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

35–116 PDF 2007

COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 660 

MAY 3, 2007 

Serial No. 110–108 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 3, 2007 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007’’ .................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge, Maryland Court of Appeals 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

The Honorable John F. Clark, Director, United States Marshals Service, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 36 

The Honorable David Bryan Sentelle, Chair, Judicial Conference Committee 

on Judicial Security, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 59 

(1) 

COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT 

OF 2007 

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Forbes, Coble, and Lungren. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Gregory Barnes, Majority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; 

and Veronica L. Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on H.R. 

660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007.’’ 

This is a bill that was introduced by Chairman Conyers, Representative Gohmert from Texas, and myself back in January of 

this year. The legislation is identical to a court security bill that 

was introduced in the Senate and recently passed by that body by 

unanimous vote. 

The importance of judicial security has been underscored by recent murders: the family members of a Chicago Federal judge in 

2005, and the killings less than 2 weeks later of a State court 

judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta courthouse. 

Surprisingly, these acts of violence also make their way to our 

Nation’s highest court, whereby Supreme Court justices as of late 

have also been the intended targets of violence, threats and other 

forms of intimidation. 

For example, in March of last year, the public learned about 

death threats made against Supreme Court justices back in 2005. 

More than a few months ago it was revealed that home-baked cookies infused with rat poison had been mailed to all nine justices in 

2005. And, according to media reports, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was quoted as saying, ‘‘Each one contained enough poison to 

kill the entire membership of the Court.’’ 

These acts of violence, along with numerous others, led to the introduction of H.R. 660, which, among other things, seeks to improve judicial security for court officers and safeguards judges and 

2 

their families at home. The legislation achieves these objectives by 

making several noteworthy changes in existing law. 

For example, it calls for an increase in consultation between the 

U.S. Marshals Service and the Judicial Conference of the United 

States to ensure that the Conference’s views on security requirements for the judicial branch are taken into account when determining staffing levels, setting priorities for security programs, and 

allocating judicial security resources. 

In addition, to guaranteeing that the Marshals Service will have 

adequate resources to carry out their newfound responsibilities, the 

legislation authorizes an additional $20 million per year over the 

course of the next 5 years for the purpose of hiring new marshals 

to investigate threats and to provide protective details to judges 

and assistant U.S. attorneys. 

The measure authorizes $100 million in grants to States and 

local government to expand and create witness protection programs 

that will have as their primary focus preventing threats, intimidation and retaliation against witnesses of victims of violent crimes. 

In closing, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on 

the aforementioned set of issues, as well as their thoughts or concerns that may relate to any other topic that may fall within the 

scope of this bill. 

With that said, it is now my pleasure to recognize my colleague 

from Virginia, the Honorable Randy Forbes, who represents Virginia’s 4th Congressional District, for his comments. 

[The bill, H.R. 660, follows:] 

3 


HR660-1.eps
4 


HR660-2.eps
5 


HR660-3.eps
6 


HR660-4.eps
7 


HR660-5.eps
8 


HR660-6.eps
9 


HR660-7.eps
10 


HR660-8.eps
11 


HR660-9.eps
12 


HR660-10.eps
13 


HR660-11.eps
14 


HR660-12.eps
15 


HR660-13.eps
16 


HR660-14.eps
17 


HR660-15.eps
18 


HR660-16.eps
19 


HR660-17.eps
20 


HR660-18.eps
21 


HR660-19.eps
22 


HR660-20.eps
23 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And thank all the witnesses for being here. We look forward to 

your testimony today. 

I appreciate your holding this legislative hearing, Mr. Chairman, 

on H.R. 660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007.’’ 

In the last few years, we have seen unprecedented levels of violence involving judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, law enforcement officers and courthouse employees who play a critical role in 

our judicial system. 

The killing of family members of United States District Judge 

Joan Lefkow and the brutal slayings of Judge Roland Barton, his 

court reporter, a deputy sheriff and a Federal officer in Atlanta, 

and the cold-blooded shootings outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse 

all underscore the importance of protecting judges, courthouse personnel, witnesses, law enforcement and their family members. 

