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

61–572 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–632 

HELPING FIND INNOVATIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE 

SOLUTIONS TO OVERBURDENED STATE CRIMINAL COURTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 3, 2010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Serial No. J–111–87 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

HANNIBAL KEMERER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Kaufman, Hon. Edward E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ............ 2 

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

WITNESSES 

Abraham, Lynne M., Partner, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 13 

Gillison, Everett A., Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Goldkamp, John S., Professor, and Chair, Department of Criminal Justice, 

Temple University ................................................................................................ 11 

Greenlee, Ellen, Chief Public Defender, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................. 6 

McCaffery, Seamus, Supreme Court Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 3 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Abraham, Lynne M., Partner, Archer & Greiner, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................................................................................... 31 

Gillison, Everett A., Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................................................................................... 51 

Greenlee, Ellen, Chief Public Defender, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ...................................................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

HELPING FIND INNOVATIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO OVERBURDENED 

STATE CRIMINAL COURTS 

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in Kirby 

Auditorium, The National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Specter and Kaufman. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Chairman SPECTER. Ladies and gentlemen, the Criminal Law 

Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary will 

now proceed. I first welcome my distinguished colleague, Senator 

Ted Kaufman, who has graciously come up from his home in Delaware this morning to join us on this panel. Senator Kaufman is a 

member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And I welcome the 

witnesses here today, a very, very distinguished panel, to proceed 

with our inquiry into the criminal justice system in the city of 

Philadelphia in the light of disclosures made in an extensive series 

of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is the third in our series of hearings. 

The first hearing focused on the problem of intimidation of witnesses, and at that time we heard from parents of two young people who were murdered because they were about to testify in a 

criminal proceeding. And, obviously, it is intolerable to intimidate 

witnesses because that is the way the case proceeds, on the testimony of the witnesses. We have taken action in the Senate on the 

introduction of legislation which would make intimidation of witnesses in a State court proceeding a Federal crime. Today it is not 

a Federal crime. It is a violation of State law, but it is very different to have a Federal charge possible which brings in the FBI 

and brings in the tougher judicial system of the United States Federal courts. We have also moved ahead passing legislation out of 

Committee which would increase the funding by the Federal Government for witness protection. The Federal Government has a witness protection program which works pretty well, and we really 

need to move ahead to get the States to have a similar program. 

2 

The second hearing focus is on the problem of fugitives. Many 

people skip bail, and we found, much to our chagrin, that there was 

no system in place to report to a national clearinghouse the fact 

that somebody had jumped bail in Philadelphia so that if they were 

apprehended, illustratively, say in St. Louis, there was no way to 

notify Philadelphia authorities they were in St. Louis and could be 

brought back to Philadelphia for trial. We have moved ahead to 

have legislation for more Federal funding to help with detention of 

fugitives, and we have also gotten a response from the United 

States Marshal to assign additional Federal personnel to finding 

fugitives. 

Today we have a distinguished panel: Justice Seamus McCaffery 

of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Chief Justice Castille has appointed Justice McCaffery to look into this situation with the Supreme Court’s authority in the field. We have the distinguished 

former district attorney of Philadelphia, Lynne Abraham, who 

served 18 years, was the first woman to hold the position and the 

longest-serving district attorney. 

I might say in passing, with some pride, Lynne Abraham was an 

assistant in my office, and a very able one. And I might say, also 

with some pride, that Chief Justice Castille, who appointed Justice 

McCaffery to look into this issue, is also an alumnus of my office. 

I will not go too far into the alumni society beyond the Governor 

and three colleges’ presidents and the chief judge of the Federal 

circuit. 

We have with us Ms. Ellen Greenlee, the Chief Defender. She 

has been at that job for some 19 years, and has some very important views to express. 

We have Professor John Goldkamp from Temple University, who 

is the Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, has served on 

advisory boards to both the State and the city, and had a hand in 

the analysis of the criminal justice system in Philadelphia in 1990. 

So he has a unique perspective. 

I am now pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator 

Kaufman, whom I again thank for joining me in this hearing. 

Senator Kaufman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED KAUFMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much for having me up here. But I have watched, when I lived in 

Philadelphia for many, many years when you were district attorney, but even more so when I was Senator Biden’s chief of staff 

when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it is not hyperbole to say that on criminal justice issues for I do not know how 

many years, you are the person that everyone on the Committee 

looks to, and you are the person that people in the Senate look to. 

Your record of accomplishments, your ability to kind of get to the 

nub of the problem, any problem you face, has been something I 

have watched for many, many years. So I am really glad to come 

up here. 

You know, Delaware is just to the south of here. It is like the 

old story, you know, when Philadelphia gets a cold, Delaware gets 

a fever. Many of our problems in Philadelphia, crime problems in 

3 

Philadelphia, relate to the fact that we are on I–95 halfway between Baltimore and Philadelphia. So when you have problems up 

here, it really comes down and affects Delaware. That is the first 

thing. 

But the second thing is it is really important that we get this together nationally. This is not just a Philadelphia problem. I read 

all the testimony on the way up here and looked into these things. 

These are problems that cities are facing around the country, so it 

is a real Federal interest. 

There is a special interest to us because Philadelphia is the 

source of so many of the drugs that go into Wilmington, Delaware, 

and so what happens here is extremely important to the people of 

Philadelphia. And we have seen in Philadelphia a lot of the same 

things you see up here. 

We have seen witness intimidation, an anti-snitching culture, 

many of the difficulties that we see up here. And that is why I cosponsored your State Witness Protection Act of 2010 to help deal 

with this anti-snitch problem. I believe the threat of Federal prosecution could have real impact on witness intimidation in State 

court. 

Mr. Chairman, the innovations you and these witnesses are discussing today should have impact far beyond Philadelphia. I look 

forward to listening to today’s testimony. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Senator Kaufman, for those cogent words. 

We are honored to have Supreme Court Justice Seamus 

McCaffery with us today, a very unique career as well as a distinguished career. Justice McCaffery served in the Philadelphia Police 

Department for 19 years. You cannot get any better experience in 

the criminal justice system than that. He went to law school, is an 

attorney. He was on the municipal court of Philadelphia and became famous by having the so-called Eagles Court, which functioned during the Eagles football games, and he was able to adjudicate offenses right on the scene. Nothing like deterrence to have 

the judge right there to take action. Elected to the superior court 

and now on the Supreme Court, and as I said, the Chief Justice 

of Pennsylvania has designated Justice McCaffery to look into the 

overall situation. So we welcome you here. 

The time limit is traditionally set at 5 minutes, which would 

leave us the maximum amount of time for dialog after the witnesses testify. So the floor is yours, Justice McCaffery. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SEAMUS MCCAFFERY, SUPREME COURT 

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Thank you, Senator Specter, Senator Kaufman. Thank you so much for inviting me here today representing 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on this very important matter, 

not only to Philadelphia but to the Philadelphia region. 

Senator, as you pointed out, my first exposure to the Philadelphia municipal court and the criminal justice system was in 1970 

when I got out of the Marine Corps and joined the Philadelphia Police Department. It was shortly after the creation of the Philadelphia municipal court, so I have many, many years of exposure to 

4 

both municipal court and the Court of Common Pleas here in 

Philadelphia County. And, gentlemen, I say this without exaggeration. What I have seen over the years, I have been very much dismayed. 

The system has really gotten both overwhelmed and out of control. It has diminished, in my opinion, in the ability to give quality 

justice to all parties, both the accused as well as the victims of 

crime. 

The municipal court, when I was first elected there in 1994, we 

had approximately 23 trials a day in a courtroom. That is trials, 

not preliminary hearings. And as such, we had, of course, motions 

practice, et cetera. So these were not just wham-bam, easy types 

of cases. By the time I left 10 years later, we were over 45 trials 

a day in a courtroom. We went from 35 to 40 preliminary hearings 

out in the districts to upwards of 70 and 75 preliminary hearings 

a day. 

The volume of cases just continued to increase, and yet our budgets decreased. We did have an increase in members of the judiciary, but, quite frankly, we had so many additional charges put on 

us by the legislature that it increased the workload dramatically. 

Our judges were overwhelmed. Our defenders association was overwhelmed. Our district attorney was overwhelmed. We had young 

men and women coming into our courtrooms on any given day with 

30, 35 matters a day they personally had to prepare for and handle, and then they would have to go back to their offices, work up 

their files, and last but not least, get another 35 for the next day. 

We have so many cases that were just being discharged because of 

time issues. 

When I took over as the administrative judge, 66 counties in 

Pennsylvania had 180 days from the date of arrest for a misdemeanor to the actual date of trial. Philadelphia County, the largest county, had 120 days. Why, you might ask? I have no idea. We 

have since changed that. We petitioned the Supreme Court. Philadelphia County is now on an equal footing with the rest of the 

State. We now have 180 days. 

But as you can imagine, Philadelphia, because of the magnitude 

of cases, the complexity of our system, the balancing, if you will, 

of problems between overtime constraints that the police department has to deal with and the courts trying to get cases on. One 

of the things I saw both as a police officer and the father of police 

officers was that when individuals were arrested, the police department tried to ensure that their officers would go to court on their 

day work tour of duty. Why? It was to cut down on overtime. But 

what we found were police officers with 5, 10, sometimes 15 court 

notices on 1 day. One day in a city, Senator, where we do not have, 

as you know, a centralized courthouse. We have courthouses 

throughout the city of Philadelphia, the county of Philadelphia, 

stretched as far as 55th and Pine all the way up to Academy and 

Red Lion, Broad and Champlost, et cetera. That means that these 

officers that are required to go to a trial for homicides, major 

crimes, and even the lower-level misdemeanor crimes, are now 

being required to travel all over Philadelphia. We have judges waiting, we have courts waiting, we have juries waiting. The system 

was just being clogged up by the morass that we saw. 

