of the United States Court of 

International Trade .............................................................................................. 63

Page

VII

Johnston, Thomas E., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District 

of West Virginia ................................................................................................... 31

Larson, Stephen G., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 165

Miller, Gray Hampton, of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas ............................................................................................ 468

Schiltz, Patrick Joseph, of Minnesota, Nominee to be District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota ........................................................................................... 360

Sedgwick, Jeffrey L., Nominee to be Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Department of Justice ......................................................................................... 499

Smith, Norman Randy, of Idaho, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 329

Zouhary, Jack, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of 

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 217

(1)

NOMINATIONS OF TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., 

OF GEORGIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

GEORGIA; LEO MAURY GORDON, OF NEW 

JERSEY, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE OF THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE; THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, OF WEST 

VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

WEST VIRGINIA; AND AIDA M. DELGADOCOLON, OF PUERTO RICO, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

PUERTO RICO 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:04 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn presiding. 

Present: Senator Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. The Committee will come to order. Today, we 

have a confirmation hearing for four of the President’s judicial 

nominees, and it is my hope and expectation that barring any unforeseen events, we will get these nominations to the Committee 

and to the floor of the Senate as soon as possible. 

I have a statement from the ranking member, Senator Pat 

Leahy, which will be made part of the record, without objection. 

Also, Senator Frank Lautenberg has offered a written statement 

introducing Leo Gordon, which will likewise be made part of the 

record, without objection. 

I also have a statement from Senator Saxby Chambliss concerning the nomination of Timothy Batten. He explains that both 

he and Senator Isakson are attending the funeral of Coretta Scott 

King and so they are unable to be here. I know there are other 

members who are attending today, hence the light turn-out for the 

2

hearing. But, as I always tell nominees who come up for confirmation hearings, poor attendance is not a bad sign. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. You have to worry when everyone is here, loaded for bear, so to speak. 

We are honored to have members of the Senate and the House 

here to make some introductory comments about some of the nominees, and I would like to first recognize Senator Rockefeller for any 

comments he would like to make on behalf of Thomas Edward 

Johnston. 

PRESENTATION OF THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST 

VIRGINIA, BY HON. JOHN ROCKEFELLER, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just 

would pause to say that I admire what you have been through and 

gone through over the past several weeks. It has probably been 

some of the busier days of your life. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, we are glad to get to hopefully some simpler, easier to projects to deal with, like the hearings today. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Well, I hope my suggestion here will be 

taken and the President’s nominee will be accepted by the Senate, 

and I am sure that will be the case. 

Tom Johnston—and you gave his name—is our U.S. Attorney for 

the Northern District of West Virginia. We have two districts, 

North and South, and both are very complicated and both very, 

very different. That may be true in most States, but it certainly is 

true in ours. 

He has agreed, along with his family who is behind me—and perhaps at this point I should ask them to wave or rise or something. 

Senator CORNYN. That would be great. 

Mr. Johnston, if you would ask your family to stand? And if you 

would care to introduce them, please go ahead. 

Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Senator. This is my wife, Lisa Grimes 

Johnston; my son, Jack; my daughter, Joanna; and my mother-inlaw, Jeanette Grimes. 

Senator CORNYN. Very good. Welcome. I am glad you are here. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. It is important to get that mother-in-law 

part right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has been 

nominated to come down and take the vacancy created by somebody who is an extremely close friend of mine, Judge Charles Hayden, who was judge there for many years, participated heavily in 

the life of our State, as does yet his wife, Priscilla, whom I am sure 

Tom Johnston knows very well. She has been on the board of education and I voted for her every time. 

I don’t know Tom Johnston that well, but I know him well 

enough to say that he is a very fine young lawyer in his own right, 

and by all accounts that I and my folks from my office working on 

this have been able to find out, he is a very capable and a very 

dedicated U.S. Attorney. I submit to the Committee that I expect 

3

him to be a very good Federal judge, also. I don’t have any doubts 

about that. 

As I indicated, the seat that he will fill is a significant one. Judge 

Hayden has made a mark on the history of West Virginia like relatively few others. But Tom Johnston will be up to filling those 

shoes and I want to be able to see that happen. I support him, and 

I thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you very much, Senator Rockefeller, for being here and for making that introduction. I am sure 

Mr. Johnston and his family appreciate it, and I can guarantee you 

the Committee does. 

We will stick with West Virginia, and Representative Capito is 

here. Welcome to the Committee and any additional comments you 

would care to make, now would be a good time to do that. 

PRESENTATION OF THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST 

VIRGINIA, BY HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Representative CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly would like to make an additional comment. Tom Johnston is 

born and bred in West Virginia. I consider him one of the best and 

brightest minds in our State of West Virginia. He is raising his 

family in West Virginia, and for those of us in West Virginia—and 

Senator Rockefeller knows this well, being a fellow West Virginian—there is nothing we treasure more than those that stay in 

West Virginia and raise their family and contribute to the fabric 

of the society and the economics of our State. 

Tom has been a good friend of mine, I would say, for 5 years. I 

really met him through a political process, but we have grown to 

be friends with our families. He is raising, as I said, two fine young 

children back there, and he has led as the U.S. Attorney with great 

leadership and skill and we are very grateful to that. 

I know he has had some assignments with the Department of 

Justice that have been exceptional for our State and for our Nation, 

but I expect him to be an extremely fair-minded judge. And I will 

say he is a young man. I guess we have to admit that, don’t we? 

A young man, but he will have the courage, I think, to make the 

right decision. He has a lot of kindness and compassion, which I 

believe is critical when you become a judge, and I know that he 

will have a great longevity in this position that is going to be very 

important to our State. 

So I am really pleased to be here with Senator Rockefeller. He 

has been a great guiding light for me, certainly, as the junior, junior, junior member of the West Virginia delegation. So I am pleased 

to have President Bush’s great leadership in appointing Tom Johnston as a judge in the Southern District, and I look forward to his 

many years of service. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Representative Capito, for taking 

the time to come here and make those remarks. 

We know that members of the Senate and the House have a lot 

of other engagements they could be involved in, and other duties. 

4

So, please feel free—if you would like to stay, fine. If you have 

other obligations, feel free to leave when you need to do so, but 

thank you very much for being here. 

Our next introducer is Luis Fortuno, U.S. Representative from 

Puerto Rico, and Resident Commissioner, to speak on behalf of 

Aida Delgado-Colon. 

Representative Fortuno, welcome to the Committee. 

PRESENTATION OF AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON, NOMINEE TO 

BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO, 

BY HON. LUIS G. FORTUNO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Representative FORTUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for allowing me the honor to introduce her. 

As the sole Representative in Congress of the 4 million U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico, it gives me great pleasure to introduce U.S. Magistrate Aida Delgado to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

She is here with us and she has some members of the family and 

coworkers who are joining her today. 

Senator CORNYN. Would you introduce your family members so 

we can identify them and they can share in your glory here? 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. I would be honored and pleased to do 

that, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to introduce my mother, Luz Colon. She is a retired teacher for the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. 

Senator CORNYN. Welcome. 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. With her, my sister, Zulma. She is a devoted prosecutor within the Department of Justice in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And along with me, as well, if you allow me 

to introduce at least a group of ten close, lifetime family friends 

whom I consider my relatives. All of them can stand at the same 

time. They have been very supportive and didn’t hesitate to leave 

the warm temperature of the Caribbean to be here today. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, welcome to all of you, and I know that 

your presence here is a great comfort and encouragement to the 

nominee. 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. Thank you. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Representative Fortuno. 

Representative FORTUNO. Thank you. 

She is the President’s nominee for a vacancy on the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I am honored 

and enthusiastic to appear before you today in support of her nomination. 

Ms. Delgado was born in Lares and educated at the University 

of Puerto Rico and the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto 

Rico. From those two institutions, she graduated with honors. 

Early in her legal career, she joined the Governor of Puerto Rico’s 

Advisory Council on Labor Law as Director of Research and Investigations. 

From 1982 to 1991, Ms. Delgado worked in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Puerto Rico, first as AssistVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 038736 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\38736.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5

ant Federal Public Defender, then as First Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, and finally as Acting Federal Public Defender. Since 

1993, Magistrate Judge Delgado has served with distinction as a 

U.S. Magistrate in the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico. 

During that time, her rulings on both civil and criminal proceedings have had over a 98-percent adoption rate by the district 

court. From 1999 through 2003, she was accountable for resolving 

over 60 percent of all criminal pre-trial matters and over 55 percent of all civil pre-trial matters from the total number of issues 

assigned to magistrates of that court. 

Since 2002, Magistrate Judge Delgado has also been an adjunct 

professor of Federal civil and criminal forensics practice at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico School of Law. Her impeccable record in public service and in the field of law has earned her 

a place amongst the most distinguished jurists and attorneys in 

Puerto Rico. 

This nominee has received widespread support from those who 

have worked with her. Actually, that is attested by so many of her 

co-workers joining us today. Those who face her in the courtroom 

speak with respect and admiration. Recently, the Federal Bar Association expressed its unconditional satisfaction with her qualifications and recognized her as, I quote, ‘‘exceptional, competent and 

qualified Federal legal professional.’’ 

Yesterday, the Hispanic National Bar Association endorsed her 

nomination by saying, and I quote again, ‘‘She has earned a welldeserved reputation of excellence over a 25-year career,’’ end quote, 

and described her as, and I quote, ‘‘eminently qualified for the job,’’ 

end of quote. 

Last year, the American Bar Association issued a nearly unanimous vote rating Ms. Delgado as well qualified for appointment as 

judge of the United States District Court for Puerto Rico. It is the 

highest rating given by the American Bar Association Standing 

Committee on the Federal Judiciary. 

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Delgado without any doubt is at the top of 

the legal profession in her community. Aida Delgado has been a 

pioneer in her family and profession. As the first lawyer in her 

family, she became the first woman at the Federal public defender’s office and the first woman to be appointed Magistrate Judge 

in the District Court for Puerto Rico. She has received numerous 

awards and acknowledgements, and recently the Puerto Rico House 

of Representatives adopted a resolution endorsing her nomination. 

I believe that Ms. Delgado possesses the intellectual capacity, the 

education and unbiased and dispassionate frame of mind which 

will allow her to excel in her new position. It is a pleasure for me 

to introduce to you and to recommend Ms. Aida Delgado as a nominee that fully understands the responsibility that a position on the 

Federal bench entails. I commend the President for selecting such 

an outstanding nominee, and if confirmed, she will be the second 

woman to go to the district court bench since 1985. 

Thank you very much again, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Representative Fortuno, for your 

introduction and the time you spent here. We appreciate that very 

much, and I know the nominee and her family and friends do as 

well. Thank you. 

6

At this time, could I ask the nominees please to step forward? 

I need to administer the oath. 

If you would raise your right hand, do each of you swear that 

your testimony before the Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. BATTEN. I do. 

Mr. GORDON. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSTON. I do. 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. I do. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. Please have a seat. 

Welcome, Mr. Batten and Mr. Gordon, as well. 

By way of background, Timothy Carroll Batten, Sr., was nominated to be United States District Judge for the Northern District 

of Georgia. He received his Bachelor’s of Science from the Georgia 

Institute of Technology and he has spent his entire legal career as 

an attorney with the firm of Shreeder, Wheeler and Flint, in Atlanta, working in commercial litigation, including fraud and breach 

of contract cases, construction cases, personal injury, products liability and malpractice litigation. 

Welcome, Mr. Batten. If you have some family members here, 

this would be a good time maybe to introduce them. 

Mr. BATTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My wife, Beth is here. We brought half of Georgia. I have got six 

children. This is my oldest daughter, Anna, and then Claire. No. 

3 had to take care of No. 6, who had expired. This is Laura and 

Paige. 

And then I also brought my parents, Hosea and Carol Batten; my 

father-in-law, Carey Parkman; my brother, Eric, and his wife, 

Vicki; and three of their children, Scott, Rebecca and Mimi. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming. You have got a lot of good support there. 

Mr. BATTEN. I am sorry if there aren’t enough seats in the back. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I know this is an important day not just 

for you, but for your family and friends as well. 

Senator CORNYN. Our fourth nominee is Leo Maury Gordon, 

nominated to be Judge of the United States Court of International 

Trade. Mr. Gordon received an A.B. from the University of North 

Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1973, and a J.D. from Emory in 1977. 

Following law school, he served as an assistant counsel to the 

House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Monopolies and 

Commercial Law, focusing on antitrust and other commercial legislation. Since 1981, Mr. Gordon has been an attorney at the United 

States Court of International Trade, advising the judges of the 

court on substantive and procedural issues and litigation pending 

before the court, as well as on matters pertaining to the operation 

of the court. 

Mr. Gordon, welcome, and if you have some introductions, we 

would be pleased to hear those at this time. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my 

pleasure to introduce my wife, Marci Spero Gordon; my twin 

daughters, Jenny Gordon and Sarah Gordon; my brother, Toby 

Gordon; and the reason I am here today, my mother, Pearl Gordon. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, welcome to each of you. Thank you for 

coming, and thank you for introducing your family to us. 

7

We are going to entertain statements from each of the nominees, 

and I would ask for you to keep those in the 5-minute range. 

Hence, the clock, the timer out front. That is no stranger to any 

of you particularly in appellate courts. We don’t have the green, 

yellow and red lights, but we do have a timer here. 

Mr. Batten, we will start with you, if we may, if you have an 

opening statement or any comments you would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BATTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to express my profound appreciation to the President and to Senators 

Chambliss and Isakson, from Georgia, for lending support to my 

nomination and the President for nominating me. This is a position 

that I have felt strongly about for many years and I feel like it is 

a tremendous opportunity to serve the public and one that I believe 

I am ready for. And it is with great enthusiasm that I look forward 

to this opportunity hopefully to be confirmed by the Senate and to 

serve. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Batten follows:]

8


38736.001
9


38736.002
10


38736.003
11


38736.004
12


38736.005
13


38736.006
14


38736.007
15


38736.008
16


38736.009
17


38736.010
18


38736.011
19


38736.012
20


38736.013
21


38736.014
22


38736.015
23


38736.016
24


38736.017
25


38736.018
26


38736.019
27


38736.020
28


38736.021
29


38736.022
30


38736.023
31

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Batten. 

Mr. Johnston. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. JOHNSTON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I just want to express my appreciation 

for the opportunity to be here. It is a great honor. I thank the 

President for considering me for nomination and I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to be here. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Johnston follows:]

32


38736.047
33


38736.048
34


38736.049
35


38736.050
36


38736.051
37


38736.052
38


38736.053
39


38736.054
40


38736.055
41


38736.056
42


38736.057
43


38736.058
44


38736.059
45


38736.060
46


38736.061
47


38736.062
48


38736.063
49


38736.064
50


38736.065
51


38736.066
52


38736.067
53


38736.068
54


38736.069
55


38736.070
56


38736.071
57


38736.072
58


38736.073
59


38736.074
60


38736.075
61


38736.076
62


38736.077
63

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Johnston. 

Mr. Gordon. 

STATEMENT OF LEO MURRAY GORDON, NOMINEE TO BE 

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Initially, let me thank 

you and the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. I also wish to express my profound gratitude to the President for his confidence in sending forth my nomination to the Senate. 

It is with a great deal of humility that I appear today in continuation and furtherance of my public service, and I look forward, if 

the Senate so desires, to serving in the capacity as a judge at the 

United States Court of International Trade and continuing my 

service to the country. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Gordon follows:]

64


38736.024
65


38736.025
66


38736.026
67


38736.027
68


38736.028
69


38736.029
70


38736.030
71


38736.031
72


38736.032
73


38736.033
74


38736.034
75


38736.035
76


38736.036
77


38736.037
78


38736.038
79


38736.039
80


38736.040
81


38736.041
82


38736.042
83


38736.043
84


38736.044
85


38736.045
86


38736.046
87

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Judge Delgado. 

STATEMENT OF AIDA M. DELGADO-COLON, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. Thank you, Chairman. Certainly, I 

would like to join the statements made by the fellow nominees here 

and first of all thank the President for the nomination he has extended, this Committee for allowing me the opportunity of appearing before you here today, and certainly Resident Commissioner 

Luis Fortuno for the advice, support and encouragement he has 

given me throughout the process. 

And if there is one thing I would like to do is to take this opportunity to use it to honor and render tribute to my parents, which 

certainly have been the guiding the force driving me through the 

pathway that has brought me before you here today, and besides 

that to acknowledge the spiritual presence of my father. I know he 

would have loved to be here today. 

Aside from that, I must say that I am overwhelmed by the support and presence of the personnel from the Administrative Office, 

which I was not expecting. I have here also the Chief of the Magistrate Judge’s Division, and I certainly thank them for their presence and support. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Judge Delgado-Colon follows:]

88


38736.078
89


38736.079
90


38736.080
91


38736.081
92


38736.082
93


38736.083
94


38736.084
95


38736.085
96


38736.086
97


38736.087
98


38736.088
99


38736.089
100


38736.090
101


38736.091
102


38736.092
103


38736.093
104


38736.094
105


38736.095
106


38736.096
107


38736.097
108


38736.098
109


38736.099
110


38736.100
111


38736.101
112


38736.102
113


38736.103
114


38736.104
115


38736.105
116


38736.106
117


38736.107
118


38736.108
119


38736.109
120


38736.110
121


38736.111
122


38736.112
123


38736.113
124


38736.114
125


38736.115
126


38736.116
127


38736.117
128


38736.118
129


38736.119
130


38736.120
131


38736.121
132


38736.122
133


38736.123
134


38736.124
135


38736.125
136


38736.126
137


38736.127
138


38736.128
139


38736.129
140

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you very much. 

Recently—I guess it was just about 7 months ago—Sandra Day 

O’Connor announced her retirement from the United States Supreme Court, and during that interim of 7 months we have had 

confirmation hearings and the confirmation of the Chief Justice of 

the United States and of Justice Sam Alito. This hearing will not 

be anything like theirs. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CORNYN. That is the good news. I might just point out 

before I pose questions to the nominees that none of you are 

strangers to the Committee in this sense, that before you got here 

not only has a thorough investigation been made into your background and your professional qualifications, your integrity and 

your judicial temperament at the White House before you were 

nominated, but I am confident that an evaluation was made by the 

Senators and those who were responsible for your getting the nomination. 