This is a problem that is threatening the very integrity of our judicial system. According to the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts, there are almost 700 threats a year made against 

Federal judges. And in numerous cases, Federal judges have had 

security details assigned to them for fear of attack by members of 

terrorist associates, violent gangs, drug organizations, and disgruntled litigants. 

Federal prosecutors and defense counsel face similar threats and 

challenges. The problem of witness intimidation and threats has 

continued to grow, particularly at the State and local level, where 

few, if any, resources are available to protect witnesses, victims 

and their families. 

The bill before the Subcommittee includes some of the judicial security provisions which were passed last Congress as part of H.R. 

1751, the ‘‘Secure Access to Justice and Courthouse Protection Act,’’ 

which passed the House 375 to 45, and H.R. 4472, the ‘‘Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act,’’ which passed by a voice vote. 

Unfortunately, the Senate did not enact H.R. 1751, despite the 

strong pressure to do so. 

While I support H.R. 660 because it includes provisions we already passed, I am concerned that the bill omits protection of a key 

player in the judicial system: our Nation’s law enforcement officers. 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 55 law enforcement 

officers were feloniously killed in the United States in 2005. The 

previous year, 57 officers were killed in the United States. In the 

10-year period from 1996 to 2005, a total of 575 law enforcement 

officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the United 

States, 102 of whom were killed in ambush situations, in entrapment or premeditated situations. If not for the advent of bulletproof 

vests, an additional 400 officers would have been killed over the 

last decade. 

More than 57,000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in 

2005, or one in every 10 officers serving in the United States. And 

the numbers have been increasing since 1999, even as other crime 

has decreased or held steady. 

As the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police noted, 

‘‘There is less respect for authority in general and police officers 

specifically.’’ The predisposition of criminals to use firearms is 

probably at the highest point in our history. 

24 

If we are going to protect judges, courthouse personnel and witnesses, we need to protect the most important witness, in many 

cases: the police officer. We can pass all the laws we want, but 

without effective law enforcement there will be no trial and no justice. 

H.R. 1751 included an important provision to protect the safety 

of our law enforcement officers, and these provisions, unfortunately, are not in this bill. I know that my colleague, Representative Gohmert, is working on legislation to address law enforcement 

officers’ concerns, and I am hopeful that the Subcommittee will address these important issues. 

We must continue to work together in a bipartisan effort to ensure that our judicial system operates in a safe environment. 

Judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement must 

not have to face threats and violence when carrying out their duties. 

At the State and local level, there is dire need to provide basic 

security services in the courtroom and for witnesses, and H.R. 660 

represents a good first step in that direction. But, in my view, 

there is more we can and should do to address this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing. I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here to help us consider the important issues that are currently before us. 

Our first witness will be Chief Judge Robert M. Bell. He began 

his tenure on the bench in 1975 as a District Court judge for the 

city of Baltimore, Maryland. He next served as a judge in a Circuit 

Court for Baltimore until 1984, when he was appointed the judge 

of the Court of Special Appeals in Maryland. In 1991 he was appointed to the Court of Appeals in Maryland, and 2 short years 

later he was elected to serve as Chief Judge of the Maryland Court 

of Appeals, the State’s highest court. 

He is the only active judge in the State to have served at least 

4 years at all four levels of Maryland’s judiciary, and the first African-American to be named the State’s chief jurist. He received his 

Bachelor of Arts degree from Morgan State Universitye and his 

J.D. from Harvard University Law School. 

Next we have John F. Clark, the current director of the U.S. 

Marshals Service. Prior to his employment as director, Mr. Clark 

served as U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, which 

includes Alexandria, Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia. Throughout 

his career, he held numerous senior management positions in the 

Marshals Service, including serving as chief of the Internal Affairs 

Division and chief of the International Fugitive Investigation Division. Before joining the U.S. Marshals, he was employed by the 

United States Capitol Police and the U.S. Border Patrol. He holds 

a Bachelor of Science degree from Syracuse University. 