5 

We tried a lot of innovative things, including bringing all the satellite districts into the Criminal Justice Center. But as I am sure 

you remember, Senator, because of budgetary cutbacks, what was 

once a larger footprint for the Criminal Justice Center became a 

much small footprint, thereby causing us to have fewer elevators, 

bigger congested lines to get on the elevators. It was pretty much 

a mess. And as a result of it, again, more action had to be taken 

to lessen the problem. 

So taking all of that into consideration, we tried our best to create a lot of different situations that would alleviate the congestion 

and get cases on. 

What happened was more and more cases were just being discharged. Why? Because they were either unable to put them on, 

again, because of police officers not showing up, witnesses not 

showing up—and, again, we all have to understand we have a balance here. You know, we have the rights of the accused to be balanced against the rights of the victims. So the reality was that 

cases were being discharged in an inordinate—I mean, an extremely large number. But, again, as a result of the Inquirer articles, we are now in the process, the Supreme Court, of creating— 

we created a panel to go into this whole problem and make suggested changes, some of which have already been implemented, 

Senator. 

Right now—or, recently, I should say, we found a study that was 

prepared in 1978, 10 years after the creation of the municipal 

court. That study pointed out incredible problems then, in 1978. 

This is 32 years ago. Those changes recommended by that study 

have still not been implemented. 

One of the big problems we have here, Senator Kaufman, is in 

a municipal court, we have what is called a de novo court of appeal. 

By that, I mean witnesses—everybody needs to show up and the 

case has to be put on, and if the outcome is not to the benefit of 

the accused, then they have an automatic right of appeal. That includes bail, everything. These individuals are allowed to stay on 

the streets. These individuals are basically given one free bite at 

the apple. 

In the 1978 report, it was recommended that we do away with 

de novo rights of appeal, then merge the court basically with the 

court of common pleas, make municipal court a division, because, 

remember, during the Constitutional Convention in the late 1960s, 

when the municipal court was originally created, it was created as 

a probationary court, and as such, it has really, really grown well 

beyond that. There have been no real serious changes since that 

time, and our court is looking to implement the changes that we 

feel are necessary to bring it in line with the rest of Pennsylvania. 

In closing, Senator, I just want to point out something that I am 

sure you recall quite clearly. Back in the late 1960s and early 

1970s, we had the LEAP program, the Law Enforcement Assistance Program. That LEAP program went a long way to help urban 

law enforcement communities to increase their police departments. 

I would suggest to you that what is needed today, not just in Philadelphia but nationally, is a Criminal Justice Assistance Program 

because, quite frankly, we do not have enough probation officers. 

We do not have enough warrant unit officers. Our probation offiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 061572 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\61572.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
6 

cers are so—we are over 100 officers short right now. These officers 

are required to take their own vehicles and go out and check on 

their individual defendants. 

Chairman SPECTER. Justice McCaffery, how much more time will 

you need? 

Justice MCCAFFERY. I am fine. I can just shut down right now, 

if you would like. But the reality is, as I have said, we need some 

Federal help to make some serious changes. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Justice McCaffery appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Justice 

McCaffery. 

We would ordinarily turn to D.A. Abraham as a matter of protocol, but she has requested to go last, and we are glad to oblige. 

So we turn now to Ms. Ellen Greenlee, who is the Chief Defender. 

She had worked in the Defenders Office as a trial attorney, supervisor, first assistant, went all the way up the line, and the last 19 

years as Chief Defender. She received the prestigious Sandra Day 

O’Connor Award from the Philadelphia Bar Association, graduate 

of Chestnut Hill College and the Villanova Law School. 

Before we began, I told her that I was in the Defenders Office 

for a month as a beginning lawyer. I will not cite the year. 

Ms. Greenlee, we appreciate your being here, and the next 5 minutes are yours. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN GREENLEE, CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. GREENLEE. They still talk about your service, Senator, as a 

defender. 

Thank you, Senator Specter and Senator Kaufman, for the opportunity to be here today. As you know, anyone probably who chooses 

the career of public defender has a bit of a maverick in them, so 

I have chosen today—in terms of the hearing of helping find innovative and cost-effective solutions to overburdened State courts, I 

have a particular viewpoint on the burden imposed on the poor who 

become embroiled in the Commonwealth’s criminal justice system, 

and I would like to take this opportunity—I cannot pass it up—to 

speak to that burden and what is a very real crisis in indigent defense that was acknowledged by Attorney General Eric Holder, who 

convened a national symposium on indigent defense in February in 

Washington, D.C. 

In my view, what would be the most surprising innovation today 

in the criminal justice system would be for the Government—both 

Federal and State—to make real the promise of ‘‘equal justice for 

all’’ by funding adequately defense services for our poor citizens 

caught up in the system. This innovation would mean parity of resources for the Government and the defense, oversight and monitoring of defense services, training and performance standards, as 

well as caseload standards to ensure quality, competent representation at all levels. 

As brief background, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, 

unlike public defender organizations in all other Pennsylvania 

counties, is a non-profit corporation funded 99 percent by the city 

7 

of Philadelphia. We have a staff of 480 people, including attorneys, 

investigators, social workers, paralegals, and administrative staff. 

We are appointed by the courts to represent indigent adults and 

juveniles charged with criminal offenses, ranging from misdemeanors to capital cases. We also represent indigent citizens in 

civil mental health hearings, and our Child Advocate Unit represents dependent and abused children in contested custody matters. 

In calendar year 2009, we were appointed to 69,000 new cases. 

Our workload figures for attorneys show 396,000 court appearances 

in that year. We represented clients at 34,000 preliminary hearings 

and at 87,000 misdemeanor trial listings. Overall we represent 

about 70 percent of criminal cases, exclusive of homicides, where 

we represent 20 percent of all court appointments. 

The criminal justice system here obviously could not function 

without us as one of the stakeholders and active participants in 

courtroom trial representation, as well as an active participant in 

the many diversion programs in place, such as Treatment Court, 

DUI Court, Mental Health Court, Community Court, and specific 

programs for juveniles, among others. 

As is the case throughout Pennsylvania, and increasingly in all 

counties and States, public defenders, as well as private court-appointed counsel, are overworked and grossly underpaid. The inevitable result of reduced funding and increased caseloads is representation that fails to meet the standards published by the American 

Bar Association and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. The weight of the criminal justice system falls most heavily 

on the backs of the poor and disproportionately on minority populations. 

The indigent defense system, both statewide and nationally, is in 

crisis. It is not just those of us who work in indigent defense who 

realize this. Attorney General Holder, speaking at the Brennan 

Center in New York City on November 16th, commented that our 

adversarial system requires lawyers on both sides who effectively 

represent their clients’ interests, whether the Government or the 

accused. Further, he said, the integrity of our criminal justice system aside, the crisis in indigent defense is also about dollars and 

cents. He cited the need to significantly improve the quality of representation provided to the poor and powerless. He has pledged to 

work in identifying potential funding sources, legislative initiatives, 

and to work with State and local partners to establish effective 

public defense systems. This is a start and a refreshing change 

from the policies of the previous administration. 

The need for adequately financed public defense services has expanded so drastically that today public defenders represent defendants in more than 80 percent of criminal prosecutions nationwide. 

In many States, diverse groups of middle- and low-income people 

are being processed through courts as if they were identical parts 

on a conveyor belt. And the collateral consequences of criminal 

prosecutions include immigration consequences, the ability to vote 

or own firearms, access to student loans and professional licenses, 

and public housing eligibility, among other modem equivalents of 

the scarlet letter. Many of these disabilities impede a person’s ability to successfully integrate into the community. It does appear 

8 

that our society has relegated forgiveness and redemption to the 

scrap heap. 

Pennsylvania has the dubious distinction of being the only State 

in the Union that provides absolutely no funding for indigent defense. Utah, which had been in the same category, began to provide 

some State funding, but is now in the process of reneging on that 

promise. The Pennsylvania State Legislature has effectively ignored a 1985 State Supreme Court decision calling for such funding. So it is up to each county to provide funding for indigent defense, and as you can well imagine, few county commissioners rank 

indigent defense highly on their list of priorities. Representation of 

the poor is, at best, uneven and, at worst, ineffective at times due 

to deficiencies of the county-funded systems. 

On a somewhat optimistic note, there are stirrings in our State 

capital around indigent defense issues. Out of the tragedy that is 

Luzerne County, where two corrupt judges sent hundreds of children into placement, often for trivial offenses and without the benefit of legal counsel, the Interbranch Commission will issue its report at the end of May, with serious recommendations aimed at upgrading juvenile defense practices. At the same time, I serve on a 

Joint Legislative Commission on Indigent Defense which is due to 

issue its report within the next couple of months. It, too, will offer 

recommendations—— 

Chairman SPECTER. How much more time will you need? 