In addition, we know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

does a thorough background investigation into each nominee, which 

is appropriate. And the American Bar Association, as was already 

mentioned, Standing Committee on the Judiciary does a thorough 

evaluation of judicial nominees and makes a recommendation to 

the Committee. 

So that is what I mean when I say none of you are strangers to 

the Committee. Even though we have just met face to face, the 

Committee already knows an awful lot about you, and that is as 

it should be. But I do have just a few questions and it won’t be 

lengthy interrogation, but I would like to hear from each of you 

with regard to a couple of things. 

Mr. Gordon is going to have a chance to educate me a little more 

on the particular court that he has been nominated to. I am much 

more familiar with the functions of the courts the rest of you have 

been nominated to. 

Mr. Batten, could you share with me and the Committee some 

of your insights into the challenges of administering a docket on 

the court to which you have been nominated? Obviously, judicial 

philosophy was the focal point for a lot of discussions for the Supreme Court nominees because they are the last word, and certainly as a district court judge your responsibility will be to follow 

the law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, but 

perhaps directly in most cases by the circuit in which your court 

is located. 

Could you share with the Committee some of your thoughts 

about the nature of the docket you have—I am unfamiliar with it—

and the challenges you will have in terms of administration and 

how you will approach that job? 

Mr. BATTEN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The smooth administration of justice, of course, is critical if there is to be justice, 

and in the District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, which 

is Atlanta, approximately 15 percent of the cases that are tried are 

criminal in nature. And I know as a trial lawyer—I have been trying cases for 22 years—that it is imperative that the courts move 

quickly. As has been so frequently quoted, justice delayed is justice 

denied. 

141

It is my intention to act as expeditiously as possible with my 

cases. I have an expectation upon entering the court to see to it 

that there is a commitment to excellence among everyone on my 

staff, and especially myself where I would make decisions. I think 

it is crucial that a judge not lose sight of the fact that the public 

perception is that the cases languish too long. And then even when 

the lawyers start feeling that perception, then there is probably 

some truth to it. 

So my objective, Senator, would be to move my cases as rapidly 

as possible, to use alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as 

mediation and arbitration to achieve as high a settlement rate as 

practicable, and to move my cases as quickly as possible. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Johnston, could you tell me a little bit 

about the nature of the docket of the court to which you have been 

nominated and your thoughts as to how you will make sure that 

all litigants get a timely and fair opportunity to be heard? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity 

to share some thoughts on those issues. The docket in the Southern 

District of West Virginia in many ways is very similar to the 

Northern District of West Virginia, where I now serve as United 

States Attorney and where I previously served as a law clerk to 

Hon. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., who is a United States District Court 

Judge in Wheeling, West Virginia. 

I believe that in many ways I will borrow practices from Judge 

Stamp and his ability to move cases expeditiously, to decide cases 

fairly based on the law, to set cases for trial. In my experience from 

working with Judge Stamp, and certainly also being in private 

practice and also in the U.S. Attorney’s offices, that there is nothing that moves a case toward resolution like a trial date. 

Also, the Northern District has been something of a pioneer in 

alternate dispute resolution. I am a big believer in that as a means 

to find resolution for cases more quickly, more expeditiously and 

more efficiently for the litigants involved. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think that I would like to add to my 

introductory remarks, if I may. I do want to thank Senator Rockefeller and Congresswoman Capito for their very kind remarks 

today, and I also want to thank my family for their love and support and for them being here. I think I would be remiss in not 

making those remarks. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. That is most appropriate. 

Mr. Gordon, tell me a little bit about the court to which you have 

been nominated. You have had quite a bit of experience, it sounds 

like, working in and around it, but tell me a little bit about the 

challenges that that court has in terms of administering its docket 

and making sure that justice is not delayed or denied. 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the 

question and the opportunity to share with you some of my 

thoughts. As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, the court only has 

civil jurisdiction and the court is responsible for hearing challenges 

to the administration and enforcement and interpretation of the 

Federal customs and international trade laws of the United States. 

As such, the United States Government is either the defendant or 

142

the plaintiff in almost every single case that comes before the 

court. 

In those situations, we are dealing principally with challenges to 

decisions made by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

with respect to the importation of merchandise into the United 

States and decisions made by the Department of Commerce and 

the International Trade Commission with respect to the anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws of the United States. 

For the past 25 years, I have had the opportunity to work with 

judges on the court, the staff at the court and many, many attorneys, both in the private sector and the Government sector, with 

respect to that very issue that you raised, which is the administration of justice and the management of the court’s docket. 

I am very proud to say that as clerk of the court, we have gone 

completely electronic, utilizing the Administrative Office’s CMECF 

system, and so all of the cases that are on the docket before the 

court are now electronically filed, with the exception of certain initiating documents. 

I have had the opportunity to work with the court’s Advisory 

Committee on Rules and with many attorneys in mega cases that 

are before the court in constructing efficient practices and procedures in order to make sure that the cases move through the system effectively, with fairness and an opportunity for all sides to 

present their arguments and issues to the court. 

I fully expect that the experience that I have had as the assistant clerk as the court and now as the clerk as the court, and my 

relationship with many counsel—that I will be able to continue 

those practices, if confirmed by the Senate as a judge. And I fully 

expect to be able to dispose of the docket before me in an efficient 

and effective manner, clearly with the goal of dispensing justice 

and doing it in a way that makes sure that there is an opportunity 

for each side to be heard. 

I absolutely believe that one of the most critical skill sets that 

a judge can have is the ability to listen and to make the litigants 

that appear before the court, along with their counsel, to be comfortable and to know that they have had their opportunity for a day 

in court, and that they can walk out the door feeling that the process has heard them and served them well, regardless of the outcome. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I appreciate your comments with regard 

to the belief of the litigants that they have had a fair opportunity 

to be heard, win, lose or draw. Back in a previous lifetime, I served 

as a State trial court judge and then served on my State’s supreme 

court. 

I was amazed at how many times people really just wanted 

somebody to listen to what they had to say, and it is, I guess, 

maybe a sign of the times that people don’t get other people to listen to them unless they get them into court, where they have to 

listen. That was an amazing sort of revelation. I guess it is nothing 

profound, but there is a great sense of justice with giving people 

an opportunity to be heard. 

I know judges frequently feel like they are under pressure to 

move their docket, accelerate their production, but I appreciate 

your comments with regard to having people with the belief that 

143

they have experienced justice and not just been part of a cog in a 

huge machine. 

Judge Delgado, I would be interested in learning more about the 

court to which you have been nominated and your plans for administering your docket. 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. Well, the District Court of Puerto Rico 

for which I have been nominated is the same court for which I have 

been serving as a magistrate judge for the past 12 years. 

Of course, a trial court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We have 

a full and very active civil docket and criminal docket. Actually, 

within the First Circuit I think we rank and have ranked No. 1 in 

multi-defendant criminal cases. So that is a great challenge in 

terms of the pre-trial management and the skills that are compelled and the follow-up that the judge has to give to those types 

of cases. 

So it is a very active docket that thus far I understand is well 

under control. And I hope that I will be able, if confirmed by the 

Senate, to keep assisting the district judges of that court to dispense justice equally to all in a prompt and expedited and fair 

manner. 

In terms of the skills or mechanisms that I can utilize or can be 

utilized to expedite case management, certainly, sir, I will have to 

mention that the local rules of the district court provide for a very 

streamlined discovery process and motion practice that, when effectively implemented, serves very well the purpose. 

Besides that, I am a firm believer in the same trend of listening 

to the attorneys; that instead of imposing a scheduling order, what 

I do more so in complex cases is that I meet with the attorneys. 

I sit with them and I try to fix a reasonable schedule that is 

worked jointly. After that, the attorneys know that they will have 

to live to that schedule, and enforcing that schedule is something 

that prompts resolution. 

I think that a firm trial date always serves to expedite cases and 

matters, and it has been my experience and the result of my experience during the past 12 years that alternative dispute resolution 

is an incredible mechanism that is available and has been implemented in the district court successfully. 

Personally, I am a firm believer of communicating with the attorneys, members of the bar, either through the ABA, the Federal 

Bar, keeping in touch with members of the bar through continuing 

legal education, which is what we have done. And we share the 

needs of the court, the concerns of the attorneys, and we keep on 

a daily basis—or a frequent basis, I should say, trying to work out 

mechanisms that will expedite the cases in court and serving everyone fairly and expeditiously. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you very much. You mentioned alternative dispute resolution, as did Mr. Johnston and Mr. Batten. 

One of the concerns I have about our civil justice system—and now 

we are talking about civil cases, obviously—is the time, the delay, 

and the expense of invoking the provisions of our law when it 

comes to having your case heard and decided in a court. 

If you are the plaintiff, obviously a contingent fee arrangement 

is the way that oftentimes that obstacle is overcome. But, you have 

to find a lawyer who will take your case and they have to obviously 

144

feel like it is a good economic decision for them to make or you may 

be out of luck, or you can be a wealthy litigant or have insurance. 

But, I worry that for many people who have disputes that they 

would like to present to courts for decision, the courthouse doors 

are locked, not literally, but because of the cost and the delays inherent in so much of our civil justice system. 

Mr. Batten, can you talk to that issue and maybe a little bit 

about your experience with alternative dispute resolution and how 

you would plan to implement those procedures perhaps to address 

those issues of cost and delay? 

Mr. BATTEN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I started practicing 

law in 1984 and it really was about that time, in the mid- to late 

1980’s, that ADR became more pervasive, more popular. Frankly, 

when I first introduced to it, I wasn’t very excited about it because 

I wanted to try cases. And then I started mediating cases, more 

mediation than arbitration, which in the Northern District of Georgia that is more commonly used. And what I learned is this works. 

It is a rare case today where I am that the parties are not ordered to mediation. You know, I have had cases that I went in 

thinking there is absolutely no way that this case will settle; these 

people are too adamantly entrenched in their respective polar opposite positions to be able to reconcile through one mediator in 1 day. 

And I have had a number of occasions when I went in feeling that 

way and the case was resolved by mediation. So in my book, there 

is no such case, a case that can’t be resolved by mediation. 

So I think one of the important things is the parties typically 

should be ordered to mediation because it is so effective, and although lawyers are much more receptive to the idea now than I 

was in the early or mid-1980’s, there are still some lawyers today 

who don’t embrace ADR as a regular part of the procedural machinery that should be employed to resolve cases. That is where I 

think help can be had. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Johnston, let me ask you a related but 

slightly different question. What do you think the role of the judge 

is with regard to alternative dispute resolution? Is that a function 

that is delegated to someone else or should the judge be in the middle of shuttling back and forth between the litigants trying to get 

the case settled? And, does that raise any issues, in your mind, 

about the judge’s later role, that of being the impartial adjudicator? 

Mr. JOHNSTON. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. My 

experience is that a judge is in a position to encourage alternate 

dispute resolution. My experience—as I mentioned earlier, in the 

Northern District of West Virginia we have a program called the 

settlement week mediation, and each judge is asked to look at their 

docket and look at cases that are close to the end of discovery coming up for trial and put them on a list. 

And then we have all of the cases and mediators—we have a 

large number of trained mediators who will come in and we will 

assign rooms to them throughout the courthouse and mediate all 

together over a week-long period. The rate of resolution of those 

cases typically was around a third of those cases would be resolved 

as a result of that, which I thought was a remarkable result and 

a great bit of evidence for the efficacy of alternative dispute resolution. 

145

So I think to the extent that as a judge, if confirmed, I can encourage mediation, I will do that. I think it is appropriate for a 

judge to participate in settlement conferences as long as one does 

not step into the role of advocate. Certainly, facilitating settlement 

discussions is an appropriate and useful, in my opinion, function 

for a judge if it assists in resolving a case. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Gordon, does your court employ alternative 

dispute resolution? 

Mr. Gordon, Mr. Chairman, no, the court does not. We are not 

authorized by statute for an ADR program. However, the court 

does have what we call an in-court mediation program where one 

judge can refer a case for settlement discussions to another judge. 

We have had that for a couple of—the judges have had that for a 

couple of years. The program has had modest success. 

The thing that you need to know about our docket is that many 

of our cases are related to another case or have implications for 

other cases, so that the use of mediation is somewhat problematic 

because of the nature of the court’s jurisdiction. 

Senator CORNYN. It doesn’t just affect the immediate litigants or 

parties to the case? 

Mr. GORDON. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CORNYN. Judge Delgado, you said your court tries a lot 

of complicated, multi-party criminal cases. What percentage of the 

cases are civil? 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. Right now, I will say—well, I think that 

there is a balanced number, but the number of defendants in one 

criminal case certainly is quite significant. We may have one criminal case with 40 defendants, 36 defendants. That is not unusual in 

our district. Twelve is run-of-the-mill, if I may use the expression. 

But in that sense, my share of work—right now, I will say it is 50 

percent civil, 50 percent criminal as a magistrate judge. 

Senator CORNYN. And how do you employ alternative dispute resolution or settlement techniques to try to resolve cases without 

trial? Could you comment on that, please? 

Judge DELGADO-COLON. The alternative of mediation is always 

offered to the parties, and some of them, some of the attorneys of 

the bar, are familiarized with the process and they even request at 

their own initiative to have the case mediated by a judicial officer. 

In the sense that it may create a conflict or a dilemma for the 

judge that is presiding or would be presiding in the trial of the 

case, we have used—or the district judges have used magistrate 

judges to assist in that matter and we mediate many, many cases. 

On some occasions, if the case requires a lengthy process or it involves the need for an expert in certain topics or areas or legal 

fields, there is a panel of mediators to which the court can have 

the case assigned, or have some other magistrate judge from other 

districts within the First Circuit to conduct the mediation as well. 

But it is a mechanism that is always offered. It has been well accepted by members of the bar and frequently used in our district. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Well, I thank each one of you for appearing here today and 

bringing your family and friends along with you. Congratulations 

on your nomination. It is my hope that now that the hearing is almost concluded that we can have a quick mark-up of your nominaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 038736 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\38736.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
146

tions in the Judiciary Committee and hopefully get them to the 

floor of the Senate without any unnecessary delay. 

At this point, I would like to offer, without objection, the statement of Senator Johnny Isakson on the nomination of Timothy 

Batten, as well as a letter from the Customs and International 

Trade Bar Association on behalf of the nomination of Mr. Leo Gordon. That will also be made part of the record, without objection. 

We will leave the record open until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 

14, in case any member of the Committee would like to submit 

written questions to the nominees. In the event that that occurs 

and you receive written questions, I would encourage you to get 

those answered and back to the Committee as soon as you can. Obviously, that will help us expedite the voting of your nominations 

out of the Committee and to the floor. And, I know you have an 

interest in making sure that there is not unnecessary delay, as I 

do. 

Thank you very much for being here. Good luck to each one of 

you. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

147


38736.646
148


38736.647
149


38736.130
150


38736.131
151


38736.132
152


38736.133
153


38736.134
154


38736.135
155


38736.136
156


38736.137
157


38736.138
158


38736.139
(159)

NOMINATIONS OF STEPHEN G. LARSON, OF 

CALIFORNIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA; JACK ZOUHARY, OF OHIO, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO; AND JOHN 

F. CLARK, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine presiding. 

Present: Senators DeWine and Feinstein. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. We welcome all of you to the 

hearing. The Committee will come to order. 

Today we will have a confirmation hearing for two of the President’s judicial nominees as well as the nominee for head of the 

United States Marshals Service. I think all of these nominees are 

well-qualified for their respective positions and I hope we can move 

these nominations through the Committee shortly and through the 

Senate as soon as possible. 

Let me welcome Senator Warner and Senator Allen with us 

today. Let me also welcome Senator Feinstein, and I would defer 

to her now for her comments. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

I would like to introduce to the Committee Judge Larson. I don’t 

know if it is appropriate to do it now. 

Senator DEWINE. We can do that. Are you going to stay with us 

during the— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I was hoping not to stay the whole hearing, 

if I might. 

Senator DEWINE. Why don’t you go right ahead, then. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

160

PRESENTATION OF STEPHEN G. LARSON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

BY HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, Senator DeWine, it is my 

pleasure to introduce to the Committee Judge Stephen Larson, the 

nominee to the Federal District Court for the Central District of 

California. 

Judge Larson—it is a wonderful family. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is an amazing family, as you can probably 

see. But I will let Judge Larson at the appropriate time introduce 

his wife and children. 

He is a native of Fontana. He is specifically nominated for a seat 

on the Federal bench in Riverside, California. He comes to this 

Committee very familiar with the court to which he is nominated. 

Since October of 2000, he has served as a magistrate judge for the 

Central District in Riverside. 

He has spent his last 15 years in public service. Prior to becoming a magistrate judge, he was Assistant United States Attorney in 

the Central District of California, from 1991 to 2000, serving as 

Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Organized Crime Strike Force and as 

coordinator of its Russian Organized Crime Unit. 

Judge Larson attended college here in Washington, at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, from which he received 

a bachelor’s of science in 1986. He then returned to California for 

law school, graduating from the University of Southern California 

Law School in 1989. 

The American Bar Association has unanimously declared him to 

be well qualified, and it is evident—to me, at least—that he has 

very strong support within the Inland Empire. I have received a 

number of letters endorsing his nomination. Judge Larson, you 

might be pleased to know that these recommendations come from 

a very diverse cross-section of the Inland Empire’s legal community—from judges and law professors, from Government attorneys 

and private practitioners, and from Democrats as well as Republicans. In these letters, Judge Larson is praised for his legal knowledge, and words like ‘‘fairness,’’ ‘‘integrity,’’ ‘‘hard work,’’ ‘‘temperament,’’ ‘‘intelligence,’’ ‘‘patience,’’ and ‘‘sense of social justice’’ are all 

present. 

So I am very proud of the bipartisan judicial screening process 

that exists in California, because under this system a Committee 

of lawyers including Democrats and Republicans recommends 

qualified appointments to the President. And Judge Larson’s nomination through this process gives me a great deal of confidence that 

he comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and is prepared to serve all of the people of California, as well, of course, as 

the law. 

So Judge Larson, let me congratulate you. Perhaps if the two 

Senators don’t mind—because this is such a beautiful family—

would you mind just standing and introducing your family? 

Judge LARSON. This is my wife Dena and my little daughter 

Michaela; and Joseph, Brendan, Patrick, Thomas—and I believe 

161

Mary had to make a premature exit with my sister. They are right 

outside the door. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. And good luck, Judge. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator, thank you very much for that very 

nice introduction. 