Finally, we will have Judge David B. Sentelle. He was appointed 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. He also serves as chairman of the United States Judicial 

Conference Committee on Judicial Security. Throughout his career, 

he has held numerous positions in the legal profession, including 

serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Charlotte, North Carolina, 

and teaching at the law schools of the University of North Carolina 

25 

and Florida State. He had the honor of serving as the presiding 

judge of the Special Division of the Court of Appointment of Independent Counsel. He is an honors graduate from the University of 

North Carolina Law School. 

Each witness has introduced a written statement already, which 

will be made a part of the record in its entirety, so I would ask that 

each witness summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

To help you stay within the time, there is a timing device right 

in front of us. When 1 minute is left, the yellow switch will go on 

and, finally, to red when the 5 minutes are up. 

We will begin with Judge Bell. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. BELL, 

CHIEF JUDGE, MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 

Judge BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Forbes 

and Members of the Committee. It is my privilege to be here today 

to provide testimony for consideration by this Subcommittee, and 

I do so on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. 

The Conferences’ membership consists of the highest judicial officers and State court administrators in each of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories of American Samoa, Guam 

and the Virgin Islands. 

The National Center for State Courts serves as the secretariat 

for the two conferences, and it provides supportive services to State 

court leaders throughout the country, including original research, 

consulting services, publications and national education programs. 

I am pleased that here today with me are Jose Dimas and Kay 

Farley of the National Center staff. I mention them because they 

will be providing you with any follow-up information that you may 

need, any answers to questions that I am not able to provide. 

Ours is a democratic republic, the foundation for which is the 

rule of law. The rule of law, of course, requires a strong and independent judiciary. And that, of course, depends in turn upon full 

and fair dispensation of justice, as well as the full and complete access to justice by the citizens. And if those two things are produced, 

it will result in the citizens having trust and confidence in the 

courts, the judiciary. 

To be sure, the Federal courts are critical actors and must obtain 

complete resources for the benefit of which they will be able to pursue their function. But it cannot be gainsaid that so, too, are the 

State courts. They touch huge numbers of people, indeed 95 or 

more percent of the total litigation in the country. 

We believe that Congress has an opportunity now to make an important and tangible difference in improving the safety of our 

courts and upholding the fundamentals of our democratic society. 

Today thousands of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement officers, court personnel, court reporters, jurors, witnesses, victims, members of the general public, went into a courtroom. They came and they come for one purpose: They come to seek 

that full and fair justice, and they seek it in a safe and a neutral 

forum. 

26 

It is critical, indeed vital, that we ensure the public’s ability to 

resolve their disputes, to receive that justice, to present their evidence and expect judges to rule solely on the basis of the law, 

uninfluenced by outside influences or by intimidation. To accomplish this, we must provide a forum free from fears, threats and violence. 

It cannot be doubted that people will hesitate or refuse to bring 

their disputes to courts if a likely consequence is intimidation or 

physical harm. Judges and jurors, of course, cannot pursue the 

trust if they or their families are threatened. 

We have provided in the written statement some examples from 

our constituents, States such as Alaska, Arizona, California, New 

Mexico, Maryland, about incidences of threats to judges. And I urge 

your consideration of that. 

With those things in mind, we are urging that you consider, in 

addition to the provisions already in the bill, including provisions 

that would create a new Federal grant program specifically targeted to assess and enhance State court security, a program that 

would assist States to conduct assessments and implement court 

security improvements deemed necessary based on those assessments. 

We ask that the highest State court in each of these States and 

territories be eligible to apply for the funds. Federal funds are, of 

course, valuable seed money for State courts. 

We are also asking that you ensure that State and local courts 

are eligible to apply directly for discretionary Federal funding. 