Ms. GREENLEE. I only have a few lines, Senator. The Commission 

on Indigent Defense will offer recommendations for improvements 

in representation of the poor. Of course, we will then look to the 

legislature to fund these initiatives, the same legislature that has 

ignored the Supreme Court order for funding for 25 years. At best, 

we are very cautiously optimistic we will see real change in the 

provision of defense services in Pennsylvania. 

Ours is an adversarial system of justice which requires lawyers 

on both sides who effectively represent their client’s interests, 

whether it is the Government or the accused. When defense counsel are handicapped by lack of training, time, and resources, we 

must wonder: Is justice being done? Is justice being served? Will 

you join us in working to reform the criminal justice system so that 

it truly reflects the most basic of American values: equality and 

fairness? 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenlee appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator Specter. Well, it appears that the first question has gone 

to me, and the answer to ‘‘will I join you’’, is of course I will. 

Ms. GREENLEE. I thought you might. 

Chairman SPECTER. But I have been for decades. 

Ms. GREENLEE. I know. That is why it was a good forum to raise 

this. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, that is why Senator Kaufman and I 

are here. We sit on the Committee which initiates legislation and 

funding. 

We turn now to Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison, Deputy Mayor 

for Public Safety in the city, serves as co-chair of the Criminal Justice Advisory Board for the First Judicial District, was an Assistant 

9 

Defender in Philadelphia, has his bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and law degree from Syracuse College of 

Law. 

We welcome you here, Mr. Gillison. These are issues that we 

have discussed extensively with the mayor and the former mayor 

and the preceding mayor and his predecessor, and we welcome you 

here as his representative. 

STATEMENT OF EVERETT A. GILLISON, DEPUTY MAYOR FOR 

PUBLIC SAFETY, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. GILLISON. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Senator Kaufman, also for being here, and thank you for the opportunity to testify at this Senate field hearing, ‘‘Helping Find Innovative and 

Cost-Effective Solutions to the Overburdened State Courts.’’ 

I am just going to probably end up summarizing, plus I will read 

a couple pages of the prepared testimony, but the bottom line is 

that we live in a digital age and we need to act like it in State 

courts, and we need investments from both the Federal Government and—the State government, yes, but the Federal Government 

also, to invest in digital technology so that we can end up helping 

one another through this problem. 

Technology is all around us. All manner of businesses take advantage of the latest technological innovations to increase production, save money, improve operations, and operate more efficiently. 

It would be unimaginable for a corporation with a $1 billion budget 

and 10,000 employees to still rely on paper and pencil to process 

their transactions. But that is essentially what we do in the criminal justice system. The public safety portion of the city’s budget is approximately $1 

billion. Between police, courts, the prisons, we employ approximately 10,000 people. But every day in the city’s criminal courts, 

transactions are recorded by hand on paper. That paper is then 

shuffled between different departments. And it is no surprise that 

mistakes are made and errors occur. 

Now, I do not want to give a false impression that our criminal 

justice partners do not utilize technology. In fact, we do. But this 

technology is in many instances old, not adequately interfaced— 

and that is the key, interfacing—and many essential court functions are not automated. This makes the system vulnerable to mistakes. 

Increases in the use of technology will help our overburdened 

State courts. Clearly, a lack of available resources is the impediment to having our systems modernized and adequately networked 

so that work flow and essential processes are automated. Local governments are already overburdened and unable to make the technology investments that are critical to enhancing court efficiencies. 

Again, I do not want to give the wrong impression. Despite our 

collective lack of resources, the criminal justice partners in the city 

of Philadelphia have collaborated, especially over the past 2 years, 

to develop initiatives that have increased efficiencies in our State 

court system. 

In Philadelphia, the various criminal justice system partners recognize the need to process cases as quickly as possible. One type 

of judicial proceeding that can impact the overall system efficiency 

10 

is a violation of probation or parole hearing. The need for a violation of parole or probation hearing results when a person is on probation and either fails to do something required or while on supervision does something not permitted under those terms. The judge 

supervising the probation or parole is authorized to hold or detain 

the individual until the judge has had an opportunity to decide if 

a violation has occurred and, if so, what action to take or sanctions 

to impose. 

I will depart from the prepared testimony and say over one-third 

of the people that we have in our local county prisons are people 

who are being held simply on probation and parole matters. So if 

you can really understand how we would be able by having these 

kinds of technological investments, we would be able to process 

those matters a lot quicker. We would be able to have judges who 

would be able to use e-mail, BlackBerrys perhaps, even secure communications, to actual hold hearings at a time conducive to the 

judge’s schedule, the defender’s schedule, the D.A.’s schedule, and 

the prison’s schedule, which obviously is available 24 hours a day, 

and depending on what judge you get, as I remember Justice 

McCaffery—you know, no one stops after 5 o’clock. People continue 

to work and can be available. 

These are the kinds of things that technology make available, 

but, unfortunately, as a city, we are limited by the amount of 

money that we can actually put in these particular areas. And we 

need the help of the Federal Government. 

I will actually submit—and literally, instead of just talking about 

this, I would just like to highlight the latter part of my testimony. 

The additional efficiency that I would like to highlight and mention is the implementation of video technology in our courts. Every 

day literally hundreds of inmates are transported to the Criminal 

Justice Center for trial or other hearing. Often the matters for 

which inmates were brought to the Criminal Justice Center are 

given another date for which the inmate would be transported 

again. With the assistance of our criminal justice partners, we have 

begun the use of video technology to eliminate the need to transport inmates from their facility of confinement to the courts. The 

reason why we are doing that is because we do not really have to 

have them for anything really other than a trial. Hearings can be 

conducted by video, as long as everyone is working together and 

understands the security of the system. But, again, it needs an investment of dollars in order to make that happen. 

I would just ask, in conclusion, that the Federal Government 

make the resources available to State courts to allow them to upgrade and modernize their technology infrastructure. These technological improvements will increase the efficiency with which the 

courts are able to process and dispose of cases. And hearing Justice 

McCaffery talk about the old LEAP program and the assistance 

program that did exist in the late 1960s, early 1970s, and into the 

first part of the 1980s, I would also agree that that is something 

that should be not only looked at as a model, but a way of actually 

being able to help the cities make those investments along with the 

States in order to bring the efficiencies we need. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak and send the greetings 

of the mayor to both of you. 

11 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Gillison. 

We now turn to Professor John Goldkamp, professor and Chair 

of the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University. In the 

1990s, Dr. Goldkamp worked with judicial system leaders under 

the mayor’s task force in Philadelphia. In the fall of 2008, he was 

appointed by Governor Rendell to conduct a review of correctional 

and parole practices affecting violent crime by parolees. He has a 

Ph.D. from the School of Criminal Justice at SUNY Albany. 

Thank you for being with us, Dr. Goldkamp, and we look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. GOLDKAMP, PROFESSOR, AND CHAIR, 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. GOLDKAMP. Good morning, Senator Specter and Senator 

Kaufman. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak 

about the problems that we face in the Philadelphia courts and justice system. 

The search for constructive corrective measures for Philadelphia’s justice process has implications not only for Philadelphia 

itself, but for other jurisdictions with similar problems, whether 

they happen to be receiving publicity or not. The problems faced by 

the Philadelphia justice system simply are not unique. Thus, from 

the outset, we can know that the lessons learned in other places 

may be instructive to the improvement of practices in Philadelphia, 

just as the strategies developed in Philadelphia may be helpful to 

the efforts of others seeking to devise similar solutions. 

Although the Inquirer series has pointed out a number of areas 

of system dysfunction, perhaps four highlight the greatest challenges to system improvement: the problem of dismissals, the problem of backlog and delay, the problem of jail crowding, and the 

problem of fugitives. Each of these is interrelated, and their interaction is an example of an instance when the overall negative effect 

of a problem is greater than the sum of its parts. 

These symptoms of dysfunction share in common that no one 

agency or system actor is responsible for any single one or all of 

these difficulties, and that no one agency or actor can fix the associated difficulties without cooperation and focused co-problem-solving from the other agencies. And this is key to the adoption of 

strong corrective measures. 

For the purposes of brevity, I would like to focus in my comments 

on one of these problems—fugitives—because of the powerful undermining effect they have on the perception among victims, witnesses, the public, and even offenders, of the integrity of the judicial process. 

The message that one can just walk away produces a message of 

reverse deterrence in which defendants and their associated public 

are taught that there are no real consequences to defying the orders of the court and the requirements of the justice process. The 

fugitive problem has a variety of causes, but a solution involves 

two parts: developing a multi-part differentiated strategy for cleaning up and disposing of past cases, of the fugitive caseload; and 

preventing or reducing the rate of the production of fugitives proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 061572 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\61572.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
12 

spectively. Fugitive prevention, quite simply, means strengthening 

the pretrial release and detention process under a comprehensive 

strategy. 

Now the two most critical elements of a fugitive prevention strategy involve re-examining and strengthening the pretrial release decisionmaking structure and developing and supporting more effective methods of pretrial release that both ensure community safety 

and attendance in court and restore the belief in consequences and 

respect for the judicial process. 

The pretrial release guidelines, which are judicially adopted policy in the First Judicial District in Philadelphia for more than a 

decade now, offer at least a useful framework and good foundation 

now for re-examining and strengthening the pretrial release decisionmaking process, and particularly targeting defendants according to risk of flight and crime and other appropriate criteria in considering the constitutional aims of pretrial release. Their neglect 

has played an important part in the size and the nature of the fugitive problem. 