Senator Warner, Thank you for joining us. 

Senator Allen, Thank you for joining us. 

Senator Warner, we will recognize you. 

PRESENTATION OF JOHN F. CLARK, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE 

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, BY HON. JOHN WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman and other members of the Committee, I am 

pleased to introduce a long-time Virginian, John Clark, who has 

been nominated to serve as the Director of the United States Marshals Service. He is joined here today by his wife Lucy. 

Would you kindly introduce your wife? 

Mr. CLARK. This is my wife, Lucy. 

Senator WARNER. As you know, the Marshals Service is the Nation’s oldest Federal law enforcement agency—a point in history I 

think is worth remembering. When originally created in 1789, 

President Washington nominated 13 U.S. Marshals for Senate confirmation. Today, more than 200 years later, America has 94 U.S. 

Marshals and the Marshals Service employs more than 4,800 Deputy Marshals and employees. 

The Director of the Marshals Service serves as the Agency’s 

head. The Director’s job is not only to effectively manage the Agency’s nearly 5,000 employees, but also to ensure that the Marshals 

Service continues to accomplish its many day-to-day missions, from 

courthouse security, witness security, fugitive investigations, and 

prisoner detention services. The Director of the Marshals Service, 

without a doubt, has a very difficult and challenging job. This already tough job was made even more challenging in the post-9/11 

world, particularly with respect to the unique security challenges 

that terrorism places upon the entire law enforcement structure of 

our nation. 

John Clark, in my humble judgment, is up to that responsibility 

in every respect. For the past 6 months, he has had the privilege 

of serving as the Acting Director of the Marshals Service. His past 

experience served him well for that position. Prior to taking over 

as the Acting Director, Mr. Clark worked for nearly 3 years as the 

United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, the very 

district that prosecutes most of America’s high-profile terrorist-related cases. How fortunate we are in Virginia to have someone with 

his experience to take on this responsibility. 

I would now like to ask that the balance of my statement be 

placed in the record. 

Senator DEWINE. It will be made a part of the record, Senator. 

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

162

Senator WARNER. I defer to my colleague. I am chairing a hearing downstairs, so I must leave. 

Senator DEWINE. We understand. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Allen. 

PRESENTATION OF JOHN F. CLARK, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE 

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, BY HON. GEORGE ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, 

members of the Committee. I join with my good friend and colleague, Senator Warner, in giving my highest recommendation of 

John Clark in his position and nomination as Director of the 

United States Marshals Service. Those of us from Virginia believe 

this is an outstanding nomination, not just for Virginia but for our 

entire country. 

Let me add a few details to what Senator Warner said. John 

Clark, if you look at his record, has served this country very well 

for 22 years in a career with the Marshals Service, most recently 

as Acting Director since August of 2005. Prior to being named Director, he was the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia. It is important to recognize some of the challenges he faced 

there in the Marshals Service and the courtrooms and some really 

important matters to make sure the courtrooms were safe and they 

were secure in the conduct of some very high-profile judicial proceedings, including that of convicted spy Robert Hansen, terrorist 

suspects John Walker Lindh and Zacarias Moussaoui, and several 

members of the very dangerous MS–13 gang. 

Mr. Clark has extensive law enforcement experience. Prior to his 

role in the U.S. Marshals Service for the Eastern District, he 

served in a variety of positions, including Chief of Internal Affairs 

Division, Chief of the Internal Fugitive Investigations Division. 

And before joining the Marshals Service, he was a United States 

Capitol Police officer and a U.S. Border Patrol agent as well. 

John Clark has worked diligently in support of creation of the 

Capitol Area Regional Fugitive Task Force, which, under the Marshals Service leadership, has joined Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement agencies from Baltimore, Maryland, to Norfolk, Virginia, in a cooperative, highly successful partnership to fight crime 

and remove dangerous fugitives from our streets and communities. 

The task force has been very effective in capturing some of this region’s most violent criminals—for which we are very grateful. He 

has put together, just since being the Acting Director, working 

groups of operational and administrative personnel to review a variety of court security issues, a topic that I know is very important 

to members of this Committee and the judiciary. His steadfast 

leadership during this time really has delivered a message that judicial security remains a top priority. 

So with his breadth and depth of experience, I have full confidence that the President has truly nominated a person with integrity, which is absolutely essential, since the motto of the Marshals 

Service is ‘‘Justice, Integrity, and Service.’’ John Clark, in my view, 

meets all those requirements and then some. I am glad his bride 

163

Lucy is here with him, and I hope that this Committee will move 

as expeditiously as possible to move this nomination forward toward confirmation. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Feinstein, for your 

attention and allowing me to be with you all this morning. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Allen, thank you very much. A great 

statement. And we know that you have other business as well, and 

we will excuse you. We thank you very much. Appreciate that. 

At this point, as United States Senator from Ohio, I would like 

to say a few words to introduce my fellow Ohioan, Judge Jack 

Zouhary. 

Before I do, I should mention that Senator George Voinovich 

sends his regrets. He is actually traveling with the President of the 

United States today in Ohio. He had hoped to be here to help introduce the Judge, but unfortunately is not able to do so. He does 

have a written statement which I will make part of the record at 

this point. 

PRESENTATION OF JACK ZOUHARY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BY 

HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENTATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

OHIO 

It is my pleasure and honor to introduce my fellow Ohioan, 

Judge Jack Zouhary, to the members of this Committee today. The 

Judge currently serves on the Lucas County Common Pleas Court 

bench. President Bush has nominated him to serve as a Federal 

judge in the Northern District of the State of Ohio. 

Let me welcome the Judge’s family members who are here with 

him today—his wife Kathleen, his daughters Katie Marie and Alexis. We thank all of you for joining us and welcome you to our Committee. We know that you are very proud of your husband and your 

father. 

Judge Zouhary has had a long and accomplished legal career, a 

career with 30 years of legal experience that has given him the 

background and the understanding of our legal system to successfully take on the role of a Federal judge. He attended Dartmouth 

College, where he received his undergraduate degree before returning to his home town to earn his law degree at the University of 

Toledo College of Law. 

The Judge began his legal career with Robison, Curphey and 

O’Connell, where he worked for 23 years as an associate and then 

as a partner. During this time, he had a varied practice, representing individuals and businesses on a range of legal issues 

with an emphasis on civil trial practice and corporate matters. 

In the year 2000, the Judge became the Senior Vice President 

and General Counsel for S.E. Johnson Companies, Inc., a large 

highway contractor and asphalt producer. Judge Zouhary was responsible for all the corporation’s legal issues, including environmental safety, human resources, contract negotiations, supervision 

of risk management, union grievances, and litigation. 

In the year 2004, the Judge accepted a position as Of Counsel 

with the law firm of Fuller and Henry. He remained with Fuller 

and Henry until 2005, when he was appointed by Governor Bob 

Taft to the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. In Ohio the ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 038736 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\38736.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
164

mon Pleas Court is our highest State trial bench that hears all 

major civil as well as criminal cases. 

During his time as an attorney in private practice, the Judge distinguished himself as an excellent litigator. He was honored by 

being selected as a member of the prestigious American College of 

Trial Lawyers. This is notable because membership in the American College of Trial Lawyers is by invitation only and is limited 

to the best of the trial bar. Judge Zouhary clearly meets that criterion. 

Even more important, Judge Zouhary has long been committed 

to the ideals of civility and professionalism in the legal field, something that sometimes we don’t see enough of these days. He frequently has presented lectures focusing on legal ethics and civility 

in the practice of law for continuing legal education seminars. He 

is also a member of the Morrison Waite Chapter of the Inns of 

Court, a nationwide organization dedicated to improving the skills, 

professionalism, and ethics of the bench and the bar. 

Judge Zouhary’s commitment to serving the community as a professional is also exemplified by his membership in the Toledo Rotary Club as well as a broad range and array of other charitable 

activities ranging from pro bono work for a local church to service 

at a community soup kitchen. 

Although he has been a common pleas judge for only a relatively 

short period of time, Judge Zouhary has already begun to distinguish himself on the bench. He has been working diligently to clear 

a very large backlog of cases on his crowded docket and successfully made a good deal of headway in that effort. Most important, 

attorneys who have appeared before him, criminal and civil, prosecution and defense, speak in glowing terms of his talent, his fairness, and excellent judicial temperament. 

With Judge Zouhary’s impressive record as a legal professional 

and community leader, it should come as no surprise that the 

American Bar Association was unanimous in giving him its highest 

rating of Well Qualified. 

Judge Zouhary is an outstanding nominee, and I gladly, I gladly 

join his supporters in the belief that he will serve as a great Federal judge for the Northern District of Ohio. 

Let me ask all of the three nominees to now come forward and 

sit where your name tag is. I would ask you to remain standing, 

if you would. I will swear you in. Will you all raise your right hand, 

please? 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before 

this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

Judge LARSON. I do. 

Judge ZOUHARY. I do. 

Mr. CLARK. I do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that series of letters concerning Judge Larson be entered into the record? 

Senator DEWINE. Those will certainly be made a part of the 

record. 

We would invite each one of you to make any opening statement 

that you would like to make. Judge Larson, we would start with 

you. And we would invite you to introduce any family members 

165

that have not been introduced. Or if you would like to introduce 

them again, that would be fine. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN G. LARSON, NOMINEE TO BE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Judge LARSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. It is just kind of a family day here today. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge LARSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein. It is a tremendous honor, a real privilege to be here 

this morning. 

I want to thank the Senate Committee for inviting me, for holding this hearing. I want to thank the Senate staff for all of their 

hard work. I do want to thank the President as well for his confidence in nominating me and for his counsel, and all of the individuals all they way down to the bipartisan committee that Senator 

Feinstein referred to. And also, my colleagues on the judiciary for 

their encouragement. I know we have members of the Administrative Office here today. I appreciate their support. 

I would like to take a moment to introduce a few family members 

that I hadn’t previously introduced. 

Senator DEWINE. That would be great. 

Judge LARSON. My mother and my father are here today, Dale 

and Sheila Larson. 

Senator DEWINE. Why don’t you all stand up? I know you are 

very proud. Thank you. 

Judge LARSON. My sister Marette. And then, of course, you met 

previously my wife Dena and the six wonderful children. 

Senator DEWINE. And what is the age range? 

Judge LARSON. The oldest, Michaela, is 9. She’s in fourth grade. 

And it goes all the way down to Mary, who unfortunately had to 

step out for a moment. She just turned 1 a few weeks ago. 

Senator DEWINE. Very good. 

Judge LARSON. She’s out there with her brother Thomas, who’s 

2, who suffers from the terrible twos right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DEWINE. Well we welcome them. Very good. 

Judge LARSON. Well, thank you very much. Like I say, it’s truly 

a privilege to be here. If confirmed and if appointed, I truly will 

do all I can to continue my public service to this country and to 

assist as I can the Nation in its making true its promise of equal 

justice under law. 

[The biographical information of Judge Larson follows.]

166


38736.140
167


38736.141
168


38736.142
169


38736.143
170


38736.144
171


38736.145
172


38736.146
173


38736.147
174


38736.148
175


38736.149
176


38736.150
177


38736.151
178


38736.152
179


38736.153
180


38736.154
181


38736.155
182


38736.156
183


38736.157
184


38736.158
185


38736.159
186


38736.160
187


38736.161
188


38736.162
189


38736.163
190


38736.164
191


38736.165
192


38736.166
193


38736.167
194


38736.168
195


38736.169
196


38736.170
197


38736.171
198


38736.172
199


38736.173
200


38736.174
201


38736.175
202


38736.176
203


38736.177
204


38736.178
205


38736.179
206


38736.180
207


38736.181
208


38736.182
209


38736.183
210


38736.184
211


38736.185
212


38736.186
213


38736.187
214


38736.188
215


38736.189
216


38736.190
217

Senator DEWINE. Judge, thank you very much. 

Judge Zouhary. 

STATEMENT OF JACK ZOUHARY, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

Judge ZOUHARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind opening remarks. I want to express also my appreciation to you, Senator DeWine, and also to Senator Voinovich, for your recommendation to the President, for his confidence and my nomination. 

I also want to acknowledge the colleagues, the lawyers and 

judges, the family and friends back home who have lent their support during this process. Especially, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of my parents. My father, if he were here today, I know 

would be very proud. My mother is back home in Toledo beaming, 

I am sure; my dear sisters back in Ohio, with their families; and 

last, certainly not least, but perhaps foremost, the love of my bride 

of 27 years, Kathleen. 

And, Kathleen, why don’t you stand? 

[Ms. Zouhary stood.] 

Judge ZOUHARY. And my two daughters, Katie Marie and Alexis, 

who have been traveled along with me on this judicial journey, and 

I very much appreciate all they have done. 

And I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and look forward to meeting the high expectations that people have laid out in 

front of me. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Judge Zouhary follows.]

218


38736.191
219


38736.192
220


38736.193
221


38736.194
222


38736.195
223


38736.196
224


38736.197
225


38736.198
226


38736.199
227


38736.200
228


38736.201
229


38736.202
230


38736.203
231


38736.204
232


38736.205
233


38736.206
234


38736.207
235


38736.208
236


38736.209
237


38736.210
238


38736.211
239


38736.212
240


38736.213
241


38736.214
242


38736.215
243


38736.216
244


38736.217
245


38736.218
246

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Judge, very much. 

Mr. Clark, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. CLARK, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein. I am 

very honored to appear before the Committee as the President’s 

nominee to serve as Director of the United States Marshals Service. 

I also wanted to thank the Attorney General and the President 

for the confidence they have placed in me, and it was also an additional honor to have both Senators Warner and Allen appear this 

morning to express their confidence in me in supporting me. 

As a career employee of the Marshals Service, nearly 23 years, 

I can say without a doubt this is one of the most honorable things 

I have had to do in my career. So I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Although my wife, Lucy, has been introduced, I would also like 

to thank her, my wife of 17 years, Lucy, for being with me today 

and to also be the captain of my support team. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Clark follows.]

247


38736.219
248


38736.220
249


38736.221
250


38736.222
251


38736.223
252


38736.224
253


38736.225
254


38736.226
255


38736.227
256


38736.228
257


38736.229
258


38736.230
259


38736.231
260


38736.232
261


38736.233
262


38736.234
263


38736.235
264


38736.236
265


38736.237
266


38736.238
267


38736.239
268


38736.240
269


38736.241
270


38736.242
271

Senator DEWINE. Before I get started, I have letters of support 

from Congressmen Sessions and Boozman which will be entered 

into the record at this point. 

Judge Zouhary, let me start with you. You are in the middle. We 

will just start with you. You have been a frequent lecturer on the 

topic of civility in the practice of law. How did you get into this 

area, and what does that mean, actually? 

Judge ZOUHARY. I got into it because the practice of law changed 

from the time I first started, and when I first started, there were 

no special rules on civility and professionalism. But for whatever 

reason, that tended to deteriorate, and I think it is perhaps reflective not just of our judicial system, but perhaps society as a whole. 

In any event, it was a topic of concern to me as a practicing trial 

lawyer who has spent a number of years working in different courtrooms with different judges. I noted different temperaments, different attitudes, and I believed it important that we return a bit 

more of the professionalism to our profession that had perhaps 

been lacking. 

So I began to speak, and one talk led to another and another invitation, and now I use it not only with lawyers, but also with civic 

groups as well, in attempt to reverse, and I think somewhat successfully, the trend that— 

Senator DEWINE. What kind of reaction do you get? 

Judge ZOUHARY. Positive reaction, a very positive reaction from 

both lawyers and again from those civic groups that I have spoken 

with. 

Senator DEWINE. Does that reflect in your work on the bench? 

Judge ZOUHARY. I, of course, take that with me to the bench, and 

in my courtroom strive to maintain the highest of those standards 

of civility and professionalism. I find that one can be an advocate, 

which I was for many years, and yet maintain a professional decorum. It does not have to reduce it to the lowest level, and so in my 

courtroom, I am—I think a judge’s role is to be fair and firm, maintain a professional atmosphere. 

I have found that when tension—and there are times when it 

does get tense. Humor can be a great way to de-fuse the situation 

and allow the parties to resume a professional decorum. And I have 

had jurors, frankly, thank me for my efforts in keeping trials moving and keeping them on a professional level. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, you did some mediation work on the 

Federal Court Panel of Alternative Dispute Resolution. How did 

you get involved in that and what has that taught you and what 

impact has that had on your work as a Common Pleas judge, and 

what impact might that have in your role if you are confirmed by 

the U.S. Senate, if you go to the Federal district court? 

Judge ZOUHARY. Thank you. That panel, when it was started—

and I forget the year—began because there was a perceived need 

because of the clog in the docket—a way to help move cases. And 

they asked for volunteers and I volunteered and was one of a group 

that was instructed and then became a mediator, where you are assigned cases. 

And it is a quasi-judicial role in the sense that you take on that 

case and try to resolve it. So I was able to shed my advocate hat 

and put on a neutral or mediator hat and help with cases to alleviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 038736 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\38736.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
272

ate the docket of Federal judges, frankly, that were becoming pretty overburdened. I have taken that on and have done some private 

mediator. 

And as a judge now, I take a proactive role and am actively engaged in settlement conferences, and try to use that mediator role 

to again resolve those cases that the parties are willing to resolve, 

realizing that there are some cases that need to be tried. And that 

is what we are as trial judges; we are there to try cases, as well, 

but I find it is a great way to help move cases and to keep the 

docket moving, yet giving each case the attention it deserves. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, you have spent most of your career not 

on the bench. In other words, you have had—I gave your introduction, but a rather interesting career, some of it in the private practice of law, some of it in corporate life, and only recently on the 

bench. 

Why do you want to be a Federal judge? 

Judge ZOUHARY. Well, I want to take the experience of the many 

courtrooms, which I viewed as my classrooms as a trial lawyer, and 

also now my own classroom our courtroom as a State court judge—

take those experiences to help improve the judicial system. 

And there are a few things that one can do as a Federal judge 

that one cannot do as a State judge. I believe the cases are more 

challenging in Federal court. I would also like to expand the audience for my civility and professionalism talk. And, finally, something very dear to me is the opportunity to preside over immigration ceremonies, which a Federal judge can do. 