State and local courts have not been able to apply directly for some 

Department of Justice Administrative programs because of the definition of unit of government. The result of this language is that 

the State and local court is not able to apply directly for discretionary funds but must ask an executive agency to submit an application on their behalf. 

As you provide oversight role to the DOJ and as grant programs 

are revisited, we ask that the definition of eligible entities be 

broadened so that State and local courts can apply directly for discretionary Federal grant funds. 

And, finally, we ask that you ensure that State courts are included in the planning for disbursement for Federal funding administered by State executive agencies. Statutory language for 

grant programs that impact the justice system should include specific language requiring consultation and consideration of State 

court needs. We have provided some language we would urge you 

to include, in the written testimony. And I will not repeat it here. 

State courts of this country welcome the Subcommittee’s interest 

in the security of the courts. We look forward to working with the 

Subcommittee to develop legislation that addresses State court security needs and takes into account the varied needs of the State 

courts of this country. 

We commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and for 

recognizing the national interest in ensuring that our judiciary and 

courts must operate in a safe and secure environment. 

We thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Bell follows:] 

27 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. BELL


Bell1.eps
28 


Bell2.eps
29 


Bell3.eps
30 


Bell4.eps
31 


Bell5.eps
32 


Bell6.eps
33 


Bell7.eps
34 


Bell8.eps
35 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Clark? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Forbes 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before 

you today to answer your questions on H.R. 660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007.’’ 

I am also pleased and honored to appear today and be seated between two distinguished Members of the judiciary. 

This bill, among its many provisions, authorizes needed additional resources for the Marshals Service to continue to meet our 

judicial security responsibilities. 

It would also allow us to enhance the services of the Office of 

Protective Intelligence, our core operational unit charged with analyzing and disseminating threat information so that all threats can 

be mitigated before harm comes to members of the judicial family. 

Resources would also go to hiring more Deputy U.S. Marshals, 

not only to investigate threats, but to provide for the protection so 

often needed for judges, prosecutors and their families. 

This bill also helps judges better protect themselves by allowing 

them to continue to redact personal information from their financial disclosure reports. 

The bill acts to defer threats by adding more Federal penalties 

for threatening court officials. 

The bill also finally closes a long-existing loophole that did not 

classify certain weapons as dangerous weapons prohibited inside a 

courthouse. 

Passage of this legislation would go a long way in helping the 

Marshals Service provide the absolute best security for our judicial 

families. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to provide 

whatever input I can to assist in this process. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:] 

36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. CLARK


JFC0001.eps
37 


JFC0002.eps
38 


JFC0003.eps
39 


JFC0004.eps
40 


JFC0005.eps
41 

Mr. SCOTT. Judge Sentelle? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID BRYAN SENTELLE, 

CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL 

SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Judge SENTELLE. I, too, want to thank the chair and Ranking 

Member of the Committee and the Members of the Committee. As 

a resident of Virginia, I especially thank the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member. 

And I must say it is good to see my long-time friend—I shouldn’t 

say old friend, but certainly long-time friend and fellow Tar Heel, 

Congressman Coble. We were assistant U.S. attorneys together 30- 

and-some-odd years ago. 

I am very honored to be here. 

In the last year of his life, Chief Justice Rehnquist became very 

concerned about judicial security by reason of the kinds of incidents 

to which the Chairman alluded. He created a new committee with 

the responsibility for judicial security, which had previously been 

adjunct to the Facilities Committee. I was honored when he made 

me the chair just before he passed away. 

During the past year and a half, or almost a year and a half, we 

have made great strides, working with and through the U.S. Marshals Service, in obtaining for every judge in the country the opportunity to have home intrusion detection devices. I called those burglar alarms before I got on the committee. [Laughter.] 

Now I have that available for every judge in the country. 

Working with and through the U.S. Marshals Service, we have 

taken the technology developed for fugitive pursuit and analysis 

and helped the Marshals Service in adapting it for use also in support of judicial threat investigation. 