Actually, it is the second part of this fugitive prevention strategy, 

the development and empirical testing of effective community management methods to ensure safe release and high levels of appearance in court, that has been most neglected. An especially critical 

need in preventing absconding fugitives is for effective non-financial release methods, conditions of release targeted to categories of 

defendants according to the risks of flight and threat of public safety they pose. 

The need to manage increasing numbers of defendants in the 

community in the coming future, not to mention probationers and 

parolees, should place this system need high on the list of public 

safety strategies of urgent need. I emphasize that the strengthening of targeted use of non-financial methods of supervision and 

management of defendants in the community should be given the 

highest priority because the dollar, the traditional currency of pretrial release in the U.S., has been shown in empirical studies to be 

a poor method for ensuring attendance at court and a still poorer 

means for protecting the community from potentially dangerous defendants. The role of the dollar in bail does allow defendants with 

financial resources on hand, such as drug dealers, prostitutes, and 

professional criminals, a simple way to purchase their freedom—a 

mere lost of doing business. 

The symptoms of dysfunction in the Philadelphia courts involve 

more than the problems posed by fugitives or by the other categories I have mentioned. Without question, it is indispensable to 

craft effective interventions and strategies both (a) in reference to 

current and accurate data relating to system performance, and (b) 

based on substantive collaboration of the relevant justice agencies 

and key actors. It is particularly helpful to test or at least anticipate the impact of potentially helpful policies empirically before 

full-scale adoption. Yet, in addition, a great deal can be learned 

from systematic review of initiatives or strategies that may have 

been adopted or tested in other jurisdictions facing similar challenges and any evidence in the literature about advantages and 

disadvantages of such measures. 

13 

In the face of such crises as we seem to be experiencing in Philadelphia, there is extreme pressure to adopt ad hoc emergency 

measures that may or may not address the systemic problems and 

may produce unanticipated side effects that will exact costs to be 

paid later. 

I opened my comments by mentioning that the Philadelphia 

court system risks being held up nationally as an example of a dysfunctional court system, courts ‘‘at their worst’’. There is in these 

circumstances, however, an opportunity for Philadelphia to demonstrate the value of a rational, comprehensive, and evidence-based 

problem-solving method that can serve as an example to other jurisdictions whose challenges have yet to surface and who soon may 

as well be looking for solutions. I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldkamp appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you very much, Dr. Goldkamp. 

We now turn to former district attorney of Philadelphia, Lynne 

Abraham, who has had really an extraordinary record. She was an 

assistant district attorney in my office—well, many years ago, let 

us put it that way. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Not that many. 

Chairman SPECTER. Not that many? OK. I will go for that, too. 

Really a strong prosecutor. I recall one day she went over the 

weekend and conducted a personal investigation in West Philadelphia. That is kind of tough to do under any circumstances, but she 

came back with the witnesses. 

She later served as executive director of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, legislative consultant to the Philadelphia 

City Council, and then was on the municipal court for 4 years, 

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court for 11 years, and district attorney of Philadelphia for 19 years, and as indicated earlier, first 

woman to hold the position. She is now a partner in the prestigious 

law firm of Archer & Greiner here in the city. 

We welcome you here, D.A. Abraham, and look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LYNNE M. ABRAHAM, PARTNER, ARCHER & 

GREINER, P.C., PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Senator Specter and Senator Kaufman. I am delighted to be here today with my colleagues to talk 

about things that have been on our agenda for years. 

As I pointed out in my testimony—which needs a few little grammatical corrections, I regret to say; my fingers type faster than the 

computer—these problems and issues have been with us at least, 

Senator, since 1968. As a matter of fact, I quoted from your report 

to the people of 1968 verbatim in my notes. So there is nothing new 

under the sun, but they have become exacerbated and aggravated 

by a whole series of things, some of which I may cover in my first 

5 minutes. But I am particularly irritated that many of these 

issues never would have come up if the city of Philadelphia had 

had the political will and the foresight to make needed changes 

when they became apparent. 

The witness relocation/protection issue has been with us since 

the early 1990s. Every year, from the first year I became district 

14 

attorney, virtually, I appeared before our city council and almost 

begged for witness relocation money. We do not call it protection 

because we do not have the benefits of the Federal changing of 

identities. And every year, the city of Philadelphia failed and refused to put just a little bit of money toward the issue of witness 

relocation, a lot of hand wringing, a lot of, ‘‘Oh, terrible thing,’’ 

‘‘Isn’t that awful?’’ But no money. 

When you want to help witnesses appear in court, you need to 

have the resources to put them some place. It is not the only thing 

that we can do, but it is a glaring error. 

If the court system had agreed to implement zone courts, which 

I had advocated after having visited Brooklyn, New York, in 1992, 

we would have saved millions of dollars in police overtime. We 

would have salvaged many more cases. We would have been more 

efficient, and we would have done the justice system proud. And 

what that essentially does is break down the court system, to make 

sure those police officers, as Justice McCaffery—one of my law students when he was a police officer, I might add; that is how far we 

go back. He was running all over to various courtrooms because 

they were not listed on the basis of geography. In other words, if 

he was in the 18th District, in criminal court, all he would have 

to do is go to a couple of courts next door to each other, where 

every case that arose in his district would have been disposed of. 

He would not have had to run all over the court system. 

Now, there were some minor amendments that had to be made 

for juvenile court, which was at 1801 Vine, but the criminal court 

is in City Hall, and preliminary hearings could have been easily 

addressed by zone courts, everything done by geography, line prosecution, and efficiency. But the judges consistently decided that 

they were not going to do this just for one reason. They were afraid 

that their record and their names would be known by the public, 

and this was something that they wanted to avoid at all costs. 

Failure of bail reform has been an issue that I have written to 

the mayors of Philadelphia—Rendell, Street, and Goode—sorry. 

Well, Rendell, Street, Goode was coming out as I was going in— 

and, of course, Mayor Nutter. The failure of bail reform also is a 

function of lack of political will. Everybody knew—everybody at 

this table who was in the criminal justice system, whether as a police officer or a defender or a prosecutor, knew that the bail system 

was a disaster, first started off by Wilson Goode when he agreed 

to a prison cap without any finding first that the prison conditions 

were inhumane or unconstitutional. And Professor Goldkamp and 

I worked on lots of things about bail. I have his letters here, by 

the way, from 1992 on the issue of bail and dealing with prisoners. 

Mr. GOLDKAMP. I interviewed you in 1976. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Well, I have been around a long time. 

So I can tell you that these problems are endemic. So I think efficiency in the court is not a good thing. I think just doing justice 

by numbers and statistics is never to be accepted as a substitute 

for a good system. But let me bring out in the few minutes that 

I have left some of the things that I need to bring out that others 

have not. 

Our jurors fail to appear at astounding rates. Sometimes as 

many as 50 percent of subpoenaed jurors never show up for jury 

15 

duty. The fact that we have a Hobbs Act Task Force and Federal 

alternatives to State crimes, which have been in existence since 

you and I first dealt with that back in the early 1990s, is an indication that our judges are not taking crime seriously and not sentencing them to appropriate State prisons, but instead are clogging 

up the local—State prisons, but instead are clogging up our local 

prisons. 

Our probation and parole officers have been decimated by these 

devastating cuts. Targeted social services and adequate oversight— 

can you turn that off, please?—probation and parole officers is really key to the end of recidivism and making sure that people get job 

training, services, mental health treatment, and the like. 

Electric home monitoring and GPS systems, now that they are 

apparently—and I say ‘‘apparently’’—tamper proof, are a great way 

to make sure that a defendant is known where he is at any given 

moment. It does not necessarily prevent a defendant from committing a crime. You can deal drugs with an electric home monitor, 

you can sexually assault women with electric home monitoring, you 

can commit crimes while you are on electric home monitoring, as 

long as you are in the geographic area that you are restricted to. 

But it does at least give a sense of where the probationer or parolee 

is without losing him. 

We have lost many, many, many cases because we have, I think, 

been inundated by the impact of electronics on our court system— 

Tweeting, Facebook, all those electronic gizmos that are now going 

to infect our court system. You know, there are judges in New Jersey who make their jurors sign pledges every day that they will not 

Tweet, Facebook, look up lawyers’ records, find out who the judge 

is, find out who is paying taxes, do their own investigations. I think 

that the electronic era as an influence on our courts to the detriment is something that really needs a tremendous amount of attention. 

I also recommended changing the treaty with Mexico. We have 

many, many defendants who come from and flee to Mexico, as well 

as huge amounts of drugs coming back over our borders from Mexico, and guns and money going south. This narcoterrorism really 

needs to take a second look, and I recommended as one of the 

things that you may wish to look at from the Federal level, changes 

in the treaty with Mexico to reflect modern realities. 

Another issue is that our prisons have become the residential 

mental health treatment facility of choice. I have to tell you, I 

know that you respected Judge Broderick, as I did. He was a great 

friend. Ray and Marjorie Broderick were friends of mine. I never 

agreed with him and still do not agree with his shutting down of 

mental hospitals in favor of an absolute prohibition on admission 

to mental hospitals, because it did not take into effect modern realities. And I will just end with this—— 

Chairman SPECTER. D.A. Abraham, I have asked other witnesses 

how much more time they would need. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Just one more minute. Just one more minute. 

Chairman SPECTER. OK. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Maybe even less. 