As a first-generation American who grew up with a number of 

immigrants, hard-working immigrants, a number of whom were 

part of what some have called the greatest generation, they greatly 

inspired me and it would be quite an honor for me to have the opportunity to welcome new citizens to this country. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge Larson, let me kind of followup with you 

on that question. You have served as a magistrate judge now for, 

what, 5 years, I guess? 

Judge LARSON. Five years. 

Senator DEWINE. Explain the duties of that office and how you 

think it has prepared you to serve as a district court judge, and 

then maybe kind of tell me why you want to be a district court 

judge. 

Judge LARSON. Well, thank you, Senator. I have thoroughly enjoyed these last 5 years as a magistrate judge. It has been a real 

privilege to serve the people of the Central District in that capacity. 

As a magistrate judge, I have both civil and criminal responsibilities. The criminal cases are misdemeanor cases, as opposed to the 

felony cases that a Federal district judge would have. And on the 

civil side, I have actually been fortunate to have been involved in 

a pilot project these last 2 years which has placed me on the wheel 

along with the two other active district judges in the Eastern Division of our Central District. Of course, the parties must consent to 

a magistrate judge before the case proceeds, but it has provided me 

an opportunity to have a wide range of civil cases, civil trials. And 

I think all of that experience together has well prepared me for the 

opportunity to be a district judge. 

273

It has also engendered in me the desire to become a district 

judge. I have thoroughly enjoyed the civil caseload. I spent 9 years 

in the U.S. Attorney’s office doing mostly felony criminal work, and 

I look forward to being able to have an opportunity to do that if 

I were to be confirmed. 

I love being a judge. I love the role of the judiciary. I think the 

judiciary has a very important role to play in our society, and so 

that is why I want to be a district judge. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, I was intrigued by reading that you 

have traveled extensively in Eastern Europe. You have spoken to 

foreign audiences about criminal justice and the rule of law. 

How did you get into doing that and what have you learned from 

that? Just tell us a little bit about that experience. I think that is 

kind of an interesting background to bring to the Federal bench. 

Judge LARSON. Well, when I was in the U.S. Attorney’s office in 

Los Angeles, I was assigned to the organized crime strike force that 

Senator Feinstein made reference to. And at that time, we were 

having—it was shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and we 

were having a large influx of organized crime elements from that 

part of the world—Brighton Beach, in New York, places in Los Angeles, a few other major metropolitan cities. 

So the Justice Department decided to indicate an individual who 

would be the Russian organized crime coordinator for each judicial 

district in which there was this activity, or believed to be this activity. I was selected probably largely because I knew a little bit about 

Russia. I had studied Russian language and culture and history at 

Georgetown University. 

And, of course, if you know a little bit about something, all of a 

sudden you are the expert in the area. And since no one else 

stepped forward, I was assigned to do that, and it was a tremendous opportunity. I was able to work on a lot of cases with colleagues from overseas, and as part of that I also had a chance to 

go over on behalf of the Justice Department to speak at conferences 

which were designed to try to spread the rule of law. 

From that experience, I developed a tremendous appreciation for 

the importance of the rule of law. I saw firsthand and heard firsthand accounts of what it was like to live in a totalitarian society 

in which the rule of individuals or the rule of an individual party 

was substituted for the rule of law. 

I spoke to judges who held that role under the communist system 

and who were now struggling to develop a judicial system very 

much modeled after many Western countries, and the challenges 

that they were facing. And in trying to provide some assistance or 

insight on our effort, it gave me a renewed appreciation for what 

a valuable system we have here, a renewed appreciation and commitment on my part to the rule of law. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge, you have spent practically your entire 

career working daily in the Federal courthouse as a prosecutor and 

magistrate judge. You certainly must know the Central District of 

California’s caseload quite well. What do you think are the unique 

challenges of that particular court? You have kind of sized it up, 

I am sure. 

Judge LARSON. That is kind of the obvious one, is the size. It is 

a huge judicial district. There are approximately 18 million people 

274

in the Central District, which I believe makes it the largest judicial 

district in the country by population. We have currently, I believe, 

28 active district judges, 23 magistrate judges. And so the first 

challenge is just dealing with the sheer volume, both in terms of 

the number of cases, the population, the size of the district. It is 

quite large. So that is probably our biggest challenge. 

We also have the challenges that are presented, I suppose, by 

having a very diverse population. While that is very rewarding and 

it is a great asset for Southern California, it raises a whole panoply 

of different issues that find their way in one form or another into 

Federal court. 

Senator DEWINE. Let me ask both of you, Judge Larson and 

Judge Zouhary, a question we ask all nominees. Supreme Court 

and Federal circuit court precedents are binding on district courts, 

as you know. Are you committed and willing to follow the precedents of the higher courts faithfully and give them full force and 

effect even if you might personally disagree with those precedents? 

Judge Zouhary? 

Judge ZOUHARY. Yes. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge Larson? 

Judge LARSON. Yes. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Clark, what do you think is the biggest 

challenge facing the Marshals Service? 

Mr. CLARK. I seem to be having a little feedback here with this 

microphone, but— 

Senator DEWINE. Technical problems. 

Mr. CLARK. Technical problems, yes. 

Senator DEWINE. The biggest challenge today. 

Mr. CLARK. That could be the first challenge from Capitol Hill, 

yes. 

Thank you, Chairman. There are a number of challenges, I think, 

that face the Marshals Service. And as you know from our history, 

and as Senators Warner and Allen explained, we have a rather 

unique series of missions we perform, be it detaining nearly 55,000 

inmates around the country in various regional or local jails; protecting Federal witnesses; apprehending fugitives, which last year, 

with our State and local Federal partners, arrested nearly 89,000 

nationally. 

But one of the greatest challenges that I have faced since becoming the Acting Director—and it is one that I believe the two gentlemen sitting with me here today can appreciate—is that of judicial 

security. We are at a point in our history where the challenges 

from terrorism, other individuals who have attacked members of 

the judiciary, have required us to rethink our strategies and our 

game plan, if you will, on how we will do our judicial security mission. So to me, one of the first and foremost challenges I have faced 

is providing first-class, superior protection to the members of our 

judiciary. 

Senator DEWINE. Without compromising security or discussing 

any details about security, which you are obviously not going to do, 

what changes have been made, Mr. Clark, since the recent tragedy 

regarding the tragic murder of Judge Lefkow’s husband and mother? It concerns us all. What are you doing differently? 

275

Mr. CLARK. Sure. Mr. Chairman, soon after I was appointed as 

the Acting Director of the Marshals Service, I realized that we 

needed to look at all the various strategies, the types of things we 

do to protect the Federal judiciary, and looking at how we are 

doing it now compared to the days where we had used, I would say, 

strategies that could be in need of improvement. 

A couple of the areas that I immediately sought to improve is 

how we collect and analyze threats and the intelligence on those 

threats, the analysis of those threats. I immediately formed a working group to look at how we can do that better. I put a rather fast 

time line on this working group to recommend to me how we can 

make some significant improvements to doing the threat analysis 

and the threat intelligence process following the tragedy that happened in the Judge Lefkow situation, which, as you know, required 

a lot of additional investigation on the threat and the threatener 

in that case. 

They returned to me a number of recommendations. Just to 

share one or two of them with you, for example, I am in the process 

of formulating a 24/7 threat analysis center at our headquarters. 

I believe this will provide not only to the judiciary, but to our field 

offices around the country in our 94 judicial districts real-time 

analysis of threats that come in so that we can respond to them 

quickly and thoroughly. 

Additionally, I asked a separate working group to look at how we 

can explore the use of technology to provide electronic observation 

of judges’ residences, such as in the Judge Lefkow situation, if we 

need to do protective details. This particular working group also 

made some very good recommendations as to how we can improve 

our technology and the use of technology to protect the judiciary. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I appreciate that. As you know, the Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Protecting the 

Judiciary at Home and in the Courthouse.’’ That was held on May 

18, 2005. Judge Roth testified at that time that the U.S. Marshals 

Service fails to adequately consult and coordinate with the Federal 

judiciary regarding judicial security. 

I wonder if you can react to that at this point. What has the 

Marshals Service done to address those specific concerns? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Soon after I assumed the duties 

of the Acting Director of the Marshals Service, one of my very first 

meetings with members of the judiciary concerned working with 

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and a number of the 

Committee members on the national Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Security. I met with them specifically to discuss 

this very issue about how I can personally improve the coordination 

and the collaboration with the members not only of the judiciary, 

but of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 

I also should note the two working groups that I mentioned a few 

minutes ago—I invited, and received great response from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to serve as Committee members on those two working groups. Most recently, I went to Tucson, 

Arizona, to meet with the Judicial Security Committee. I outlined 

for them a number of the recommendations that I intend to take, 

should I be confirmed by this Committee, to improve the cooperation and collaboration with the courts. 

276

Senator DEWINE. So your pledge to this Committee is that one 

of your priorities will be very excellent communication with the 

judges, then? 

Mr. CLARK. That is certainly my pledge. 

Senator DEWINE. They are obviously part of your main constituency. 

Mr. CLARK. Very much. That is certainly my pledge, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Following that May hearing, then-Director 

Reyna received a series of written followup questions from Committee members. I believe, to my knowledge, at least, these questions were never answered by the Director at that time and remain 

unanswered. Can you check into that and see if we could get answers to those questions? And if you don’t have them, we can supply them to you. 

Mr. CLARK. We do have them and we are working on getting 

them answered, having received them after I assumed the— 

Senator DEWINE. I understand you didn’t— 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. Yes, Chairman, we are working on them. 

Senator DEWINE. We would appreciate that. 

Mr. CLARK. Sure. 

Senator DEWINE. Let me go back to these tragic murders. Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriations bill which 

was signed into law in May of 2005. It specifically $11.9 million to 

the Marshals Service for increased judicial security outside of 

courthouse facilities. That funding specified priority consideration 

of home intrusion detection systems in the homes of Federal 

judges. 

To my knowledge, none of the money has yet been used on home 

intrusion detection systems. Is that correct? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, not entirely, Mr. Chairman. We have recently 

begun the implementation— 

Senator DEWINE. You have begun to do that now? 

Mr. CLARK. Correct. Just within recent months after I assumed 

the acting directorship, I began working on allocating and using 

the funds to install the home intrusion alarms. 

Senator DEWINE. It is my understanding that the U.S. Marshals 

Service is not currently statutorily charged with protecting the 

United States Tax Court. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. CLARK. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. This court is often in relatively unsecured locations, and I think we all can imagine that it might be subject to 

some problems and there might be some security problems. 

What is your opinion about the possibility of Congress adding the 

Tax Court to your jurisdiction? 

Mr. CLARK. Well, Mr. Chairman, we, as you know, now have 

about 2,200 judges nationally that we are in charge of protecting, 

as well as approximately 5,500 U.S. Attorneys. 

Senator DEWINE. I know you probably want some money to do 

it. 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, I would be concerned about the resources. 

Senator DEWINE. You want some resources, but if we gave you 

the resources, could you deal with that? 

277

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, the judges certainly deserve the best 

protection that we can give them and we would react appropriately 

to any legislation that would require us to take on those additional 

duties, as you noted, with the right resources. 

Senator DEWINE. Talk to me a little bit, Mr. Clark, about apprehension of fugitives. We have noticed some innovative programs in 

Ohio recently by the Marshal there, and I wonder if you could just 

talk about where you see that going. It seems that this is an area 

where boldness and innovation can bring about some fairly dramatic results. 

Mr. CLARK. Sure. Mr. Chairman, the Marshals Service, as you 

have noted, has a longstanding history of apprehending dangerous 

fugitives, lowering violent crime. And as you pointed out as well, 

one of our, I think, very innovative, excellent fugitive apprehension 

projects has come forth from your particular State. 

Senator DEWINE. We are kind of proud of that. 

Mr. CLARK. Well, I just recently was— 

Senator DEWINE. Not that I did anything about it, but you all 

did, and we are proud you did it. 

Mr. CLARK. Well, thank you, thank you. The particular program 

you are referring to, Operation Safe Surrender, allows fugitives to 

surrender to community clergy as a way to have a sort of a neutral 

site, if you will, for a fugitive to surrender. That softens, if you will, 

sort of the law enforcement response that sometimes comes with 

the apprehension of fugitives. 

It also, as we noted in that particular instance, resulted in about 

850 fugitives turning themselves in. Very remarkable to say it even 

went beyond our target goals and desired thinking that that many 

fugitives would turn themselves in. So we were delighted with the 

results. 

I am pleased to report to the Committee that since I have served 

as Acting Director, I have approved an additional eight cities 

around the country that have a particularly high violent crime 

ratio where we hope to utilize this program that originated from 

Ohio to be very effective. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I want to again commend you for that 

program. From what we have seen in Ohio, it looks to be a very 

effective program. That type of innovation and kind of thinking 

outside the box seems to make a lot of sense and it seems to work 

very, very well. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you. 

Senator DEWINE. Let me just say that we look forward to working with you. Your job is a very important job. You have some very 

good people around the country who are doing very, very tough 

work everyday. They are protecting some very important people, 

but they are also getting some very tough people off the streets. If 

you need our assistance or you need our help or you need additional resources, we hope that you won’t hesitate to come to us. 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. So we look forward to a good relationship with 

you. 

Mr. CLARK. Likewise. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you. 

278

Let me ask our two judge candidates, Judge Larson and Judge 

Zouhary, a question about how you would describe how you run a 

court. One of the complaints I always hear from lawyers and kind 

of a complaint I had when I practiced law when I was a prosecutor 

was judges who would not let lawyers kind of try their case. 

What is the balance there between controlling your own courtroom, which you have to do, but also letting a prosecutor or a U.S. 

Attorney or a defense counsel have some leeway in trying their 

case? You know what I am talking about. 

Judge Larson? 

Judge LARSON. Thank you, Senator. Yes, as a former prosecutor 

who spent a lot of time in the Federal courts and observing the 

way that different Federal judges ran their courtroom, I definitely 

developed— 

Senator DEWINE. You have kind of seen it all. 

Judge LARSON. I haven’t seen it all by any sense, but I have seen 

quite a bit. 

Senator DEWINE. You have seen a lot of variation, range. 

Judge LARSON. I have tried to strike that balance in my own 

courtroom. I will give you one example. During the voir dire process, which, of course, is a very important process by which we select a fair and impartial jury, there were some Federal judges who 

would never allow attorneys to ask any questions themselves. 

There were others that perhaps allowed them to go on a bit too 

much. 

Senator DEWINE. Right. 

Judge LARSON. And I have tried to strike a balance there by always making sure that the attorneys do have an opportunity to ask 

some followup questions after I have asked the general questions, 

but placed what I considered to be reasonable limitations on that. 

That is just one example. 

I do think it is important for judges to be aware that you need 

to maintain control of the courtroom. There is a need for firmness, 

but here is also a need for gentleness and allowing attorneys to try 

their case. 

Senator DEWINE. Judge Zouhary. 

Judge ZOUHARY. The only thing I would add to Judge Larson’s 

fine answer is that I promised myself when I took the bench that 

I would not forget my years as a trial lawyer and utilize those experiences and to remember what it is like to be on the other side 

of the bench. 

Senator DEWINE. I want to congratulate our children in the audience. They are doing well. We haven’t put them to sleep yet and 

we won’t press our luck here. Thank you all very much. 

The record will remain open, which means that other members 

of the Committee can send you questions. We will keep that open 

for a week. The record will actually close on Wednesday, February 

22, at 5 p.m. So that is the official time the record will close. At 

any point until then, written questions can be submitted to you. If 

you get written questions, we would hope that you would turn 

those around very quickly. That will expedite our procedure. If they 

are not turned around, we can’t move, so we will wait for those. 

We hope then to have a markup, or markups, depending on the 

279

pleasure of the Chairman and ranking member, and move your 

nominations forward. 

So we appreciate it. You have been very helpful and we wish you 

all good luck, and we thank the families for being here and we congratulate all of you. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

280


38736.243
281


38736.244
282


38736.245
283


38736.246
284


38736.247
285


38736.248
286


38736.249
287


38736.250
288


38736.251
289


38736.252
290


38736.253
291


38736.254
292


38736.255
293


38736.256
294


38736.257
295


38736.258
296


38736.259
297


38736.260
298


38736.261
299


38736.262
300


38736.263
301


38736.264
302


38736.265
303


38736.266
304


38736.267
305


38736.268
306


38736.269
307


38736.270
308


38736.271
309


38736.272
310


38736.273
311


38736.274
312


38736.275
313


38736.276
314


38736.277
315


38736.278
316


38736.279
317


38736.280
318


38736.281
319


38736.282
320


38736.283
321


38736.284
322


38736.285
(323)

NOMINATIONS OF NORMAN RANDY SMITH, OF 

IDAHO, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE 

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT; AND PATRICK JOSEPH SCHILTZ, OF MINNESOTA, NOMINEE 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT 

OF MINNESOTA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m., in room SD–

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn presiding. 

Present: Senator Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. The Committee will come to order. 

Today we will have a confirmation hearing for two of the President’s judicial nominees. I hope we can get your nominations voted 

out of the Committee shortly and through the Senate as fast as 

possible. 

We have no Ranking Member here as yet, so if they show up, we 

will allow them an opportunity to make a comment. 

We are very privileged to have our distinguished colleagues here 

from the great State of Idaho as well as Senator Coleman from the 

State of Minnesota. Welcome, and we will start with Senator Craig. 

PRESENTATION OF NORMAN RANDY SMITH, OF IDAHO, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. LARRY CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

the courtesy that you have extended to us. I say that of the Chairman of the full Committee, Senator Specter. These hearings had 

been canceled because of scheduling conflicts, and when Senator 

Crapo and I met with him on the floor earlier in the day, he recognized that we had nominees who had flown literally the distance 

across our Nation to be here today, and recognizing that—and I 

think the Committee record also ought to show that I then appealed to you. Your schedule was tight, and you adjusted your 

schedule accordingly, and that is truly appreciated. 

324

So I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to introduce Randy Smith, who has been nominated 

to fill the Ninth Circuit seat in Boise, Idaho, being vacated by 

Judge Stephen Trott. 

Randy Smith comes to you with considerable judicial experience. 

He has been a State district judge in Idaho’s Sixth Judicial District 

for a decade. He has served as a felony drug court judge and a pro 

tem Justice for the Idaho Supreme Court and the Idaho Court of 

Appeals. He has a wealth of experience in both the practice of 

teaching law and he has been an active member of the Bar Association and other professional associations, Mr. Chairman. 