All of this has been with the priceless support of the legislative 

branch in giving us what we need to get these things done. Our 

presence here doesn’t mean we are complaining about anything 

going on in the legislative and executive branches. It is just that 

we think we can all work together to do more. 

For example, in 101, the Consultation Provision, our asking that 

the Marshals Service and Judiciary be required to consult does not 

mean we are not consulting now. Director Clark and I are on the 

phone or in person together, sometimes several times a week, 

sometimes for days at a time, and in remote locations and technical 

centers in other parts of the country. 

What we want to do is ensure by statute that this kind of relationship can be continued no matter who is the director of the Marshals Service or who is the chair of the Judicial Security, so that 

each branch can rely on the other in the future without having to 

hope that personal relationships hold up. 

Similarly, the redaction is working well now, but we do want to 

urge the Committee and the Congress to continue the redaction authority. That is to say, when judges file financial statements, we 

don’t like the disgruntled litigant of the sort who has threatened 

or shot judges in the past to be able to look down on that report 

and see where the judge’s children go to school or where the judge’s 

spouse is employed. 

42 

We do want to provide the kind of information the public needs 

in order to ask for refusal from litigation, but we do not want the 

judges to endanger themselves or their families by the information 

that is disclosed. 

And then on another front of security is the harassment to which 

judges, jurors and witnesses have been subjected in some parts of 

this country by groups that are anti-government in general, anticourts in particular, who go into State courts and file fictitious 

liens against the property of judges, prosecutors, jurors, in order to 

threaten and harass, much in the same way that identity theft 

works. 

And so, we are asking for an expansion of the already-beneficial 

authority that exists to punish the filer of the false lien, the threatener of that sort against judicial and other courthouse security. 

So thanking the Congress for what you have done for us already 

and thanking the Marshals Service for their continuing good efforts 

and good results in judicial security, we would hope for this judicial 

security improvement bill to be enacted into law. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Sentelle follows:] 

43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID BRYAN SENTELLE


DBS0001.eps
44 


DBS0002.eps
45 


DBS0003.eps
46 


DBS0004.eps
47 


DBS0005.eps
48 


DBS0006.eps
49 


DBS0007.eps
50 


DBS0008.eps
51 


DBS0009.eps
52 


DBS0010.eps
53 

1See Appendix for information provided by the Honorable David Bryan Sentelle. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Judge. 

I want to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, who has already been identified, is also joining us today. 

We will now begin the rounds of questions from the Members, 5 

minutes each, and I will begin. 

Judge Sentelle, you mentioned fictitious liens. I thought we 

passed legislation fixing that a couple of years ago? 

Judge SENTELLE. You did. You did. And we thank you for what 

you have done. 

This expands its coverage a bit as far as other court personnel 

involved, and it enhances the penalty so that the persons that are 

involved—there is a greater incentive not to commit this under the 

bill than what has been done in the past. 

Congress has already helped us a great deal on that. We are asking for a refinement. As I say, we are not dissatisfied with anything the Congress or the executive are doing now. We just want 

to get all of us together to do things a little better. 

Mr. SCOTT. No problem with being dissatisfied. Everybody else is 

dissatisfied. 

Judge SENTELLE. Well, for once in my life I am not all that dissatisfied. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned financial disclosures. We passed those 

stop-gap measures a couple of months ago. 

Judge SENTELLE. Yes, and what we want to do is extend the time 

on that to make it—we would like for it to be a permanent authority. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything in that little stop-gap measure that 

we left out? Did we do everything we needed to do? 

Judge SENTELLE. Other than the time element, I don’t recall anything. I would like the opportunity to take that for the record and 

consult with the administration office staff and give you a more detailed answer later.1

Mr. SCOTT. That will be fine. 

Judge Bell, if States had more money for courtroom security, 

what would you do with it? 

Judge BELL. What we are trying to do now is to upgrade the security in the courthouses throughout the State. We have taken it 

upon ourselves in Maryland, for example, to start the process. 