Chairman SPECTER. Fine. 

16 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think that the fact that we are using our prisons 

as mental hospitals is a terrible disservice to our prisoners, the 

mental health system, and the prisons. 

And, finally, I agree that I think that one of the things—well, 

most of these things that we are talking about today are local, and 

these are going to have to be solved locally. But one of the things, 

in addition to some of the things you and Senator Kaufman have 

already mentioned that you can do, is I believe that cameras almost everywhere are a great deterrent to crime and a great solution to criminal conduct. And you need to look at just two major 

cases: 

One, the Oklahoma City bombing case, where cameras really 

helped to solve the case dramatically, quickly, and also to an appropriate ending. 

But, more importantly, this past weekend in New York in Times 

Square. This case may be one of the most horrific cases that could 

have happened, but fortunately did not. But cameras are helping, 

and I believe that we need to do more with having cameras on the 

street all over the place to make sure that the public is safe and 

that criminals have less of a chance to be predators. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Abraham appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SPECTER. D.A. Abraham, when Ms. Linda Hoffman of 

my staff had talked to you extensively about the series in the Inquirer. You had wanted to state your side of it, and I would like 

to give you some more time now. A summary of the conclusions of 

the Inquirer series related to dismissals of so many people, the low 

conviction rate, the low guilty rate on gun assault cases. And I 

know you have reviewed those statistics in some detail. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Oh, I have. 

Chairman SPECTER. And I think that it would be appropriate and 

fair to give you an opportunity in this forum to comment, if you 

care to do so. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Oh, no, I do. As a matter of fact, it is in my recorded notes, but not perhaps as extensively as I might because, 

you know, how much time does one have to discuss weighty issues? 

But I thought that and I think that the Inquirer series missed—— 

Chairman SPECTER. We ought to run the clock, timekeeper. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think the Inquirer series did some good, and I 

gave them kudos where they deserved it. Where they do not deserve kudos, I also said so, and one of the issues was with regard 

to convictions. Because, as we pointed out to the Philadelphia Inquirer reporters, when they provided us finally with the information, they were comparing other places where felonies were 1 year 

with our felonies which are 5 years. And as a matter of fact, Mr. 

Gillison and Ms. Greenlee and I—well, I know Ms. Greenlee spoke 

out about it. We both agree that the Inquirer series did a tremendous disservice. 

So what they were doing was they were comparing a Bureau of 

Justice Statistics result from an old study with what we do in our 

courts, and we proved to them using their own figures that actually 

our conviction rate is about 85 percent overall. 

Now, I must say this, Senator. I never did justice by numbers. 

I never was interested in keeping statistics on wins or losses. I was 

17 

only interested in an individual case doing justice for the victim, 

for the accused, and for the system. But since we had to deal with 

numbers—and we do—on the basis of what we have been able to 

get from the courts and the police Department, our conviction rate 

is very high. Really where the problem is is in our municipal court, 

not in the courts of common pleas. The courts of common pleas 

have no backlog, and they have been handling cases appropriately. 

But in our municipal court, as I pointed out in my written testimony, we had judges who were interested in blowing out cases, according to Tom Ferrick of the Inquirer in his own article, because 

they were interested in making sure that they had the final word 

on what we should be doing as prosecutors. In other words, did we 

really overcharge? Which we never did, or almost never did. But 

what they did was they put us to the proof. First of all, they called 

the case early, so if a police officer was in another room, they blew 

out the case. If the witness was on his way, they did not want to 

wait; dismissal of the case. And this is because judges were interested in productivity, not justice. They had their own way of making us prove our case at a preliminary hearing beyond a reasonable 

doubt instead of just prima facie. You can get through 30 cases if 

all you have to do is prove ownership, non-permission, and that the 

defendant was in possession of something that the victim identified 

as his. But the courts would not accept the rules of evidence on 

hearsay. They had their own rules that they made up. Three 

strikes and you are out. If you could not get your case on in three 

appearances, even if it was in the time limit you had to try the 

case or bring the case, they dismissed it. That is productivity, but 

it is not justice. 

The rules of when we could bring cases were also unfairly 

skewed, both to the defense and the prosecution-–3 to 10 days 

within the day of arrest. This has been changed, I am about—I 

think I am about to say prospectively, that now it will be at least 

10 or 20 days after an arrest to have a case held at a preliminary 

hearing, because nobody can be ready. Discovery was never ready, 

and the defense always insisted on discovery, even to the weight 

of the drugs when it was not necessary for a preliminary hearing. 

More delay, more cases dismissed, and, of course, witness intimidation. 

And I must say, sort of counter to what Justice McCaffery said, 

citizens of Philadelphia from outlying areas do not like to come into 

center city Philadelphia. They have a skewed version of what happens in the city of Philadelphia. People really want to be out in 

their own neighborhoods for their own preliminary hearings, so one 

of the reasons why the centralization of preliminary hearings at 

the criminal justice system did not work was because people did 

not want to come into town, they could not afford to come into 

town, they did not have the time to come into town. So between 

intimidation, transportation, baby-sitting, and other issues, they 

just failed to show up. And, of course, witness intimidation is a 

huge issue, the ‘‘stop snitching’’ culture, the ‘‘do not snitch’’ is just 

infecting our criminal justice system. 

I think there are common-sense ways where, for example, people 

on the CJAB, which I was a member of before I left office, are comVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 061572 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\61572.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

ing to grips with some of these issues, and I think that will be a 

very salutary way. 

The Inquirer series did some things that were good. They got the 

quarter sessions clerk to resign. The Supreme Court has taken over 

the bail function, as it properly should. If we can get the bail situation as a system under control, we will go a lot farther in making 

sure we have fewer fugitives, a better bail system, a not-overcrowded jail system, and if we can especially get our mental health 

defendants out of our prison system, which are about a third of the 

population, and into appropriate treatment, properly funded, we 

will be going a long way. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you, D.A. Abraham, for those 

comments. You noted that the Philadelphia Inquirer series was 

very helpful in getting the changes in the clerk of quarter sessions, 

and now there are proposals for legislation so that the modernization of that unit is now possible, computerization, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. You are talking about the clerk’s office? 

Chairman SPECTER. The clerk of quarter sessions. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Yes, but, you see, here is what is wrong with this, 

Senator. This is not disrespectful to the Inquirer. This is something 

that I was writing Mayor Rendell about in 1998. It did not have 

to take these multiple stories, my multiple testimonies before city 

council to get this done. This should have been done. It was a lack 

of political will that would not get it done. The mayor did not want 

to do anything, council did not want to do anything, and, of course, 

as an elected official, I can understand that. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, D.A. Abraham, your letter to Mayor 

Rendell was not as heavily publicized as the Inquirer series. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Absolutely. But that is not the problem. I agree 

that the paper printed my letter, and I gave them the kudos they 

deserve. But that is not it. I am happy that the Inquirer is getting 

the discussion going, but it was unnecessary if we had the political 

will back in 1997 and 1996 and 1995 to make the changes that we 

need. That is all. 

Chairman SPECTER. You made a comment a few moments ago 

that the Inquirer performed a disservice. Would you say overall 

that the Inquirer series has been helpful in focusing—let me finish 

the question—in focusing public attention on the issue and motivating the Supreme Court to get into the picture and motivating 

the State Senate to have the hearings and calling it to the attention so that my colleagues in Washington are willing to authorize 

hearings by the Criminal Justice Subcommittee? Overall, wouldn’t 

you say that it is useful to have that focus, that your point—and 

this is just one aspect—in writing to the mayor and saying let us 

deal with the clerk of quarter sessions does not get a whole lot of 

attention, may not even be read? But the Inquirer buys ink by the 

barrel, as the old expression goes. 

So how would you evaluate the value of the Inquirer series overall? 

Ms. ABRAHAM. I think that if you are getting you and Senator 

Kaufman and other Senators and Congressmen in on this issue, 

this is nothing but good. Nothing but good can come of these hearings. I would not be here; you would not be here; all these panels 

19 

would not be here; and changes in the court system would not have 

come about. 

The pity is that these are all stories that have been written 

about for years, and nobody was willing to change anything. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, I think you are right that it has been 

a motivating factor to get people to do things which, as you say, 

the clerk of quarter sessions could have ended a long time ago. 

Let me ask my colleague’s opinion on that because I think it is 

a key point, if you would care to comment, Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Yes, well, I do not read the Inquirer regularly. I read the Wilmington News Journal. But I do think this is 

a problem. It is not just here in Philadelphia. I know wherever I 

go this is a problem and many of the same kinds of problems. You 

can literally take a laundry list. And I think Professor Goldkamp 

is right. I hate, you know, reinventing the wheel. I hate being the 

person that has to—I mean, I guarantee you there are places 

around this country where you can go—and we have done it, and 

we have done it on the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and brought in best practices and brought in 

things that worked everywhere. And Senator Specter has been one 

of the leaders in that, and my former boss, Senator Biden, when 

he was Chairman of the Committee, was a leader on that. 

But it is one of the things in our time, and it is not—you know, 

it is like criticizing the weather. You know, more and more, media 

is playing an important part in setting the agenda for what we do. 