He has a life beyond law as well, as most of our judges do. He 

is deeply involved in his community and his State. He has held positions of leadership and responsibility in a wide variety of organizations. All of these things you can see for yourself in Judge 

Smith’s long resume. 

What you cannot see there and what I would like to share with 

you is a reputation that Randy Smith has earned in the State of 

Idaho amongst his neighbors, his peers, and the people he serves. 

I hope today you will see what Idahoans have come to like and respect in Judge Smith. He is a fine man, the kind of person that 

you would want to have as a Scout leader for your kids. He is a 

principled and a knowledgeable community citizen, the kind of person you would want to have on your team or on your board. He is 

a thoughtful and objective judge, the kind of judge you would trust 

to render an impartial and well-reasoned decision. 

Men and women come to the bench by many different roads, including academia and the elected public office. Randy Smith’s realworld experiences give him a perspective and skill set that will be 

extremely valuable on the appellate court. His character and competence fits him to advance to this important position, and Idahoans are confident he will be a tremendous asset to our region 

and to the Nation as a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Finally, let me say a few words about the history of this particular seat, Mr. Chairman, because it may well be discussed before 

the Committee. As the Committee well knows, there are geographic 

traditions attached to some court seats. In this case, this seat’s 

pedigree is very mixed. In 70 years, it has moved from Oregon to 

Washington State to California and to Idaho. Although Judge 

Trott, the judge that is going senior, worked in California during 

his career, he was nominated to the seat as a Virginian and he 

worked from Boise, Idaho, for all of the full 19 years of his tenure. 

So that is a rather mixed approach to get to where we need to get, 

but it clearly explains what some may question. In fact, the seat 

has resided in Idaho longer than it has resided in California. 

I do not believe any tradition was violated within President Bush 

nominated an Idahoan to this seat, and I support his decision to 

maintain the status quo by keeping the seat in Idaho. I know the 

California Senators have expressed concern as to why this is, and 

that is why I speak to the history of this seat of the Ninth Circuit. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, and to the full Committee, thank you very 

much for allowing these hearings to go forth this afternoon. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

325

I know that Senator Coleman is here, and you were supposed to 

be sitting in the Chair for me. I hope somebody is doing that. I 

would feel rest assured that that has been taken care of. 

Senator COLEMAN. I think they took care of that, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Crapo? 

PRESENTATION OF NORMAN RANDY SMITH, OF IDAHO, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. MIKE CRAPO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

join with Senator Craig in personally thanking you for accommodating and changing your schedule so that we could accommodate 

Judge Smith, who has literally traveled across the country to be 

here and faced the prospect of having the hearing canceled had you 

not been willing to do that. So thank you. I also thank the Chairman of the full Committee, Senator Specter, for being so willing to 

work with us to accommodate these changes. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to also join with Senator Craig in 

introducing Randy Smith. On December 16, 2005, President Bush 

nominated Judge Smith to fill the seat on the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals that was, as Senator Craig said, vacated by Judge Stephen Trott of Idaho who took senior status. And it is a pleasure 

for me to be able to be here, not only because we have an outstanding Idahoan, but because Judge Smith is a personal friend of 

mine whom I have known for many years. And I could not be more 

happy to sit before this Committee to recommend and support any 

nominee from the State of Idaho than Randy Smith for this position. 

Since 1996, Judge Smith has served as district judge for the 

Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, and it is my understanding that the American Bar Association has given him a unanimous ‘‘well qualified’’ rating for his nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Randy Smith earned both his undergraduate and law degrees 

from Brigham Young University. Throughout his career, both in 

private practice and as a judge, Randy Smith has continued to be 

a student and teacher of the law. He taught courses in business 

law and tax law at Brigham Young and later at Boise State University. Since 1993, he has served on the faculty at Idaho State 

University teaching legal environment and business law. 

Prior to becoming a judge, Randy spent more than 15 years in 

private practice gaining significant experience before both the State 

and Federal courts. Judge Smith is a member of the bar of the U.S. 

Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, the U.S. Tax Court, the Idaho 

Supreme Court, and all courts in Idaho. 

In addition to his current position as district judge in Idaho, 

Judge Smith also serves from time to time as pro tem Justice on 

the Idaho Supreme Court, as a Justice of the Idaho Court of Appeals, and as a temporary judge in the district courts throughout 

the State of Idaho. He mediates approximately 100 Federal and 

State civil cases each year. 

326

In 2004, Judge Smith received the George G. Granada, Jr., 

Award presented by the Idaho State Judiciary in recognition of 

demonstrated professionalism as an Idaho trial judge and for motivating and inspiring his colleagues on the bench by his character 

and his actions. In 2002, he received the Outstanding Service 

Award from the Idaho State Bar Board of Commissioners. 

Judge Smith is also a member of the Board of Directors and is 

the Past President of the Idaho State Civic Symphony. It is clear 

that the President has nominated a well-qualified judge in Randy 

Smith to fill this vacancy in the Ninth Circuit, and I urge this 

Committee to approve the nomination. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of material as well, 

as Senator Craig has presented, about the history of this seat. But 

I think that it is very clear that the President violated no precedent and, in fact, followed the best precedent that could be taken 

from the history of this seat in nominating a candidate from Idaho, 

and certainly with such an outstanding and well-qualified candidate as Judge Smith, we should proceed rapidly with this nomination. 

Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Coleman? 

PRESENTATION OF PATRICK JOSEPH SCHILTZ, OF MINNESOTA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA, BY HON. NORM COLEMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do hope that 

there is somebody covering and presiding over the Senate right 

now. My staff assures me that was taking place. 

Senator CRAPO. You would have heard about it if there wasn’t. 

Senator COLEMAN. The BlackBerry would have been going off. 

Mr. Chairman, I also want to express my appreciation for your 

willingness to step forward to have this hearing. The Schiltz family 

traveled from Minnesota today. It is Mrs. Schiltz’s birthday, it is 

his son’s birthday, and they are here, and I am thrilled to have this 

opportunity to present them and introduce them to you and the 

Committee. 

This is the first opportunity I have had to be involved as a U.S. 

Senator in recommending a candidate for a position as a district 

judge. And I am just thrilled t have been able to work with somebody of the extraordinary talent and character and integrity of Patrick Schiltz. He brings broad legal experience and remarkable 

qualifications to the position as U.S. District Judge for the District 

of Minnesota. 

Mr. Schiltz is a native of Duluth, Minnesota, and I am sure this 

is a proud day for the people of that city and the College of St. 

Scholastica, where he graduated. The Duluth view from the high 

bluff above Lake Superior is one of the Nation’s most amazing and 

beautiful, incredible landmarks. I think the lake is the world’s largest body of fresh water, so as Mr. Schiltz steps forward to take on 

this big job, he knows what big really is. 

After graduating from St. Scholastica, Mr. Schiltz attended Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude and was 

editor of the Harvard Law Review. He served as a law clerk to U.S. 

327

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for 2 years. In fact, Mr. 

Chairman, he first clerked for Judge Scalia on the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals, and then when Judge Scalia became Justice 

Scalia, he was asked to clerk for him during his first year as a 

United States Supreme Court Justice. 

Mr. Schiltz then joined with the Faegre and Benson law firm, 

Minnesota’s second largest law firm. He has represented a wide variety of clients, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 

America, the Archdiocese of St. Paul in Minneapolis, the Star Tribune, the National Football League, the Minnesota Vikings, and the 

Minnesota Timberwolves. In Minnesota, there aren’t any more important clients than the Lutherans and the Minnesota Vikings. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we all know that the 

very best way to learn a subject is to teach it. In 1995, Mr. Schiltz 

joined the faculty of Notre Dame Law School, where he became a 

nationally recognized scholar in the areas of legal ethics and appellate procedure. As a reporter to the Advisory Committee on the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and as the primary co-author 

of the leading treatise on those rules, Mr. Schiltz is a preeminent 

expert on appellate procedure in the United States. 

In July 2000, he became the founding associate dean and interim 

dean of the University of St. Thomas Law School in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he played a significant role in many aspects of creating the new law school. 

On December 14, 2005, President Bush nominated Mr. Schiltz to 

serve as United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

This nomination will replace retiring Judge Richard Kyle who 

served as our senior judge with passion, dignity, and integrity. 

The authors of the Constitution vested the President with the 

power to make nominations to the Federal judiciary. Federal 

judges receive a lifetime appointment and, therefore, should be individuals of high intellect with the appropriate judicial temperament and finest character. 

I take my constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent very seriously, as all members of this Committee do. I am very 

supportive of Mr. Schiltz’s nomination. He is clearly a nominee 

with high intellect, high character, the right judicial temperament 

and integrity. I encourage the Committee to do a thorough job of 

examining him, to then support his nomination, and then to forward the nomination to the full Senate. 

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Schiltz on his 

outstanding career and the willingness of him and his family, his 

wife, Elizabeth Rose Schiltz, and their four children, to step forward to provide public service in this important post. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

We realize there are many demands on your time. If you would 

care to stay, that would be fine. But, otherwise, we will excuse you, 

and we would ask our two nominees to come forward and be sworn 

in. 

Raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are 

about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

328

Judge SMITH. I do. 

Mr. SCHILTZ. I do. 

Senator COBURN. You may be seated. 

The first nominee is Judge Norman Randy Smith, nominated to 

be a circuit court judge on the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. Judge Smith graduated from the Brigham Young 

University in 1974 and received his J.D. from BYU’s J. Reuben 

Clark School of Law in 1977. 

Following law school, Judge Smith joined the J.R. Simplot Company as a corporate attorney, and in 1981, he began a long association with the law firm of Merrill and Merrill, where his practice focused on corporate and insurance defense litigation. He later became a partner at the firm. He remained with Merrill and Merrill 

until his election to the Idaho bench in 1996 as a district court 

judge in Idaho’s Sixth Judicial District. In 2004, he was made an 

administrative judge for that district. 

While serving on the bench, Judge Smith has continued to contribute to the community in Idaho and to the legal profession in 

that State. He has taught as an adjunct professor at Idaho State 

University since 1984. Last year, he was named the Outstanding 

Teacher of the Year. Judge Smith has received a unanimous ‘‘well 

qualified’’ rating from the American Bar Association. 

Second is Patrick Schiltz, nominated to be a district court judge 

for the District of Minnesota. Mr. Schiltz received his B.A. from the 

College of St. Scholastica in 1981 and his J.D. from Harvard Law 

School. He has had a distinguished legal career and will bring over 

20 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. 

Following law school, he served as law clerk to Justice Scalia 

during his last year on the United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit and his first year on the Supreme Court. Mr. Schlitz—

Schiltz—I have a problem with that. That beer is not available 

anymore. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator COBURN. He has worked as a private practitioner at 

Faegre and Benson, LLP, from 1987 to 1995, serving as associate 

until becoming partner in 1993. More recently, he has made his 

mark in the legal profession as a scholar. He has served on the faculty of Notre Dame Law School from 1995 to 2000 and left to help 

found the University of St. Thomas School of Law. He currently 

holds the school’s St. Thomas More Chair in law. He is recognized 

as an expert in the areas of legal ethics and appellate procedure. 

He is co-author of the recent editions of Wright and Miller’s ‘‘Federal Practice and Procedure,’’ the seminal treatise for litigators 

across the country. 

In 1997, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve 

as the reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, a position he still holds. The American Bar 

Association gave Mr. Schiltz a unanimous ‘‘well qualified’’ rating. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you to the Committee. We would be 

pleased to hear any statement that you care to make, and I would 

ask you to introduce your family and friends who are here for your 

hearing. I would ask you to limit your statement to 5 minutes. 

Judge Smith? 

329

STATEMENT OF NORMAN RANDY SMITH, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

Judge SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

very much you holding this hearing for us today, and I appreciate 

having the Committee have this hearing for us. 

I am very appreciative to the President of the United States for 

presenting my nomination to the Committee, and I am very appreciative of those two wonderful Idaho Senators who introduced me 

here today. I have become friends with both of them, and I find 

them both to be strengths to Idaho and the best representatives we 

can have. I appreciate very much their effort on my regard. 

I do have my cousin Dirk Smith here today. He has joined us. 

I know that it is often told to me that I should not start out with 

apologies, but I am going to have two. 

The first that I apologize because, as I came in, somehow I have 

a cold, and that cold has left me a little bit under the weather, and 

I hope you—I apologize for that. 

My second apology is for my wife, La Dean, who would be here. 

She felt this was very appropriate to come, but she is a teacher at 

the Hawthorne Junior High School in Pocatello, and her parents 

are very ill in Layton. We had to take one to the emergency room 

last weekend, and she thought, as their only daughter, she ought 

to be with them. So she apologizes for not being here and a part 

of this hearing. 

Thank you very much. I have no other statement. 

[The biographical information of Judge Smith follows:]

330


38736.286
331


38736.287
332


38736.288
333


38736.289
334


38736.290
335


38736.291
336


38736.292
337


38736.293
338


38736.294
339


38736.295
340


38736.296
341


38736.297
342


38736.298
343


38736.299
344


38736.300
345


38736.301
346


38736.302
347


38736.303
348


38736.304
349


38736.305
350


38736.306
351


38736.307
352


38736.308
353


38736.310
354


38736.311
355


38736.312
356


38736.313
357


38736.314
358


38736.315
359


38736.316
360

Senator COBURN. Professor Schiltz? 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK JOSEPH SCHILTZ, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. SCHILTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to express 

my appreciation to the Judiciary Committee, and particularly to 

you for allowing this hearing to go forward. I did not have as far 

to come as Judge Smith did, but I had four kids to get into their 

Sunday best and try to keep clean all day. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHILTZ. Doing that twice would have been a lot. So thank 

you personally for making sure this hearing went forward. 

I also want to express my deep gratitude to the President for 

nominating me, to Senator Coleman for recommending me, and to 

Senator Dayton for helping to make sure this hearing would go forward. 

I don’t have an opening statement, but I would like just briefly 

to introduce my family: My wife, Elizabeth Schiltz. This happens 

to be her birthday, as Senator Coleman mentioned. This is the first 

time we have had a birth day at a confirmation hearing. My oldest 

child, Anna, who is 15. My son Joe, whose birthday is also today. 

He is 13 today. My son Peter, who is sitting behind me to my left. 

And, finally, the last of our children, as I underscore, Katie, who 

is 5. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Schiltz follows:]

361


38736.317
362


38736.318
363


38736.319
364


38736.320
365


38736.321
366


38736.322
367


38736.323
368


38736.324
369


38736.325
370


38736.326
371


38736.327
372


38736.328
373


38736.329
374


38736.330
375


38736.331
376


38736.332
377


38736.333
378


38736.334
379


38736.335
380


38736.336
381


38736.337
382


38736.338
383


38736.339
384


38736.340
385


38736.341
386


38736.342
387


38736.343
388


38736.344
389


38736.345
390


38736.346
391


38736.347
392


38736.348
393


38736.349
394


38736.350
395


38736.351
396


38736.352
397


38736.353
398


38736.354
399


38736.356
400


38736.357
401


38736.358
402


38736.359
403


38736.360
404


38736.361
405


38736.362
406


38736.363
407

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you for being here. 

I have the wonderful opportunity to do all the questioning and 

save the Senator from Idaho. 

Judge Smith, how has your job as a State trial judge prepared 

you to serve as a Federal appellate judge? 

Judge SMITH. Mr. Chairman, a State trial judge has the opportunity, as you well know, to be involved in Federal issues as well 

as State issues on a trial basis, in a trial situation, and, therefore, 

I see Federal issues on a regular basis. 

But I have done one other thing in Idaho to especially assist me. 

It is often the case when the Federal judges will refer a case from 

the Federal court to my court for mediation. So I have mediated, 

I would suggest, 20 to 30 Federal cases as a part of helping the 

Federal judges with their caseloads each year as I have been a 

State judge. 

So I think all of those are ways that I have been able to prepare. 

Senator COBURN. In Idaho, I understand that judges may permit 

jurors to ask questions of witnesses during a trial. You have been 

outspoken about your belief that judges should not allow this practice. Could you explain your thoughts on this? 

Judge SMITH. Thank you. My worry about this is that it seems 

to me that the system was based on two pretty fundamental principles of law that are essential to us, providing to each one of the 

litigants the special opportunity to come to our courtroom, the first 

being a due process consideration, that of having a burden of proof 

which is important that the burden of proof be satisfied in order 

for someone to prevail. I believe that allowing the jurors to then 

ask the questions allows the parties to escape the burden of proof 

that they might have otherwise necessary. I think that that is one 

thing that across the Nation people are very worried about as it relates to criminal proceedings. But I would suggest the same in civil 

proceedings. 

The second is a constitutional question, and that is the right for 

a defendant to have a fair trial, to have the jury be able to go 

through the whole of the trial and not make up their mind and not 

become advocates, but to remain dispassionate. And by asking the 

questions, they then become passionate because they feel like their 

question is important, and that is the reason that I have stood 

against this. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

One other question that I have for you. One of the questions we 

ask Supreme Court nominees, and myself and Senator Kyl specifically, is the frame of reference with which you make a decision 

based in law. Would you characterize what will be your frame of 

reference in terms of making decisions on the Ninth Circuit? And 

I am talking about the Constitution, treaties, and statutes. 

Judge SMITH. Well, my frame of reference is to apply the law as 

it is to each one of the given case situations that I have. It is my 

understanding—and I truly believe it to be the case—that when 

you review statutes, you look at the plain meaning of the statutes. 

And if, in fact, you can find the statute to be something that would 

be ambiguous, then you would look at other situations, whether it 

would be legislative history or those kind of things. 

408

But in all of that kind of review and in all my review, I am very 

cognizant of the fact that precedent is very important and that we 

apply the constitutional precedent to the case law and we follow 

the precedent as it is. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Thank you. 

Judge SMITH. I hope that was the answer—or the question you 

were asking. 

Senator COBURN. It is, as well as what I normally would followup 

with: Is there a basis for foreign law in the making of decisions by 

a U.S. appellate judge? 

Judge SMITH. Mr. Chairman, in my mind, I don’t find in interpreting the law as it is and seeing exactly the plain language of 

it and then applying the Constitution to it, I am not aware of how 

the foreign law consideration would come into that interpretation. 