But if we had the money, we could put into place some security 

measures that would ensure that we would capture all of the bad 

things that come into the courthouse, keep them out. We would 

then be able to start some programs which could perhaps help us 

in protecting witnesses and protecting others who would be involved in the process of the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. You also mentioned assessing security. I would assume that as you are building courthouses from time to time or trying to renovate them, how criminals are transferred, where jurors 

are and that kind of thing—— 

Judge BELL. Those kinds of things. 

Also making sure that our buildings are up to modern standards. 

We have a lot of old courthouses in Maryland. I am sure that is 

54 

the case all over the country. We have a lot of substandard buildings. They need a lot of improvement. We need to do improvement 

with an eye toward security needs of that particular court. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Clark, when witnesses are threatened, does that 

come under your bailiwick? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. What do you do to protect witnesses? You are just in 

Federal court? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes. I would address it from the Federal court level. 

And, of course, we handle and manage the Federal Witness Protection Program, which, of course, in a broad context is used in more 

of a prosecutorial role. 

But also, in many of our high-threat trials or high-threat cases, 

where witness intimidation may be a factor, we make every effort 

to make sure those witnesses are protected when they are coming 

to or from court or when they are in court or appearing in court. 

And so, we would very much appreciate the support that this bill 

offers to enhance anything to do with witness protection and prevent any intimidation. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

I would like to echo what the Chairman said, first of all, by 

thanking you all for what you do, Judge Bell and Judge Sentelle, 

for your work, and, Mr. Clark, for the great job that the marshals 

do. I never want to miss an opportunity to thank you and tell you 

how much we appreciate that. 

As we talked about, we have a lot of threats. They come in a lot 

of different sizes, different packages. We are concerned about the 

individuals that most of us in laymen’s terms would just say are 

crazy individuals and, you know, very unpredictable. 

But how would you break it down in your threats between an individual threat and the ones that Judge Sentelle kind of alluded to, 

that might be organizational-type threats that might expand their 

capability, especially in gangs and organizations like that? Do you 

see that number growing? Is that a major concern? Because that 

is something that seems like it is even more difficult to maybe get 

a handle on. 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, Congressman, you are correct. We see a wide 

variety of threateners out there. 

Last year, in fiscal year 2006, the Marshals Service investigated 

and reviewed over 1,100 threats to the judiciary and U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys and others who are involved in the 

judicial process. And all of those threats come in various sort of 

shapes and sizes. 

We have seen trends where some individuals, to use that term, 

are a little mentally disturbed or, as you say, crazy. But they are 

nonetheless making threats that we have to investigate. 

We also see more organized threats from gang members, often 

members of the same gang as those being prosecuted in a Federal 

court and who have the capability and the means to certainly pull 

off a threat if they wanted to. And so we take them all very seriously and we look at them and try to mitigate them as quickly as 

we can. 

55 

But there is quite a range of threateners. Just as an example, 

just this last week in our Houston office, deputy marshals went to 

interview an individual who had threatened a Federal judge there 

in Houston, and in the context of interviewing the suspect, he came 

to the door with a weapon in hand. Fortunately, our deputies were 

able to retreat and were able to fire a shot to hit the suspect and 

be able to handle that confrontation, fortunately, very successfully 

without any harm to our deputy marshals. 

But that individual had been deemed by somebody a little bit 

mentally unstable, who had threatened, in addition to judges, I understand, Members of Congress. So we have an individual out there 

who says and does these things and, obviously, by what he did to 

our deputy marshals, with the intent to possibly carry them out. 

So there is a wide range of individuals out there. 

Mr. FORBES. The Chairman raised concerns about buildings and 

structures and what we need to do in there, but one of my concerns 

for all of you is your families as well and when you are outside 

those buildings. 