And I think that what the Inquirer has done with this series, 

which laid out, again, a problem that everybody sitting at this table 

and anyone who has been involved in the system—I mean, I would 

say without a shadow of a doubt, if we got your predecessors for 

the last 25 years, sat them down in a room, just as Lynne Abraham 

is saying, there is nothing new under the sun. But I tell you, I am 

going to be doing this—I leave in November, and sitting here listening to this and having listened to it so many times in the past 

for so long—now, the ‘‘no snitch’’ thing is new, but the digitalization and modernization of the computer system, the LEAP program, which was a great program, the discontinuing of the revenue 

sharing that went to help the justice system, the problems of the 

indigent not getting what they deserve, the problems of people just 

walking in and out of the justice system like a revolving door—it 

is scary, because I really think we are reaching a point where these 

things—we have let this grow and grow and grow, and I could not 

agree with you more. No money at a local level for prosecutors, for 

defenders, for modernization, for courts, for the things around the 

courts. I mean, this is just—it is very scary to me, because I have 

just heard it for so long. And I just hope—and I think that is the 

main point the Chairman wants to make, is we have got to deal 

with these things. We absolutely have to deal with them. It is 

going to eat us alive. 

And so the idea that the Inquirer did a series on this is a good 

thing, and I am very sympathetic to Lynne Abraham because having watched these series develop, sometimes they—you know, to 

make a point, they stretch things. But I think the fact that they 

did this series is very, very important, and the fact that we are sitting here is very important. 

20 

I want to tell you, time is running out. We cannot do this again. 

We cannot come back here 10 years from now—I really believe it 

from the bottom of my being. We cannot come back 10 years from 

now and do this again. We have got to do some things about what 

has been raised by the panel, things we have to do in order to do 

the things that everybody agrees have to be done. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kaufman. 

We will now go to 10-minute rounds of questioning, and I will 

lead. 

A theme which has been mentioned repeatedly has been funding, 

a request for the old LEAA, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, revenue sharing. Senator Dole made a famous comment 

when revenue sharing ended. He said, ‘‘There is no more revenue 

to share.’’ We have had the stimulus package, the Recovery Act, 

$878 billion, in Pennsylvania $16 billion paying for unemployment 

compensation now and Medicaid. 

There was a lawsuit filed, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, District Attorney Arlen Specter, in 1973, against Ralph Dennis. He 

was a magistrate. You remember him, Justice McCaffery. Magistrate courts were eliminated in the 1969 Constitution after the 

magisterial investigation, which I ran in 1964, and sought a writ 

of mandamus to require judges to remain on duty for 8 hours. We 

used to have trouble taking the judge’s word. And it was dismissed; 

no clear right to the relief requested was the conclusion. 

There have been mandamus actions brought to compel public 

funding, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the 

authority of the court to mandamus funding for education in Kansas City, Missouri, which surprised me in that the responsibility of 

taxing has been traditionally legislative, really loosely legislative. 

But what do you think? I will turn to you first, Ms. Greenlee. 

You have a question about the adequacy of equality in the justice 

system, no doubt about that problem. It is sort of unthinkable that 

it was not until 1963 in Gideon v. Wainwright that there was a 

constitutional right to have a lawyer. If you are haled into court, 

Justice Black said you have a right to a lawyer. Before that, there 

was a right to a lawyer in a homicide case, charged with murder. 

Betts v. Brady gave us that. 

Would you go so far as to mandamus the legislature, the city 

council, the Commonwealth? You said the General Assembly has 

ignored the mandamus order in the past. Before taking up how 

they got away with it, which I will ask you about, should we resort 

to that, compelling the legislative bodies to appropriate funds? 

Ms. GREENLEE. If there is actually a way to do it, I think it is 

not a bad idea. I am really focused on Pennsylvania, although this 

is a national problem, and you see systems breaking down in 

Michigan and other States—Louisiana—throughout the country. 

There is not sufficient funding for indigent defense. 

In Pennsylvania, though, the system is really, really in crisis because it is a county-funded system, and the counties really simply 

cannot afford to pay for the criminal justice system with the increase in what they have to handle. 

Chairman SPECTER. How did the General Assembly avoid complying with the court order, which you referred to earlier? 

21 

Ms. GREENLEE. Beats me. I think they just simply ignored it all 

these years. They simply ignored it and—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Was there an application for a contempt citation? The court has the power to hold people in contempt who do 

not follow the judicial orders. 

Ms. GREENLEE. I am not aware of that. I do not know whether 

Justice McCaffery knows anything about it. I am not aware of anything recent where the court, in effect, ordered the legislature, 

other than 1985—I think it did come up since, but there has been 

no—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. They did. They did. 

Ms. GREENLEE. Yes. There has been no action by the legislature. 

Chairman SPECTER. Mr. Justice McCaffery, I am not going to ask 

you a question about that subject, but if you care to comment, I 

would be interested. I do not want to trespass on judicial prerogatives. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Senator, obviously I cannot comment on the 

case that is currently pending in front of our court dealing just 

with this very topic. As I am sure you are well aware, years ago 

when it first came up in the Allegheny County case, former Justice 

Matamura was tasked by the Supreme Court to come up with, if 

you will, a game plan for the assimilation of the county courts into 

the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. That did, in fact, 

start with the administrative officers and deputy court administrators. That was implemented. It was stalled, again, because of lack 

of funding. But to answer the question, there has not been any 

mandamus, and the court has been, quite frankly, trying to work 

with the legislature, but this year alone Chief Justice Castille was 

really handed a huge setback with a $31 million shortfall in the 

court budget. We are looking at a legislature now, Senator, that 

creates new judgeships, but yet fails to fund them. They create new 

programs, but they fail to fund them. And right now the new thing, 

if you will, are the problem-solving courts where I have taken a 

leading role. But as we keep pointing out, we are taking the judges 

and the court staff out of hide, and we are not getting new judges, 

we are not getting new staff personnel, nor can we open up new 

rooms because our friends in the Defenders Association and the 

district attorney, they do not have enough personnel to fund it. 

One of the things that we are looking at now, Senator, is all of 

the things that the courts are doing—and we are doing a lot. A lot 

of things have been implemented since the Inquirer articles. And, 

by the way, no disrespect to our former district attorney, but just 

real fast on that topic, you know, remember, in 1978 there was a 

huge study done on the municipal court, and it became what is 

known as shelf art. Nothing ever happened with it. We have seen 

so many times, myself included, where we are asking for a change, 

asking for help, and nothing happened. But it was not until the Inquirer article came out that we are now doing things, and the Supreme Court is now implementing them. The Supreme Court is 

taking the action. But for—and just so you know, Senator, that 

very first day it came out, I went out and bought out every single 

Sunday Inquirer at the local Wawa and sent it to my colleagues all 

over Pennsylvania—in Pittsburgh, Dauphin County, Cumberland 

22 

County—so they could see firsthand. So that article, that series of 

articles, helped us. 

Chairman SPECTER. You say the series of Inquirer articles has 

helped the issue by bringing it to the public forum? 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Significantly. Whether or not you agree or 

disagree with the substance of the articles, but for that series of 

articles, the entire Supreme Court has now been motivated to 

make the necessary changes, and we are aggressively pursuing it 

with all parties involved—defense, prosecution, courts, prisons, 

bail. All issues will be addressed. We have also brought in outside 

consultants who are going to prepare a full report, and our Supreme Court is committed to implementing the changes, and not 

only as we go along but—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Let me turn to the city representative on the 

issue of funding. Right now, President Obama has appointed a 

commission to evaluate the entire funding issue nationally, the 

issue of revenues, the issue of entitlements. There is no doubt 

that—talk about a crisis. The country is in a crisis with the deficit 

that we have and the national debt in excess of $12 trillion. May 

the record show the D.A. shaking her head in the affirmative. And 

we really have to deal with the deficit and the national debt. 

But how would you respond, as the mayor’s representative, Deputy Mayor Gillison, with the issue of funding? What more can the 

city do? 

Mr. GILLISON. Well, I think that the city is obviously handcuffed 

by the fact that the revenues that we have lost over the last 2 

years put us in the position where we are trying to seek efficiencies 

everywhere. We have actually gone to Washington—the budget director and the finance director here, Rob Dubow and Steve Agostini 

have gone to Washington, have discussed with the administration 

there that the TARP funding and the way that the country rallied 

in order to save the banking institutions, we are saying that we 

should be saving cities that are—where the rubber hits the road, 

and to be able to use some of the monies that have been repaid 

under the TARP funding to help cities basically get themselves out 

and reallocated those dollars. 

I can tell you that—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Absent Federal funding, Deputy Mayor 

Gillison, what can the city do? 

Mr. GILLISON. The city can only beg, borrow, and basically borrow some more. 

Chairman SPECTER. Beg, borrow . . . there was one additional 

comment. 

Mr. GILLISON. I did not get to the last one because we cannot do 

that. But we are begging at the State level. We have been taxing 

ourselves trying to get down. We have been cutting. And criminal 

justice is one area where we took our first cut, and I have been saying that at this point we cannot cut any more because basically at 

this point all we would be cutting is bodies. 

I cannot lay off police officers, really. I cannot lay off firefighters, 

really. I cannot go into the prisons where we have now prisons that 

are going on and lay those folks off. And—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Before my time expires, I want to come to 

Professor Goldkamp on a two-part question. You have a nice 

23 

phrase, Professor Goldkamp, ‘‘reverse deterrence.’’ I had not heard 

deterrence used exactly that way in reverse. But the two-part question is: With respect to the so-called three strike rule and the dismissal of cases, I would like your comment on whether that can 

stand up, should stand up? And the second part is about the use 

of hearsay in preliminary hearings. We all know that hearsay is 

used in Federal grand juries. Would you think it appropriate to 

have hearsay in preliminary hearings so the police officer can testify from the report and establish a prima facie case? 