Senator COBURN. I think you got it right. 

Professor Schiltz, you have had a great career. I understand you 

worked with C–SPAN to try to open the Supreme Court to television coverage. Would you tell us a little bit about that? 

Mr. SCHILTZ. Shortly after I clerked for Justice Scalia, C–SPAN 

put together a panel of former Supreme Court clerks of the thenliving active Justices to try to brainstorm with us about ways to 

open the Supreme Court proceedings to television. We obviously 

did not lobby our particular Justices. It was to give C–SPAN ideas 

for how they might identify and meet the concerns of the Justices. 

And so I did that. It involved a couple of meetings here in Washington among us. I believe that the Supreme Court—it is something that, unfortunately, my former boss and I don’t see eye to eye 

on, but I believe that this is one of the most important institutions 

in our country, and that they can do their work without the American people being able to watch it I personally think is a shame. 

And I hope that in my lifetime—I expect in my lifetime we will see 

them televised, as your proceedings are televised. 

Senator COBURN. Do you have any opinion on the use of foreign 

law in adjudicating cases before your court? 

Mr. SCHILTZ. There are obviously some instances where I think 

everybody would agree that reference to foreign law is appropriate, 

for example, where there is a treaty that specifically incorporates 

it. But I have to confess, I haven’t yet heard a compelling argument 

for what foreign law would have to do, for example, with interpreting our own Constitution. 

Senator COBURN. I would commend you to the statements of 

Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts in response to that. I think 

that they are fairly straightforward, and I would also remind you 

that the oath you take, when you are sworn in, will say what you 

will use. And it is the U.S. Constitution, the statutes, and the treaties, and it doesn’t say anything about foreign law. 

We will leave the record open for 1 week. The statements of Senators Leahy and Feinstein will be entered into the record, without 

objection. I appreciate you making the trip. I hope your cold is better. My staff gave me one last week. I am fighting it off. Congratulations on your nominations. We look forward to the process moving through the Judiciary Committee. 

Thank you very much. 

Judge SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

409

Mr. SCHILTZ. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

410


38736.364
411


38736.365
412


38736.366
413


38736.367
414


38736.368
415


38736.369
416


38736.370
(417)

NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, OF 

NEW JERSEY, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT 

JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT; GRAY 

HAMPTON MILLER, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO 

BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF TEXAS; JEFFREY L. SEDGWICK, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU 

OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; AND SHAREE M. FREEMAN, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sessions, Hatch, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. The Committee will come to order. 

We are delighted to have each of you with us today. I would offer 

for the record a statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, the Ranking 

Member of the Judiciary Committee, without objection. 

Today we have a confirmation hearing for two of the President’s 

judicial nominees and two of his executive nominees to serve at the 

Department of Justice. I hope we can get each of your nominations 

voted out of Committee shortly and through the Senate as soon as 

possible. 

We are privileged to have a distinguished panel of legislators 

here, at least Senators at this point, to help us introduce the nominees. Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez, our distinguished colleagues from New Jersey, will introduce Mr. Chagares. 

Senator Lautenberg, would you like to start off? We thank you 

for coming; you have introduced quite a number of nominees over 

the years. It is great to have you back. 

418

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, BY HON. FRANK 

LAUTENBERG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a 

pleasure to be heard. It is particularly a pleasure when one has the 

full confidence that the person being recommended is someone we 

can all be proud of. 

I did, however, say to Mr. Michael Chagares that I was curious 

as to where he was able to rent this beautiful family to make an 

appearance before—his wife and his four children. And we are delighted to have them here. It is an honor to present your Dad to 

this Committee. 

He is recommended, as we all know, for a seat on the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Chagares is currently in private practice, but he served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey for 14 years, despite a relatively youthful appearance. How I envy that. 

Through hard work and diligence, he rose to become the head of 

the Civil Division where he supervised and managed all civil cases 

on behalf of the United States Government, its agencies and officials. He oversaw litigation, directed legal positions to be taken in 

court, and approved settlements. 

Before he became head of the Civil Division, Mr. Chagares directed the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for several years. And during his tenure in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mr. Chagares received a number of awards and 

commendations for the good work that he did, including two Director’s Awards for superior performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Mr. Chagares is a graduate of Seton Hall Law School in Newark, where he also taught as an adjunct professor since 1991. 

His familiarity with the Third Circuit goes back to the late 

1980’s when he worked as a law clerk for Hon. Morton Greenberg, 

a distinguished member of the Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit 

is based in Philadelphia, and it considers appeals from Federal district courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. And I believe that the members of this Committee would agree with me 

that this is one of the most important Federal courts in the Nation, 

and I hope they will agree with me that Mr. Chagares is well qualified. 

The last time I introduced a New Jerseyan—and the Chairman 

made reference—to this Committee, the Chairman asked if I was 

endorsing the nominee. Today I can say without reservation that 

I endorse Michael Chagares for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 

and I thank the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Texas 

for your own distinguished service and for letting me present this 

fine candidate to the Committee. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. We appreciate those remarks. 

Senator Menendez, we are delighted to have you in the Senate—

you are not so fresh anymore, I guess. There have been some interesting days since you have been here, but we are delighted that 

you are here, and we look forward to hearing from you at this time. 

419

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, BY HON. ROBERT 

MENENDEZ, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got a little 

nervous when you said, ‘‘You are not so fresh anymore.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, after the House, you know. 

Senator MENENDEZ. We are a little bit of a firebrand there. We 

get tempered when we come to the Senate. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to join with my distinguished and senior colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has had the privilege of introducing many people from 

our home State to the Nation’s judiciary system and who has been 

called upon to serve the Nation by this administration. Unlike Senator Lautenberg, who has been in the Senate and introducing New 

Jerseyans for the past 21 years, this is my first opportunity, so I 

appreciate the opportunity to be here. I know that the confirmation 

of a judge to a lifetime appointment is a vital responsibility given 

to this body, and I know that I take that seriously, and I know that 

this Committee takes it very seriously as well. 

I appreciate the chance to join Senator Lautenberg in introducing 

Michael Chagares, who has been nominated to replace the current 

Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, on the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. And we all take pride in the 

honor that has been bestowed on a fellow New Jerseyan. 

Mr. Chagares, who is a New Jersey native, graduated from Gettysburg College and Seton Hall Law School with honors. Upon 

graduation, as Senator Lautenberg said, he clerked for Judge 

Greenberg on the Third Circuit. And for over a decade and a half, 

he has served the public with distinction in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, as well as working 

in private practice. 

Senator Lautenberg mentioned that he is also an adjunct professor at Seton Hall. I would add he is a popular professor of both 

appellate advocacy and civil trial practice at Seton Hall, and I 

think that goes as a testament when you can be able to attract a 

student body that is in the process of pursuing a career in the law 

to be able to both convey the essence of the subject matter and do 

it in a way that excites a new generation of lawyers. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the American Bar Association has 

rated Mr. Chagares as well qualified for the position that he has 

been nominated. It is a view that I share as well. 

He and his wife, Peggy, as you can see, are proud parents of four 

children: Caroline, Meredith, Matthew, and Sarah. Sarah has got 

her priorities right. She is snoozing right now. And I did ask Mr. 

Chagares if he was aware of the salary that an appellate court 

judge earns in light of college tuition costs. And he assured me that 

he had given careful consideration to this subject before accepting 

the honor of this nomination, which is indeed a high honor. 

And so we are pleased to see that people of his quality are willing to serve the Nation in the administration of justice, and we join 

Senator Lautenberg in commending him to the Committee, and we 

thank you for the opportunity. 

420

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez. 

We have, I think most of you know, a vote that just started, and 

the bad news, I will tell everyone that is here, is that they have 

stacked seven votes to commence at 3:05. So the first one has just 

started. It takes about 15 minutes or so to get that vote completed. 

I do not think it is going to be possible for Senators to come and 

go and keep this hearing ongoing. So we will be able to stay, I 

would say, until about a little past 3:15, and then we will have to 

vote and see how fast we can get those seven votes over. But it will 

be an hour or more, for sure. So I am very sorry that it will take 

a little while to complete this hearing. 

Senator Hutchison, it is great to have you here. We look forward 

to your comments, and then we will hear from Senator Cornyn also 

on your nominee from Texas. 

PRESENTATION OF GRAY HAMPTON MILLER, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing. I know it will be difficult because of the votes 

scheduled. I can think of few people who I can more highly recommend for a Federal judgeship than Gray Miller. Senator Cornyn 

and I interviewed him and other candidates, and he just has so 

many qualities that we want in Federal judges. 

He is a partner today in Fulbright and Jaworski in Houston, and 

his practice has almost exclusively been in the Federal court system. He headed the firm’s Admiralty Department from 1996 to 

2004 and was named in Euromoney’s Guide to the World’s Leading 

Maritime Lawyers as one of the leading maritime lawyers in the 

world. He was also included in ‘‘Texas Super Lawyer,’’ an article 

that appeared in Texas Monthly magazine, in which he was recognized as one of the best lawyers in America. 

But what really made me want to put him on the Federal bench 

is he worked his way through law school while serving in the Houston Police Department. He was a police officer from 1969 to 1978, 

and he went through undergraduate and law school as a police officer working his way through. And when you talk to him, he is a 

straight shooter. He knows exactly what right is, and he does not 

veer from that. And I just think that he will bring an experience 

of being a police officer to the bench, which will be very valuable. 

He has also served on the Board of the Texas Department of 

Mental Health and Retardation. He is a lifetime member of the 

One Hundred Club of Houston, which is a police support organization for firefighters and police officers who are killed or injured in 

the line of duty. 

He has with him today his wife, Joanne, and their two children, 

and his daughter-in-law and two granddaughters, and we are very 

pleased that all of them are here. And, Mr. Chairman, I do hope 

that the Committee will act favorably on his nomination. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. I am confident 

that they will. 

421

It is a pleasure to have Senator Cornyn here, former Justice 

Cornyn on the Texas Supreme Court, and Attorney General in 

Texas, and just a tremendously valuable member of this Committee. John, we are glad you are here, and we would love to hear 

your comments on the nominee. 

PRESENTATION OF GRAY HAMPTON MILLER, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

BY HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to tell both of our nominees that it is not universally true 

that people who are nominated to the Federal bench get uniformly 

high praise during judicial confirmation proceedings, but I anticipate you both will. And it is my pleasure to say a few nice things 

about Gray Miller, the nominee for the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas. 

Senator Hutchison has covered his professional qualifications, 

and I think one of the things that attracted both of us to him is, 

as she said, his service as a police officer, someone who has experienced the law enforcement system from the bottom up. And I don’t 

think people will be pulling many fast ones on Judge Miller. 

He succeeds Judge Ewing Werlein, who is just such an outstanding human being and a great judge, formerly of the law firm 

of Vinson and Elkins, as Senator Hutchison knows. And he is stepping down to take senior status, thus creating this vacancy. 

Mr. Miller has, in addition to his distinguished legal career, done 

a lot in his community. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the 

Mental Health/Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County and 

the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation 

Board, the Volunteer Lawyers Program. Senator Hutchison mentioned his specialty in admiralty law. I noticed missing from his resume, he was a member of the Texas Navy, but has just about 

every other kind of qualification you could hope for. 

And so let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I would join Senator 

Hutchison in commending this outstanding nominee to our colleagues and hope that the confidence that the President has put in 

him and that Senator Hutchison and I have in him will be shared 

by our colleagues and he will be swiftly confirmed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Perhaps we could administer the oath for our nominees. If you 

would step forward and take your seats, we will do that. We will 

get the right names up there. The competent staff is right on the 

move. 

If you would raise your right hands, and do you solemnly swear 

that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee is 

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 

God? 

Mr. CHAGARES. I do. 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. I do. 

Ms. FREEMAN. I do. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Have a seat. 

422

Again, I will just restate, I believe this vote has started already. 

I don’t think we will get very far starting now, and I will not try 

to do that. Unfortunately, it is three—it is probably going to be 

closer to 4:30 before we get back, unless for some reason somebody 

vitiates some of the votes and we do not actually have to do a roll 

call vote. Sometimes we can do a voice vote or something of that 

kind. So we will take care of that. 

I think what I will do, since our nominees have been introduced, 

Mr. Miller and Mr. Chagares, I would—let’s see here. I will introduce Mr. Sedgwick, he being nominated to be the Director of the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice. Over the 

years, during my 15 years in the Department of Justice, I always 

read those reports. I thought they were very valuable reports, and 

I think this is an incredibly important position that you are undertaking. 

You are a political scientist with extensive experience and expertise relating to the American Government, the Constitution, and 

criminal justice. You have been a professor at the University of 

Massachusetts-Amherst since 1978. You received your A.B. degree 

from Kenyon College, magna cum laude (with honors) in political 

science in 1973, earning both your MAPA, Master’s in Public Administration, and Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. In graduate school, nearly 60 percent of your work related to politics, 

while 40 percent related to economics. Your dissertation applied sociological and economic methodologies to law enforcement planning—important issues indeed. When you consider how many billions of dollars we spend in law enforcement, we ought to know a 

little bit more about what we are doing, I think. 

After graduate school, Dr. Sedgwick spent nearly his entire career in academia, although in the 1980’s he served 1 year as Deputy Director of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, so you are familiar with that office. 

Dr. Sedgwick’s research and teaching interests have included the 

study of democratization, democratic leadership, and the American 

Presidency. He has continued to develop expertise in the application of social science methods, including economics, to political 

science and public policy issues. 

Our final nominee today is Sharee Freeman, nominated to be the 

Director of the Community Relations Service at the Department of 

Justice, a valuable institution that I have found on more than one 

occasion to help bring a good result out of tense circumstances. It 

has a role to play of importance. 

Ms. Freeman received a B.A. from St. Lawrence University and 

a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. She began her 

legal career as a clerk to Judge Norma Holloway Johnson on the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Beginning in 1982, 

Ms. Freeman served as an assistant district attorney with the 

Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office—knowing that that would 

make Senator Specter happy, I am sure. 

Following her service in Philadelphia, she served as Acting Assistant Solicitor and Attorney Advisor with the U.S. Department of 

Interior before leaving for Capitol Hill in 1997. Ms. Freeman’s Capitol Hill service began as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee 

and Congressman Henry Hyde. She also served as counsel to ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Nov 16, 2007 Jkt 038736 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\38736.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
423

gressman Hyde on the House International Relations Committee. 

Sometimes these issues are like dealing with foreign powers when 

you achieve harmony among different groups that come in contention. 

In 2001, Ms. Freeman was appointed by President Bush and 

unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be the Director of CRS for 

a term of 4 years. Following the recent expiration of her 4-year 

term as Director, Ms. Freeman was named as Acting Director of 

CRS, where she continues to serve. 

So I am glad we got to introduce each of you. Let’s take our recess now. It will probably be 4:30 or somewhat after before we finish. I will return as quickly as I can. As Senator Cornyn indicated, 

count your blessings that it is not a contentious hearing, that we 

do not have a lot of things to say. Your records seem to have spoken for themselves. But there will be some questions that we will 

want to ask in this proceeding, and at the conclusion of it, then it 

will go to the full Committee for markup and vote at a different 

date. 

So if there is no other business at this time, we will recess until 

approximately 4:30. 

[Recess 3:21 p.m. to 3:46 p.m.] 

Senator HATCH. [Presiding.] Mr. Chagares, you served for many 

years as U.S. Attorney in the District of New Jersey. You know, 

when people think about U.S. Attorneys, they think about prosecutors, but you spent most of your career handling civil cases, as I 

understand it. Is that correct? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, NOMINEE TO BE 

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Mr. CHAGARES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator HATCH. Can you explain just what some of these civil 

cases were about? 

Mr. CHAGARES. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I should say, 

though— 

Senator HATCH. You were chief of the Civil Division, right? 

Mr. CHAGARES. I certainly was, but I did actually handle—I actually did work on various criminal matters, and actually now do 

criminal defense work. 

Senator HATCH. I see. 

Mr. CHAGARES. But I worked on all types of civil matters, largely 

what the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice calls affirmative cases, and that’s where the United States is seeking relief—fraud cases, telemarketing fraud cases, endangered species 

cases, all different types of cases where the United States is the 

plaintiff. 

Senator HATCH. I happen to think that is real good experience 

for you for this court, and I happen to think that is a great thing 

that you are doing. Of course, I belong to the Third Circuit Court 

of Appeals, and we appreciate that circuit. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Chagares follows:]

424


38736.371
425


38736.372
426


38736.373
427


38736.374
428


38736.375
429


38736.376
430


38736.377
431


38736.378
432


38736.379
433


38736.380
434


38736.381
435


38736.382
436


38736.383
437


38736.384
438


38736.385
439


38736.386
440


38736.387
441


38736.388
442


38736.389
443


38736.390
444


38736.391
445


38736.392
446


38736.393
447


38736.394
448


38736.395
449


38736.396
450


38736.397
451


38736.398
452


38736.399
453


38736.400
454


38736.401
455


38736.402
456


38736.403
457


38736.404
458


38736.405
459


38736.406
460


38736.407
461


38736.408
462


38736.409
463


38736.410
464


38736.411
465


38736.412
466


38736.413
467


38736.414
468

Senator HATCH. Mr. Miller, you have had a distinguished career 

as a private practitioner. How do you think those experiences have 

helped prepare you to become a Federal judge? 

STATEMENT OF GRAY HAMPTON MILLER, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I have been in Federal court a lot, Mr. Chairman, and I have seen good judges and I have seen bad judges. And 

I have taken a lot of experience and the lessons I have learned 

from the good judges I hope to apply if I am fortunate enough to 

be confirmed to this position. 

Senator HATCH. That is great. I have heard good things about 

you, about both of you, and we are really happy to support both 

of you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CHAGARES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Miller follows:]

469


38736.415
470


38736.416
471


38736.417
472


38736.418
473


38736.419
474


38736.420
475


38736.421
476


38736.422
477


38736.423
478


38736.424
479


38736.425
480


38736.426
481


38736.427
482


38736.428
483


38736.429
484


38736.430
485


38736.431
486


38736.432
487


38736.433
488


38736.434
489


38736.435
490


38736.436
491


38736.437
492


38736.438
493


38736.439
494


38736.440
495


38736.441
496


38736.442
497


38736.443
498


38736.444
499

Senator HATCH. Dr. Sedgwick, your academic work covers a wide 

range of subjects, everything from politics to history to social 

science. Can you just tell the Committee a little bit about your 

scholarship and how that has prepared you to serve as Director of 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics? 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. SEDGWICK, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Yes, Senator, I can. My dissertation work, which 

led to my book, was on the application of economic and sociological 

approaches to the study of crime as they related to the question of 

law enforcement planning. I have also written fairly widely on the 

death penalty and also on deterrence and retribution, different 

theories of punishment and their purposes. So I have taught and 

done research on criminal justice issues for a good part of my 28-

year career as a professor. 