Mr. GOLDKAMP. Well, we can get back to reverse deterrence, and 

I would like to be cautious about commenting on small pieces of 

strategies that we hear are emerging without knowledge of the full 

approach. 

I agree that the problem of dismissals is a huge one, but it also 

has been a traditional one. In fact, this is a terrific example of a 

problem that exists in every jurisdiction and has been documented 

as a major concern since the 1920s, if not before. When you look 

at some of the commission reports from the 1920s and 1930s that 

were done, dismissals were one of the biggest issues involved. A 

principal cause of large numbers of dismissals is found at the 

charging stage and that function has a lot to do with the quality 

of cases that are sent forward into the court system. Weak cases 

do not survive the preliminary hearing stage. This can happen 

sometimes as a result of law enforcement initiatives, for example, 

when the system has to handle sweeps that produce large volumes 

of arrests. All of the resulting arrests are not the strongest cases. 

Often making strong cases is not the point of the law enforcement 

actions. 

When it comes to ad hoc fixes such as hearsay and the three 

strikes, I certainly do share the system’s impatience with difficulties experienced by both sides, including witnesses and victims, and 

defendants not showing up. However, I worry about the ‘‘downstream’’ side-effects of such short sighted measures: Are we making 

bigger problems in the long-run by putting off systemic changes 

today? Some of the causes of these problems have to do with this 

culture of alienation which we experience in Philadelphia. A real 

good start—with steps by DA Williams underway—is to review the 

charging function and to strengthen that. And if cases arrive in 

better shape, you will not see dismissals at the rate that we have 

been seeing them recently. 

But I would step aside from discussing things that are being 

worked on without knowledge of the overall plan and proposals 

that are only being heard about piece by piece. I would like to get 

back to your question about the Inquirer and whether its coverage 

was worthwhile or not. 

I think that opportunity comes in a time of crisis. Since I have 

been around here—and it has been a very long time—we get things 

done usually because of litigation or some other kind of crisis when 

all of a sudden we have to all get together and look at everything 

and come up with some good corrective ideas. 

In the current environment what I am concerned about, however, 

is making the mistake of producing ad hoc emergency measures 

that then do not go away or do not get adjusted later when the din 

dies down. We have some such measures still in effect from the 

24 

days of the 1990s that need to be re-examined, as plenty of things 

do right now. 

Chairman SPECTER. So you mentioned whether the Inquirer series was worthwhile. What is your bottom line? 

Mr. GOLDKAMP. I think it was very worthwhile not necessarily 

because of its accuracy in all areas, but because of the scope of 

issues that the series raised. They are important issues. I think the 

issues and discussions of dismissals, fugitives particularly, backlog, 

and crowding. I know there are those that think we have cured jail 

crowding in Philadelphia. I advise that we take advantage of the 

little breathing space that we have regarding jail crowding, to put 

reforms in place before the next tidal wave engulfs us one more. 

So the inquirer has pinpointed and made very public some of our 

most difficult challenges. Court systems are among the least funded and most overlooked function in the justice arena, if you take 

the court system to mean a broad collection of various functions 

and agencies. Everybody just expects them to work—with or without sufficient resources. Everyone expects them to accept whatever 

business shows up at their doorstep, and yet criticizes them when, 

all of a sudden, we have difficulties because we cannot staff the 

things that we need to staff to make the system function effectively. Well, that’s where we are. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Professor Goldkamp. 

Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Yes, first off, on hearsay, the evidence is that 

it works very well in Delaware, having hearsay in preliminary 

hearings. And I really do believe going around and checking with 

other folks and seeing what works is very effective, so I would recommend that. And deficits, I discussed in a minute, Senator Specter and I both really, really, really care about the deficits. But we 

are not going to solve the deficit. If we eliminated all non-defense 

discretionary spending, which is about $500 billion, it would not 

solve a $1.4 trillion deficit. 

So there is a lot of stuff going on in Washington talking about 

we are going to eliminate this program—if we eliminated all the 

criminal justice programs, if we eliminated the Coast Guard, if we 

eliminated the highway fund, if we eliminated all those things, that 

is not going to solve the problem. We have to do something about, 

as the Chairman spoke about, we have got to do something about 

entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We have to 

do something, figure out where the money is, defense. 

And I will tell you what has been the biggest growing thing in 

the deficit is interest on the debt, which interest rates are low now, 

it is going to go through the roof. So we need a major decision on 

this. I think we have to watch every penny we spend. But this is 

a crisis, and this is a national security crisis. And I think that at 

some point we are going to have to get into it. 

So what I would like to do, every one of you has spoken a little 

bit about what you would like the Federal Government to get involved in terms of money. What I would like to do is talk about the 

budget and then be thinking about some non-budget things, as Ms. 

Abraham said about a treaty with Mexico. 

25 

So, Justice McCaffery, you talked about the LEA Program, a new 

criminal justice program. What would be the very, very high priority things you would like to see in that? 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Quite frankly, I would like to see some statutory help requiring the proper funding in every State for the court 

systems. I think that that is something that obviously the U.S. Supreme Court has looked at, and I agree with that, because, quite 

frankly, the judiciary—even though we are a co-equal branch of 

Government, we are treated as a subsidiary, and we are the ones 

that go hat in hand at the end of the day to the budgetary process 

where our Chief Justice has to walk into our friends in the legislature, after they have already, you know, made up their mind on the 

budget, and then we get, by the way, less than 1 percent of the 

State budget. Less than 1 percent. And I think that it would be 

only right if the Federal Government could step up to the plate and 

mandate reasonable funding for all criminal justice partners in 

every State, because then it would eliminate the requirement for 

us to politicize ourselves by walking in and almost begging for financial support. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Yes, one of the problems we have, I think it 

is—and it is not a problem—it really is a problem, and that is, unfunded mandates. I mean, I think it is very difficult to get—and 

the Chairman can comment—I think it is very difficult these days 

to get something through the Congress that is an unfunded mandate where you mandate that the States have to do something but 

you do not put the money in it to pay for it. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Senator, I have spoken to other Justices 

from other States, and they have in their States—Ohio is an example. If the legislature creates a judgeship, it must be funded. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Right. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Pennsylvania just created 11 new common 

pleas judges-–11 new, not filling old, 11 new. That is $1 million 

apiece. That is $11 million that we do not have. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Is there anything else that you—in terms of 

anything else the Federal Government should be doing that 

you—— 

Justice MCCAFFERY. I really think that if we could look back on 

the LEAP program, really, the Criminal Justice Assistance Program would go a long way to help all of our—especially our urban 

areas because, remember, even though it is Philadelphia, it is regional. It is Bucks, Montgomery, South Jersey. 

Senator KAUFMAN. It is Delaware. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Exactly. It is a regional issue, and we really 

need to look at—one-third of our defendants in the criminal justice 

system in Philadelphia were not from Philadelphia. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Mr. Gillison, you talked eloquently about the 

need for digitalization and things. What would be the top priority 

if, in fact—— 

Mr. GILLISON. There are two, and technology is at the root of 

both. Obviously, digitalization, technology improvements. I know 

the Federal Government likes to invest in things that it can not 

only touch but see and see the effect. 

26 

The other thing is that we have to start really talking about an 

interconnected way of dealing with how you advise people on their 

rights. 

One of the things that you have to be sensitive to is what Ms. 

Abraham was talking about when she said that the mental health 

situation in the prisons is because there is no funding in the mental health courts—or the mental health situations outside of the 

prisons, so they are becoming the de facto place. 

So we have the mental health situation impacting on prisons 

where prisons have really not guide—you know, they’re to be there. 

So I would end up looking at how do we end up interconnecting 

those particular agencies—mental health, the prisons, and be able 

to use release of information forms so people’s rights are protected, 

but if you happen to be in a prison, if you happen to be there, you 

can still get what you need and funding for it that goes with it. So 

that the place that you get the treatment should actually—the 

money should actually follow the person rather than just artificially saying that because I am not in an outpatient facility I cannot access certain dollars. If you are inside and you are getting 

help, why should your dollars be cut off? 

So that is something that the Federal Government actually has 

and stands in the way right now, and if we could get that kind of 

cooperation, I think that would help us as well. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Ms. Greenlee, do you want to give a little bit 

of the indigent problem, what the Federal Government should do 

in indigent defense? 

Ms. GREENLEE. Well, I think the main thing for me would be to 

have parity of resources between prosecution and defense. I think 

that is the main issue. For instance, in the area of digital technology, we have for years tried to get funding for our computers to 

get up to speed, to be able to have electronic files. We are still in 

the paper stage in terms of our files, passing files around. We have 

been turned down by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 

Delinquency and actually turned down by the city of Philadelphia 

repeatedly in the last 20 years. 

So I think that raises that issue of parity of resources, and I 

think also to give some life to the idea of loan forgiveness for people who are serving in public interest jobs would encourage people 

to be able to work in our jobs. We ask our young lawyers for a commitment of 3 years, and it is really a struggle for them, with the 

loans that they bring with them, to be able to do this job. So I 

would lump it under the issue of parity of resources both for prosecution and for defense. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Mr. Goldkamp, you talked about fugitives, 

but I have a feeling there are some other areas of interest that you 

might have where the Federal Government should be involved. 