Senator HATCH. That is great. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Sedgwick follows:]

500


38736.445
501


38736.446
502


38736.447
503


38736.448
504


38736.449
505


38736.450
506


38736.451
507


38736.452
508


38736.453
509


38736.454
510


38736.455
511


38736.456
512


38736.457
513


38736.458
514


38736.459
515


38736.460
516


38736.461
517


38736.462
518


38736.463
519


38736.464
520


38736.465
521


38736.466
522


38736.467
523


38736.468
524

Senator HATCH. Ms. Freeman, as you have traveled the country 

during your first term as Director of Community Relations Service, 

the CRS, you probably encountered a lot of people who are not familiar with CRS, its history or its mission. Could you explain to the 

Committee the mission and purpose of the Community Relations 

Service? 

STATEMENT OF SHAREE M. FREEMAN, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE 

Ms. FREEMAN. Very simply put, sir, the Community Relations 

Service is responsible for resolving conflicts based on race, color, 

and national origin throughout the country. We are Federal mediators. My staff mediate disputes based on race, color, and national 

origin. 

Senator HATCH. That is great. 

[The biographical information of Ms. Freeman follows:]

525


38736.469
526


38736.470
527


38736.471
528


38736.472
529


38736.473
530


38736.474
531


38736.475
532


38736.476
533


38736.477
534


38736.478
535


38736.479
536


38736.480
537


38736.481
538


38736.482
539


38736.483
540


38736.484
541


38736.485
542


38736.486
543


38736.487
544


38736.488
545


38736.489
546


38736.490
547


38736.491
548


38736.492
549


38736.493
550


38736.494
551


38736.495
552


38736.496
553


38736.497
554


38736.498
555


38736.499
556

Senator HATCH. Well, let me tell you, I have read extensively 

about each of you. I have great confidence in each of you for the 

respective positions to which you have been nominated. And I am 

just happy that we have had this hearing finally for you and that 

we can push you forward and hopefully get this done. 

I am going to keep the record open for 1 week for written questions, and we will close that record on March 21st at 5 p.m. 

Now, there are two letters that we have to enter into the record: 

Congressman David Dreier has submitted a letter, and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. We are very 

familiar with both of them. They are both good people, and, frankly, we are very pleased to support your nominations. I did not want 

you to have to sit around here until 4:30 or 5 o’clock, so I scooted 

over from the Senate. We are having a series of 10-minute votes 

right now, and I got over here so that we could end this hearing 

and push your nominations forward. And we will do everything we 

can to get them through, OK? 

Mr. CHAGARES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SEDGWICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. FREEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much. 

With that, we will recess this Committee until further notice. We 

will enjoy supporting you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

557


38736.500
558


38736.501
559


38736.502
560


38736.503
561


38736.504
562


38736.505
563


38736.506
564


38736.507
565


38736.508
566


38736.509
567


38736.510
568


38736.511
569


38736.512
570


38736.513
571


38736.514
572


38736.515
(573)

NOMINATIONS OF BRIAN M. COGAN, OF NEW 

YORK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW 

YORK; MICHAEL RYAN BARRETT, OF OHIO, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO; AND

THOMAS M. GOLDEN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Specter, DeWine, and Schumer. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

Judiciary Committee will now proceed. We have on the agenda the 

nominations of three candidates for United States District Court: 

Mr. Brian Cogan for the Eastern District of New York; Mr. Michael 

Barrett for the Southern District of Ohio; and Mr. Thomas Golden 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

I am going to yield the gavel in a moment or two to my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine. We are moving to the floor 

with the immigration bill, and that requires a great deal of time. 

Good morning, Senator Voinovich. 

But before excusing myself, I want to make a few comments 

about Thomas Golden, who is the candidate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Senator SANTORUM. and I have a judicial nominating panel, bipartisan and representative, and Mr. Golden was selected by the 

panel as the nominee for the court, and Senator Santorum and I 

forwarded our recommendation to the President, and the President 

has submitted his nomination. 

Mr. Golden comes from Berks County, Reading, Pennsylvania. 

Senator Santorum and I make it a point, as I know the Ohio Senators do, and all Senators, to have balance and distribution to the 

574

extent we can. And Mr. Golden will be sitting in Reading and trying to bring access to the Federal court and convenience of the litigants and the lawyers in the neighborhood. 

Tom Golden is a graduate of the Dickinson Law School in 1972. 

After graduating from Penn State in 1969, he has been with the 

law firms of Stevens and Lee and more recently with Fry, 

Hibschman and Golden. He is a general practitioner, has a very 

distinguished record at the bar, has served as president of the 

Pennsylvania Bar Association, and he comes to this nomination 

with an ABA rating of unanimously well qualified. So I welcome 

you here this morning, Mr. Golden. 

I had a chance to talk with him briefly earlier today, and I do 

not think we are jinxing his nomination to say that we are planning his swearing-in ceremony. I think that is reasonably safe. 

At this time I want to yield the gavel to my distinguished colleague, Senator DeWine, with my thanks for chairing these hearings. Michael? 

Senator DEWINE. [Presiding.] Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much. 

Let me at this point turn to Senator Voinovich, who has an introduction. 

PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL RYAN BARRETT, NOMINEE TO 

BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW 

YORK, BY HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator DeWine. 

I am pleased today to be speaking on behalf of Michael Barrett, 

whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of Ohio. I welcome the Committee’s 

review of Mr. Barrett, and I believe that you will come to the same 

conclusion that I have, that Mr. Barrett is well qualified to serve 

as a Federal judge and should be confirmed by the Senate. He has 

a distinguished and impressive record as a prosecutor, defense attorney, community leader, and he has deep roots in southwest 

Ohio. I have known him for 25 years. 

Mr. Barrett is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati where 

he obtained his bachelor of arts in 1974 and his law degree in 

1977. After graduating from law school, Mr. Barrett served as an 

administrative hearing officer for the State of Ohio where he 

helped resolve employment disputes arising out of changes to the 

Ohio employee classification system. 

He then joined the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office as an assistant prosecuting attorney. Upon joining the prosecutor’s office, 

Mr. Barrett was assigned to the felony trial division where he participated in investigations, grand jury proceedings, and felony 

trials. In 1983, Mr. Barrett was promoted to be the chief assistant 

of that division. 

In 1984, Mr. Barrett joined Graydon, Head and Ritchey, where 

he worked on both criminal and civil matters, initially as an associate before being promoted to a partner. In 1995, he joined his current firm Barrett and Weber where he has continued to practice in 

the same areas of law. 

575

Mr. Barrett’s clients in the criminal defense practice area covered 

the spectrum of the criminal code with a concentration in the area 

of white-collar crime. His civil litigation clients include a number 

of business clients, and his recent experience includes a number of 

security law cases in which he has represented individual plaintiffs 

as well as the Attorney General’s Office for the State of Ohio. His 

practice has earned him several listings in Best Lawyers in America and Ohio’s Super Lawyers. In addition, Mr. Barrett has received the Outstanding Service Award as a mediator for the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 

In sum, Mr. Barrett has the broad courtroom experience that will 

serve him well as a Federal judge. He is eminently qualified to 

serve on this bench. He has also served on the Supreme Court of 

Ohio’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, 

which evidences the high esteem in which members of the Ohio 

Bar hold him and is testimony to his excellent character. I think 

it is important to get a sense of any judicial nominee’s character 

because it will have a great influence over how the judge will manage his courtroom. 

As a result of Mr. Barrett’s fine academic and professional 

achievements, I am not surprise that the American Bar Association 

has found Mr. Barrett qualified to be on the Federal bench. His 

legal credentials are not the only reasons I support his nomination. 

In an age where I believe too many people do not take the time 

to become active members of their communities, Mr. Barrett has 

been a community leader. Some of Mr. Barrett’s community activities include his current service on the Board of Trustees of Talbert 

House, a Cincinnati area social service organization; his current 

service as Director of Boys Hope/Girls Hope of Cincinnati, an organization to provide an array of services for at-risk children; and his 

past service as trustee of the Children’s Services of Hamilton County. 

When I was Governor, I was pleased to appoint Mr. Barrett to 

the Board of Trustees of the University of Cincinnati. He served on 

that Board of Trustees for 9 years, including a period as Chairman 

of the Board of Trustees. Involvement in one’s community is important. We need judges who not only have exceptional legal skills, 

but also who recognize how the law impacts on individuals and 

communities. I believe Mr. Barrett has this understanding because 

he is out in his community every day. 

In reviewing his academic professional record, it is clear he certainly is well qualified to serve as a Federal district court judge on 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and I look 

forward to this Committee’s review of his nomination. 

I thank you for the opportunity to introduce him to you today, 

and, of course, Mr. Chairman, you know Mr. Barrett’s qualifications as well or better than I do. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Voinovich, thank you very much, and 

we know that you have a very busy schedule today, so you will be 

excused at any time that you need to leave. We appreciated very 

much your great statement. 

Senator Santorum, we welcome you. 

576

PRESENTATION OF THOMAS M. GOLDEN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BY HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to be 

here, and it is a real pleasure for me to come before the Committee 

to introduce Tom Golden. Tom is the nominee of the President for 

the Eastern District Court in Pennsylvania. He is from Berks 

County, which is a county that has long sought a nominee for a 

courtroom in Reading that has largely been unoccupied for quite 

some time. It has been quite an inconvenience for lawyers in the 

western part of the Eastern District, and this nominee is very important not only because of the judicial emergency that exists because of this vacancy. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

has declared this district to be a judicial emergency, and so we 

need Tom Golden on the court to fill that need, but also for the 

need of lawyers practicing in—who have to drive all the way from 

the western part of the Eastern District into Philadelphia basically 

to receive justice. And this is an important nominee for that reason. 

Tom has been rated unanimously well qualified by the Bar Association. I am not surprised at that, in part because of Tom’s active 

participation in the Bar Association over the years. He was President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association in 2003 and 2004, serves 

as a member of the House of Delegates to the ABA and has since 

2002, has been head of the local bar, the whole nine yards. He has 

been very, very active in the legal field, reaching the highest levels 

as a result of his outstanding legal abilities as well as his tremendous dedication to the bar. 

He has been active—like all the nominees that we are very proud 

to put forward, he is also active beyond the legal field, in the area 

of his church and in the community, which I particularly look at 

as something that is important. He is not someone who has just got 

great legal scholarship, but also understands and has a footing in 

the community and understanding the importance of community 

service and being an active citizen in your community. 

He has one of the most outstanding education backgrounds. He 

went to Penn State University and Dickinson School of Law. I happened to go to Penn State University and Dickinson School of Law, 

so that is why I say it is probably one of the most outstanding 

backgrounds that I can imagine. So he comes from good stock. In 

his legal career, he is the managing partner at a firm in Reading. 

His practice concentrates in the area of business, civil litigation, 

real estate, and estate planning. He is truly, as the Bar Association, incredibly well qualified for this position, and it is an honor 

to come here today to offer his name in nomination before the Committee, and I would urge your speedy confirmation in moving this 

nominee through the process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Senator Santorum, thank you very much. We 

appreciate your good statement. 

Senator Schumer? 

577

PRESENTATIONO F BRIAN M. COGAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 

BY HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am happy to introduce Mr. Brian Cogan of New York as we consider his nomination to the Federal court for the Eastern District of New York, 

which sits in Brooklyn, a borough which I have some familiarity 

with, being the first Senator from Brooklyn in 140 years. Alas, Mr. 

Cogan was born in Chicago, but he has quickly moved to New 

York. After going to the University of Illinois, he migrated to our 

great State and attended Cornell University Law School, where he 

was editor for the law review. He went on to clerk for a Federal 

judge in the Southern District of Florida—he had sort of wanderlust in his younger days—before having the good sense to return 

to New York where he has been, I am proud to say, ever since. 

Mr. Cogan has had a long and distinguished career. He joined 

the firm of Stroock, Stroock and Lavan in 1980, where he made 

partner in 1988, and has worked on many high-profile domestic 

and international cases. In 2004, he was appointed the general 

counsel of Stroock. 

Joining Mr. Cogan today is his wife, Robin Keller, also a partner 

at Stroock. My brother is a partner at another New York law firm, 

and when he was dating seriously one of the other partners, they 

passed what they called the Bob and Pam rule: no marriages in the 

partnership. And they did not get married. He is happily married 

now, I might add. Just for your awareness, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SCHUMER. So I guess Stroock has the good sense not to 

have the Bob and Pam rule in its rules. The two obviously make 

a fabulous team, and they have co-authored several publications together on bankruptcy law. 

Despite his busy practice, Mr. Cogan has found considerable time 

for public service. He serves as an attorney for enlisted soldiers 

throughout the New York Guard JAG Corps, for which he received 

an award from his firm. And through the program he provides soldiers with legal assistance as they prepared for deployment. 

Mr. Cogan has helped countless soldiers by devoting up to 30 

hours per month to the program since 2002, and knowing how busy 

a corporate partner is in a New York corporate law firm, that is 

a huge undertaking for which we thank you. I know I speak for all 

of my colleagues when I commend Mr. Cogan for his public service. 

Now I want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to recognize that 

we in New York have a system in place for nominating Federal 

judges that works. With all of the sturm und drang about the nomination of judges, you would think the disagreements between the 

White House and a place like New York with two both shy Democratic Senators would lead to all kinds of problems. But, no, just 

the opposite. We work together in an effective and bipartisan way 

to ensure that only the most qualified, moderate, and diverse candidates are considered. And the nomination of Mr. Cogan and what 

I expect to be a smooth and speedy confirmation is testament to 

that process in New York. 

578

So I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I want to congratulate Mr. Cogan. I am very glad that his 

wife will remain a partner in the firm so they will be able to live 

a decent lifestyle, and I hope the hearing moves forward expeditiously. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, I thank my colleague from New York for 

that very fine introduction. 

I would invite our three nominees to come up now, and I will, 

as we are doing that, introduce Michael Barrett as well. Senator 

Voinovich has already done this, but I am going to add my comments at this point. 

It is my pleasure and honor to introduce my fellow Ohioan Michael Barrett to the members of this Committee today. Michael 

Barrett’s legal career spans almost 30 years. It has been certainly 

very distinguished not only by his accomplishments as a litigator, 

but also by his truly extraordinary record of public and civic leadership. 

Gentlemen, please have a seat. This is going to take more than 

30 seconds. 

A brief summary of his background offers ample evidence of his 

qualifications. He is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati 

where he earned both his bachelor of arts degree and his law degree. Directly out of law school, Mr. Barrett served the State of 

Ohio as an administrative hearing officer for over a year and then 

moved to the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office, where he served 

first as an assistant prosecutor and then as chief assistant prosecuting attorney of the felony trial division. 

During this time, Mr. Barrett also served as chief of the special 

County Arson Task Force, supervising the investigation and prosecution of arson cases. 

After 6 years in the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office, Mr. 

Barrett moved into private practice with the firm of Graydon, Head 

and Ritchey, where he remained for 10 years as associate and then 

as a partner. He was listed several times in Best Lawyers in America for his domestic relations practice. He then joined the Cincinnati law firm of Barrett and Weber, where he continues to practice today in the area of general litigation. 

Mr. Barrett has an extremely diverse career as a litigator. He 

has argued in both State and Federal courts, and his court appearances are almost evenly split between civil and criminal cases. In 

addition to his background as a prosecutor, he has developed a very 

successful defense practice. He is a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and it is particularly noteworthy that he has argued capital murder cases as both a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. 

Mr. Barrett’s expertise, however, extends well beyond litigation. 

He was appointed as a special master trustee in a class action lawsuit in which he analyzed over 900 claims responses in the allocation of settlement funds under that suit. He also was chosen to be 

the receiver in a securities case, and in that role he worked with 

counsel to conduct a collection and liquidation of investors’ assets, 

which is an important and often very complicated financial and 

legal task. 

579

His experience with alternative dispute resolution techniques is 

also quite impressive. He was a board member of the Cincinnati 

Center for the Resolution of Disputes and was awarded the Outstanding Service Award as a mediator for the Southern District of 

Ohio. 

This unusually diverse legal background gives Mr. Barrett a 

broad view of the legal system and a wide understanding that will 

help him as a successful Federal judge. 

Mr. Barrett is also an extremely accomplished community leader 

who has served the public in a variety of roles, only a few of which 

I will mention here today. He served on the Supreme Court of Ohio 

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for 15 years. 

That is a long time, Mr. Barrett. He was on the Board of Trustees 

for the University of Cincinnati, the Board of Trustees of the 

Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati. He was also co-chair of the 

Police and Justice Committee of Community Action Now, a project 

formed by and for Cincinnati community leaders and charged with 

the task of achieving greater equity, opportunity, and inclusion for 

all Cincinnati residents. 

He has also been involved with a wide range of charitable and 

social service organizations, including Children’s Services of Hamilton County, Talbert House, and Boys and Girls Hope of Cincinnati. 

Michael Barrett is clearly an accomplished attorney and experienced community leader. Both are important qualifications for this 

position. Given his background and experience, it is not surprising 

that a substantial majority of the ABA panel that reviewed his 

qualifications found him to be well qualified, which, of course, is 

the highest possible rating. The remaining members of the panel 

gave him the next highest rating of qualified. This very high rating 

merely confirms his excellent credentials for the position. 

Even more important, however, is simply that Mike Barrett is a 

good person, a good man. I have spoken with attorneys and judges 

who have worked with him, both with him and against him, and 

they all describe him as a calm, even-tempered man who is always 

willing to listen. They confirm what I think of Mike Barrett. He is 

a bright, affable, intellectually open-minded person with a strong 

sense of the law, someone who will make an excellent Federal 

judge. 

Michael Barrett is an outstanding nominee, and I strongly believe that he will serve as a great Federal District Court Judge for 

the Southern District of Ohio. 