Mr. GOLDKAMP. Sure. I would say two areas. First, the courts— 

and the whole justice system but principally the courts—have become the social service institution of last resort, and I have had 

lots to do and been involved in the development of what you call 

special courts over the years. They all start with little grants, and 

then you walk off, and you say, Do a good job and go get a big target population and make a difference, but funds are out because 

you have used your three things and that is all you get. And now 

27 

the courts are stuck with all sorts of different kinds of very good 

special courts, but talk about an unfunded mandate. So I think 

that is an issue. 

But here is the big one that is very broad, and it is the wave of 

the future. We are going to be managing larger numbers of defendants and offenders in the community. There is no help for it. Parolees, probationers, and defendants. We lack hard-nosed methods 

that have been tested, tried and true. The district attorney has 

mentioned a few of those, but there are a whole variety of kinds 

of things that we need. So we better learn pretty soon how to manage safely—and this does take resources because it involves public 

safety, people in the community, appropriately. And that is—I 

would say that fugitives, however, we do not even know how to 

measure fugitives. When we think of the problem of fugitives, in 

Philadelphia, we have peeked under the skirt of fugitives. It is a 

secret thing, and all sorts of other places. It is something that is 

not known in the country. We need to learn how to measure that. 

And, finally, I would say there is one thing—and I agree with the 

district attorney on this—that is not about funding, and that is political will. And often we substitute crisis for political will to make 

change that we already know needs to occur. So if you could give 

us a little political will, I think we would all greatly benefit. Thank 

you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KAUFMAN. I am not even going to touch that. 

Ms. Abraham. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Well, could I speak to it and then I will—I am always in an alternative universe, so let me bring up some things 

that have not yet been touched upon. 

Obviously, with all the hoo-ha about the Arizona law that recently passed, we are forgetting that one of the most important 

issues facing the criminal justice system is how do we protect our 

borders from a national security point of view, but also immigrants 

who are here illegally. I do not care what you call them—undocumented. They are not here lawfully. They are illegal immigrants. 

How do we handle the issue of criminal justice issues with illegal 

immigrants? Never mind the—and the language barrier and the 

cultural barriers and everything else. 

I think that part of our criminal justice system of things that do 

not directly impact us locally—and I will get to a couple local 

things in a minute, but human body parts, a cadaver, illegal use 

of cadavers and transportation into this country, that is a huge 

issue. 

Obviously, narcoterrorism has involved a tremendous amount of 

the Senate and the House’s time and the President’s time, which 

I, of course, support. 

Another great issue coming along that is going to hit us in ways 

that we do not even contemplate are the massive computer hacking 

issues that come from countries that not even the Federal Government can handle, from China to Nigeria, to Australia, to wherever 

it is, the massive computer hacking that violates not only our national security and imperils our very safety, but also because its 

global scale has direct relation to criminal conduct, whether it is 

identity theft, fake passports, invasion of our privacy, whatever 

28 

that means under today’s lack of privacy, credit card frauds, house 

stealing—you know, all kinds of fake documents including what is 

getting to be our national identity card, our driver’s license. 

Human trafficking of both adults and children is an unbelievable 

issue, and for us, probably more locally than globally, scientific enhancements. 

You know, I remember that prosecutors used to go crazy when 

they first started to talk about DNA. And then we discovered that 

it was probably one of the best things to happen. DNA helps prosecutors. Now we are faced with the National Science Academy, 

NSA, coming up with all kinds of new scientific gizmos. If you 

think that the issues that Justice McCaffery and Everett and Ellen 

and John and I have been talking about are big, wait until we get 

hit with all this new kind of scientific stuff that is going to be required, not only that our labs be, let us say, ASCLD certified, but 

how are we going to be handling all this super-scientific stuff that 

nobody has the capacity to buy or learn or do, but which are going 

to be imposed upon us by the courts because that is the wave of 

the future? 

It is sort of like the prison cap in reverse. The Prison Litigation 

Reform Act, which I lobbied for and my office helped to write, was 

great. It stopped judges from imposing prison caps. So what do the 

judges do? Now they started to change it. No more prison caps. We 

are going to change the conditions of imprisonment. We are going 

to insist that the prisons put this kind of program in, without a 

concern for what the cost, the human cost is. Ask Justice 

McCaffery. He is laughing over there. 

I think that there are so many things that are going to be driven 

by just the irreducible minimum. Obviously, from my point of view, 

political will, the desire to change—I am a change agent. I am always throwing spears and trying to make changes. Political will is 

one thing, but when it is the irreducible minimum, it is all going 

to be in dollars. That is where the rubber meets the road. And 

whether you have a $12 trillion deficit or a $15 quintillion deficit, 

the problems are still going to be hanging around our necks until 

we have sufficient resources to address them in a humane and a 

comprehensive fashion. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPECTER. Thank you, Senator Kaufman. 

Ms. Greenlee, the issue about loans has been addressed to a very 

substantial extent in a recent reconciliation bill, which provides for 

loan forgiveness, and I am a cosponsor of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders bill, which specifies loan forgiveness for defenders. 

Ms. GREENLEE. Right. 

Chairman SPECTER. Well, thank you all very much. One final 

question. Is there anything specifically, aside from the funding 

issue, that you would like to see legislation on? Now is a good time 

with a couple Judiciary Committee members listening. 

Ms. GREENLEE. No more laws. We have enough to see us into the 

next millennium. 

[Laughter.] 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Senator, can you get the SERVE Act passed 

for our veterans? 

29 

Chairman SPECTER. For veterans, yes, we can. I think we will 

move ahead on that. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Let me tell you one thing about—you know, 

everybody talks about bipartisanship in Washington and how hard 

it is. There are a number of issues that you always get bipartisan 

support—I have never seen it in all the years I have been around 

the Senate—and that is veterans. I mean, you sit in a hearing, and 

it is just like, ‘‘What can we do more for our veterans?’’ And, you 

know, what our people do, what our folks are doing, especially in 

Afghanistan and Iraq right now, is—I mean, the sacrifices they are 

making, their families are making, and I am so proud of the Congress because we are putting out really good things to take care of 

veterans that come back but also take care of our veterans from 

previous wars. It is really a bipartisan issue. It goes right to the 

bone. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Senator Kaufman, Senator Specter held 

hearings in Pittsburgh. I flew out for the hearings in support of our 

veterans courts, serving veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Our district attorney’s office, our public defender’s office are 

working here in Philadelphia County, but they have opened in Allegheny County, Scranton, Pennsylvania, and here. And we are trying to get them statewide, but, again, it all comes down to funding. 

And I know—I believe both of you gentlemen were cosponsors of 

the SERVE Act, along with Senator Kerry, but we need that money 

into the States to help our veterans with the VA. And, by the way, 

the VA has been absolutely wonderful in supporting our programs. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SPECTER. Justice McCaffery, I think that legislation 

has a good chance. For those who do not know the contours of it, 

it provides for a veterans court where the court has special sensitivity to what the veteran has gone through. A veteran comes into 

court with post-traumatic stress disorder might explain what goes 

on and that you need—it is very useful to have some expertise by 

the judge, by the court in dealing with that. I have legislation 

pending under the caption of a Veterans Bill of Rights which deals 

with a number of items. One of them is expanding the veterans 

court. Another is the plan to eliminate homelessness for veterans 

and the issue of tax credits to employ veterans. But as Senator 

Kaufman points out, that is a big, big issue, and that is one which 

is being addressed on a bipartisan basis. 

Well, thank you, Justice McCaffery—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Could I just take a point of privilege, Senator, 

since you asked? I know that you and others on the Senate Judiciary Committee and elsewhere have supported Senator Webb’s—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Crime Commission. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. What is it called? 

Chairman SPECTER. Crime Commission. I am the cosponsor—— 

Ms. ABRAHAM. The Crime Commission of 2010—— 

Chairman SPECTER. Webb-Specter. 

Ms. ABRAHAM. Yes. The preamble to his putting this bill up for 

consideration got me a little bit nervous when he tried to compare 

China’s imprisonment system to ours and Japan’s. But let that go 

for the time being. The bill has been voted on, and there is going 

to apparently be a commission. All I am going to request is that 

30 

when the commission—which seems to be very, very small—is considered, it be enlarged because I do not think the commission membership number is broad enough to be a comprehensive review of 

the criminal justice system. And I will volunteer my services to be 

a member of the commission if you see me fit to serve. 

Chairman SPECTER. OK. Thank you, Justice McCaffery, D.A. 

Abraham, Deputy Mayor Gillison, Ms. Greenlee, and Professor 

Goldkamp. 

That concludes our hearing. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

31 


61572.001
32 


61572.002
33 


61572.003
34 


61572.004
35 


61572.005
36 


61572.006
37 


61572.007
38 


61572.008
39 


61572.009
40 


61572.010
41 


61572.011
42 


61572.012
43 


61572.013
44 


61572.014
45 


61572.015
46 


61572.016
47 


61572.017
48 


61572.018
49 


61572.019
50 


61572.020
51 


61572.021
52 


61572.022
53 


61572.023
54 


61572.024
55 


61572.025
56 


61572.026
57 


61572.027
58 


61572.028
59 


61572.029
60 


61572.030
61 

Æ 


61572.031