Let me ask the members of the panel now to stand and I will 

swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the 

testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. GOLDEN. I do. 

Mr. BARRETT. I do. 

Mr. COGAN. I do. 

Senator DEWINE. You may be seated. 

We welcome all of you here, and we will give each one of you the 

opportunity to make any kind of opening statement and also the 

opportunity to introduce anyone who is with you today, including 

certainly any members of your family. Mr. Golden? 

580

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. GOLDEN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. GOLDEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Good morning. 

Mr. GOLDEN. I can’t help but start by thanking the President for 

nominating me. I am deeply gratified by the remarks made by Senator Specter and Senator Santorum. Without their help, I would 

not be here. Without their kindness and support, I would not be 

here. 

It is a pleasure for me to introduce to you my family who is with 

me. Seated behind me in the first row is my daughter, Kristin 

Mancuso; my two grandsons, Will Mancuso and Alex Mancuso. Behind those beautiful people are my son Matthew and his lovely 

wife, Olivia, and the person who has made it possible for me to be 

here, my wife, Penny. 

Senator DEWINE. Welcome. 

Mr. GOLDEN. It is a pleasure to be here, Senator, and thank you, 

and I conclude my remarks. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Golden follows.]

581


38736.516
582


38736.517
583


38736.518
584


38736.519
585


38736.520
586


38736.521
587


38736.522
588


38736.523
589


38736.524
590


38736.525
591


38736.526
592


38736.527
593


38736.528
594


38736.529
595


38736.530
596


38736.531
597


38736.532
598


38736.533
599


38736.534
600


38736.535
601


38736.536
602


38736.537
603


38736.538
604


38736.539
605


38736.540
606


38736.541
607


38736.542
608


38736.543
609


38736.544
610


38736.545
611


38736.546
612


38736.547
613


38736.548
614


38736.549
615


38736.550
616


38736.551
617


38736.552
618


38736.553
619


38736.554
620


38736.555
621


38736.556
622


38736.557
623


38736.558
624

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden, thank you very much. 

Mr. Barrett, good morning. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RYAN BARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, good morning. I would just like to 

express my— 

Senator DEWINE. Hit your mike there, Mr. Barrett. 

Mr. BARRETT. Is it on now? Thank you. I am sorry. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express my deepest gratitude 

to you and Senator Voinovich for the remarks you made and also 

for just providing the opportunity to even be here today. I greatly 

appreciate it from the bottom of my heart, and I would like to 

thank the President for the nomination. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information Mr. Barrett follows.]

625


38736.559
626


38736.560
627


38736.561
628


38736.562
629


38736.563
630


38736.564
631


38736.565
632


38736.566
633


38736.567
634


38736.568
635


38736.569
636


38736.570
637


38736.571
638


38736.572
639


38736.573
640


38736.574
641


38736.575
642


38736.576
643


38736.577
644


38736.578
645


38736.579
646


38736.580
647


38736.581
648


38736.582
649


38736.583
650


38736.584
651


38736.585
652


38736.586
653


38736.587
654


38736.588
655

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Cogan? 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. COGAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

Mr. COGAN. Senator DeWine, thank you for chairing this hearing 

this morning. I would echo my colleagues and express my appreciation to the President for the confidence he has shown in me in putting my nomination forward. My wife is here with me today. Senator Schumer I think has adequately introduced her. 

And I also wanted to thank the people from the Department of 

Justice and the FBI for the professionalism and efficiency they 

showed throughout the background investigation that led to us 

being here today. 

Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Cogan follows.]

656


38736.589
657


38736.590
658


38736.591
659


38736.592
660


38736.593
661


38736.594
662


38736.595
663


38736.596
664


38736.597
665


38736.598
666


38736.599
667


38736.600
668


38736.601
669


38736.602
670


38736.603
671


38736.604
672


38736.605
673


38736.606
674


38736.607
675


38736.608
676


38736.609
677


38736.610
678


38736.611
679


38736.612
680


38736.613
681


38736.614
682


38736.615
683


38736.616
684


38736.617
685


38736.618
686


38736.619
687


38736.620
688


38736.621
689


38736.622
690


38736.623
691


38736.624
692


38736.625
693


38736.626
694


38736.627
695


38736.628
696


38736.629
697


38736.630
698


38736.631
699


38736.632
700


38736.633
701


38736.634
702


38736.635
703


38736.636
704


38736.637
705


38736.638
706


38736.639
707


38736.640
708


38736.641
709


38736.642
710


38736.643
711


38736.644
712

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Cogan, I notice that you have dedicated a 

significant amount of your time in the past few years to serving enlisted men and women prior to their deployments to Afghanistan 

and Iraq. Do you want to tell us about your service among these 

folks going into the armed service? 

Mr. COGAN. Yes, Senator. The New York Guard is a State of New 

York agency, a sister service to the New York National Guard. My 

unit is composed of volunteers, and although our military is entirely volunteers, my unit are unpaid volunteers, lawyers who go 

on to military bases on the eve of deployment and counsel soldiers 

and their families about their legal rights and needs. We draw 

wills and have them sign there. We draft living wills, do not resuscitate orders, and generally answer any questions they have so that 

they have peace of mind before they are deployed overseas. 

Senator DEWINE. I am sure that must be very rewarding work. 

Mr. Cogan, you have spent a good part of your practice, your career, representing large corporations. Whoever comes to the bench 

brings a certain background, part of your background at least. How 

will you make that transition to, obviously, a different background 

of being a Federal judge? 

Mr. COGAN. Senator, thanks for that question. It is a good question. My practice has not at all been confined to major corporations. 

I have represented a number of individuals, many individuals of 

modest means, and also small businesses. I do quite a bit of that. 

I would say at the current time my practice is probably 50 percent 

small businesses. So I have seen quite a lot of diversity in the 

kinds of people I have represented, and through the volunteer work 

I have done, you know, I consider myself the lawyer for those soldiers. So I have seen all kinds of people in connection with my 

practice. 

Senator DEWINE. You have had experience in the area of bankruptcy law, I see, and commercial litigation. 

Mr. COGAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. Tell us a little bit about that, how that might 

have prepared you for this job. 

Mr. COGAN. It has given me a fair amount of trial work, Senator. 

As you know, everything in bankruptcy court, even a motion for an 

extension of time, can turn into a trial. And it has given me a 

range of small cases and very large cases, cases that have gone to 

the Second Circuit and cases that get no further than bankruptcy 

court. 

It has also given me a lot of international litigation exposure. I 

have done a lot of work with lawyers in foreign countries, and I 

know how their legal systems work. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Barrett, you have handled some death penalty cases on both sides; is that correct? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. I don’t know if that is totally unique, but some 

people go through their lifetime career and never handle a death 

penalty case on either side, I guess. How has that affected your 

view of an attorney’s role or a judge’s role within our legal system? 

And what, if anything, did you learn from these cases? 

Mr. BARRETT. I think the most important thing that I have 

learned is the absolute need to be careful and make sure that all 

713

the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed and that all of the procedural requirements are met, and when there is so much on the line 

on either side of those cases, you have total concentration and you 

just can’t spend enough time on them. And it has taught me to be 

very careful. 

Senator DEWINE. The State v. Randall Ayers case, tell us a little 

bit about that case. 

Mr. BARRETT. Your Honor, that was a case—due to an extraordinary set of circumstances, an identification was made of a defendant which later proved out to be incorrect after— 

Senator DEWINE. You were the prosecutor or the defense lawyer. 

Mr. BARRETT. I was the prosecutor, assistant prosecutor on that. 

And he was convicted, and several years later, a serial sexual assault defendant in another jurisdiction confessed to the crime. And 

I can’t highlight what that meant to me in terms of trying to be 

careful, trying to understand cases, reliance on scientific evidence, 

where possible and where appropriate. 

Senator DEWINE. You also have handled domestic relations 

cases. This is not the type case that you are probably going to be 

dealing with on the Federal bench, but what have you taken from 

the handling of this type case that might be of some assistance to 

you on the Federal bench? 

Mr. BARRETT. One of the main things I think that I learned from 

my domestic relations practice is the benefit of alternate dispute 

resolution, trying to resolve cases through mediation or special settlement counsel. As the court is probably aware, a number of those 

cases are contentious and emotional, and it helps take the steam 

out of those if you have a mediator that can sit down with the parties and actually try to arrive at a resolution that benefits everybody, especially the children. 

Senator DEWINE. Tell me a little bit about one of your first jobs 

right out of law school. You were an administrative hearing officer. 

What was that like? 

Mr. BARRETT. That was very interesting, Your Honor. The State 

of Ohio had changed their entire job description classification code, 

and all of the State employees had an automatic right to appeal 

their new designations. And myself and a group of 30 other attorneys traveled around the State, and we conducted employee hearings at all of the State facilities from penal institutions to ODOT 

installations, and we determined the appropriateness of classifications and pay grades. 

Senator DEWINE. That was right out of law school, was it? 

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, it was a situation where there was a special 

House bill that was passed because they needed to get a number 

of attorneys on board very quickly, and the qualification was you 

had to be a law school graduate but did not have to actually be licensed in the State of Ohio yet. And as a result of that, I would 

say out of our group of attorneys that handled these cases, probably 95 percent of us were graduates waiting for the bar results 

and not licensed attorneys. But that was a real eye-opener to start 

with. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden, for the last several years, you have 

served as the director of a group called Lawyers Concerned for 

Lawyers, Inc. What is that all about? 

714

Mr. GOLDEN. Senator, that is the group formulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to assist lawyers, impaired lawyers who 

have addiction problems, mental health problems. It sets up a confidential hotline, and trained counselors are then used to refer 

those folks who have problems to necessary treatment facilities and 

to programs to help in their rehabilitation. 

Senator DEWINE. And how long have you served in that position? 

Mr. GOLDEN. I believe, Senator, 5 years or 6 years. 

Senator DEWINE. Your practice has been a more general practice; 

is that right? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes, Senator. I started out as an insurance company defense lawyer doing civil litigation, and I did that for approximately 15 years, and it blossomed into commercial litigation, 

all types of litigation, and then my practice began to change and 

I came to represent a cross-section of a small town. Reading is a 

town of about 80,000, in a county of about 400,000. And I represent 

businesses, banks, a college, and a lot of individuals. And through 

that I still maintained the litigation practice, but it diminished. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden, you have been pretty active in the 

Bar Association, the county level, State level, too; is that right? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator DEWINE. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Throughout my career as a lawyer, I have always 

been involved in bar activities. Initially, it was a wonderful way to 

get to know people. More importantly, it was a way to learn about 

the law from the practical side. 

For whatever reason, I ended up being selected for different positions in my local bar, and then later on assumed a role as a Governor on the Pennsylvania Bar Association Board. And from that 

I was asked to run for president of the bar, and I was president 

of the Pennsylvania Bar, which was a wonderful experience. I probably got more out of that than I ever gave back in it, and it allowed 

me to get to know so many people, so many great lawyers, be involved in all aspects of the legal profession, and realize that what 

we do as lawyers has a broad effect and a great effect on our society. 

Senator DEWINE. My understanding is that, if confirmed, you 

would keep your—the chambers would be in Reading; is that correct? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. Is that your choice? Do you get to make that 

decision? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Yes, Senator. Although we love the great city of 

Philadelphia, with all deference to Senator Specter, I am very 

pleased to remain in my community. This is an outlying—as Senator Santorum described, Berks County is at the westernmost edge 

of the Eastern District, and it is a huge inconvenience for lawyers 

and the party litigants and the witnesses to travel into Philadelphia. It is a wonderful opportunity for the local population to understand the Federal court system, to be exposed to the Federal 

court system, and it will be a real benefit for our community. I am 

more than happy to stay there, Senator. 

715

Senator DEWINE. I was just curious how you handle that in 

Pennsylvania. Mr. Barrett will not get to make that decision in 

Ohio. So you get to make that decision in Pennsylvania. 

Mr. GOLDEN. Senator— 

Senator DEWINE. I am just giving you a hard time, Mr. Golden. 

Don’t worry about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDEN. And I am enjoying it. No, I like Reading, so I am 

happy to be there. 

Senator DEWINE. We want you to be where you want to be, I am 

sure. 

Let me ask you this: Mr. Cogan, why do you want to be a Federal 

judge? 

Mr. COGAN. Senator, I think that any litigator, or at least most 

litigators who want to do and have the financial ability to do public 

service, for any of us it is really the ideal job. There is no public 

service job that allows you to interact with the public on that level 

one on one to let them know that their opportunity to be part of 

the judicial system, to have their cases heard, to have someone listen to their grievances, will be carried out. That to me is an indispensable part that we bring when we become Federal judges, if we 

are fortunate enough to be confirmed, and it is a contribution that 

I don’t think anything else is like. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been engaged in 

trial practice for almost 30 years now in just about every kind of 

court, and I have dealt with a number of different types of litigants, their attorneys, and judges. And I have reached an age 

where I think that I have developed enough experience and enough 

ideas that, if I were fortunate enough to get this position, I could 

actually have a positive impact on issues such as docket control 

and case management, and I think I can make a positive contribution to the community, if I were lucky enough to be selected. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Senator, as my colleagues have just said, being a 

Federal judge is a wonderful opportunity to give back. When you 

reach a certain point in your career and you have done an awful 

lot of things, I think every lawyer comes to the recognition that 

public service is part of what we do. 

To become a Federal judge is a wonderful opportunity for me to 

help my community, to give back, and to perform public service at 

a time in my life when I continue to—where I can continue to make 

a valuable contribution to my society. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden, let me ask you the question we 

ask all the nominees. The Supreme Court and Federal circuit court 

precedents are, of course, binding on district courts. I must ask 

you: Are you committed and willing to follow the precedents of the 

higher courts faithfully and give them full force and effect even if 

you might personally disagree with those precedents? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Barrett, same question. 

Mr. BARRETT. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Cogan, same question. 

Mr. COGAN. Same answer. 

716

Senator DEWINE. I have a statement from Senator Leahy which 

he would like to be made a part of the record. Without objection, 

it will be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Golden, one of the objections that lawyers sometimes have 

with Federal judges as well as with State judges is that the judge 

doesn’t let them ‘‘try their case.’’ Occasionally, when I practiced 

law, many, many, many, many years ago, I used to be a prosecutor. 

I had some great judges, but once in a while I might have that objection. I might have been wrong about it, but do you want to react 

to that? What is your philosophy about how much leeway you give 

lawyers? 

Mr. GOLDEN. I agree with you, Senator. I think it is a great comment, and when I do trial work, I think it is absolutely imperative 

for the judge to permit the lawyers to try their case. I also think 

it is imperative for the judge to be courteous. I think that the spirit 

of a courtroom is to make it fair for both sides, and in that spirit 

the lawyers must be given an opportunity to try their case. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the most important things, having been on both sides of it in the courtroom, is 

whether you win or lose, you walk out of the courtroom feeling that 

you got fair treatment. And I think that the temperament of a 

judge and the way he allows the litigants to present the case according to their theory of the case, within certainly, you know, the 

appropriate constraints of the Rules of Evidence, I think that goes 

a long way in allowing the litigants and the parties to feel that 

they got a fair shake, no matter what the decision is. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Cogan? 

Mr. COGAN. Senator, I would echo my colleagues’ comments. I 

would note that anyone who has tried a number of cases has seen 

judges who take the case away from the litigants. That is something that I really think should be avoided if at all possible. As I 

said before, litigants have to feel that they had their hearing in 

court. Whether they prevail or not, they had their hearing. And 

when the judge takes the case away, they haven’t had that chance. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Cogan, tell me a little bit about your philosophy about settlements and how you would handle that, and 

with it you could also cover the related issue of docket management 

and how you would move cases along. 

Mr. COGAN. Senator, I believe it is the responsibility of a judge 

to actively manage his docket. That means two things: No. 1, conferencing cases often, keeping a handle on what is going on, not allowing one side or the other in the case to employ dilatory tactics 

to the disadvantage of the other side. I also believe the judge has 

the responsibility, when possible, to facilitate settlement. I know 

that in the Eastern District of New York, there is a rule requiring 

mandatory ADR of all matters involving $100,000 or less, and, 

where appropriate, I would encourage litigants to explore alternative dispute resolution techniques. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Barrett? 

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I feel that docket management is 

a critical issue for judges to contend with, and I think that personal involvement in a number of issues as the case works its way 

through the system, such as discovery, keeps things on track. I 

717

agree with my colleague that frequent reports are also effective. Alternate dispute resolution is another means, whether it be arbitration or whether it be mediation, those types of things in appropriate cases can also speed the docket along. You have a balancing 

act between effective and timely docket management and also giving the parties time for preparation. And I think that as a result 

of courtroom experience, judges can tell what the appropriate 

amount of time is and when somebody is engaged in some sort of 

delaying tactic as opposed to actually having legitimate needs. So 

I think you have to be mindful of that. 

I often think that there is times where the lawyers in cases are 

looking for direction from a judge. They may ask for a legal—how 

does a judge feel about a certain legal issue, and that helps them 

advise their clients intelligently on where a case may end up. So 

I think, you know, when invited by counsel, I think a judge’s intervention and becoming part of the process is also very helpful. 

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Golden? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Senator, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

there are several programs in existence already dealing with alternative dispute resolution, mediation, use of United States magistrates to help settle cases. I think the judge’s obligation is to stay 

on top of his docket and make sure, as my colleagues have said, 

that it keeps moving. I think in today’s world it is the only answer 

to expeditious handling of cases to make the whole system better. 

I would continue to employ the methods that exist and work hard 

to make sure that the cases under my jurisdiction move. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank you all for your testimony today. We appreciate it 

very much. Based on your records and certainly everything that I 

have heard today at the hearing, you all three seem very, very well 

qualified. I think you all will do a great job on the Federal bench. 

Let me just say that we are going to leave the record open for 

1 week for members of the Committee to submit written questions 

to any of you. This means that the record will remain open until 

Wednesday, April 5th, at 5 p.m., at which time it will close. So 

there may be written questions submitted to you. If they are during that period of time, we would strongly suggest that you respond 

to those immediately and get those back to us, which will expedite 

our ability to handle your nomination. 

So we thank you all very, very much for your attention. We are 

glad that family members were here today. Good to see everybody. 

Everyone has stayed awake. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DEWINE. So far. And we appreciate all of you being here. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[A submission for the record follows.]

718

Æ


38736.645