How do you track these individuals? When you get an individual 

that you think could be a potential threat, do we have the resources to be able to track them and make sure that we are monitoring what they are doing so that they are not an actual threat 

to perhaps the families? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, Congressman. We have made substantial improvements to how we collect, analyze and track data and threateners—the individuals themselves. We have enhanced our Office of 

Protective Intelligence and the data-collection means that we use 

there to track them, to make sure that those who gave threatened 

a judge in previous years, can be tracked. If they threaten somebody again in a subsequent year, we would know about that and 

have a case history on that individual. 

So we want to make sure we are doing a good job to keep records 

on it and to maintain that tracking system. We are doing that very 

successfully. 

We are also working with our State and local counterparts to see 

if we can better track those individuals who threaten State and 

local judges as well, so that we can share that information and be 

able to know who is threatening who out there. 

We found that, in some cases, those individuals who had threatened a State judge, for example, also might threaten a Federal 

judge. And so, we want to be able to connect the dots and be able 

to know who out there in the world is doing that. 

Mr. FORBES. Judge Bell, my time is about up, but if you perhaps 

would have someone on your staff get back to me. How uniformly 

do the State courts implement the 10 essential elements for courtroom safety and security that your organization has developed? 

And can you point to any specific outcomes to help us in which 

a threat or action was deterred as a result of this plan? That could 

be useful information if you could supply it to us. 

And, once again, thank you all for your time. 

Judge BELL. We will be happy to do that. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. I will now recognize Judge Sentelle’s old friend from 

North Carolina, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

56 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, you didn’t need to emphasize the 

word ‘‘old.’’ [Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the good job the two Virginians are doing on this Subcommittee, you and Mr. Forbes. 

It is good to have the panel with us, especially the alumnus from 

the Great Smoky Mountains, Judge Sentelle. Good to see you 

again. 

Mr. Clark, a friend of mine once told me that the success of being 

a popular speaker was to practice the ‘‘three be’s′′: be bold, be brief, 

be gone. [Laughter.] 

Now, I am not suggesting that Judge Sentelle and Judge Bell 

abused the 5-minute rule, but you gave new meaning to brevity in 

this place, and we embrace that very warmly. [Laughter.] 

Gentlemen, as you all know, the House approved the Committee 

of Judicial Security provisions during the last Congress. I understand that several key provisions from that bill have been omitted 

from the bill before us. They include allowing law enforcement, 

Federal prosecutors and judges to carry firearms, and increasing 

penalties for assaulting, killing or kidnapping a Federal officer. 

While I supported all of these provisions in the 109th Congress, 

I would like to hear your thoughts on why or why not permitting 

law enforcement and other courthouse officials to carry firearms 

would help secure our courthouses. 

Let me start with you, Judge Sentelle, and work to my left. 

Judge SENTELLE. Congressman Coble, the Judicial Conference of 

the United States has taken a position in favor of the legislation 

allowing judges and some others to carry firearms. We have not retreated from that position. 

However, we hope that this bill now in front of Congress will not 

be bogged down by provisions that might be more controversial 

than what is in there now. We would rather see that dealt with in 

a separate bill, where the question could be examined by itself 

without clouding the provisions on which there might be more consensus. 

But, no, we have not retreated from that position. The Conference still stands in support of the legislation you are talking 

about. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. Congressman, it would be my position that, at least 

speaking from the Federal system, in the courthouse itself and in 

the courtroom, often there are deputy marshals who are armed. 

There are court security officers who are armed. And on any given 

day there are a few folks, at least, in every courtroom who are carrying firearms. 

So while we would certainly see the benefit perhaps of having 

judges and others that might be armed, we feel like there is an 

adequate armed presence now in the courtroom and would not necessarily think that adding to that number would necessarily benefit 

security. 

We would also say that, I guess, in terms just of the logistics of 

carrying this out, to make sure that the individuals would be qualified with their weaponry and able to use them, that we would want 

57 

to work with the Judicial Conference to sort of think out and talk 

out how that could be done. 

With regard to raising the penalties for those who threaten 

judges or others in the law enforcement realm, I would certainly 

support that. I think any time we can deter effectively those who 

threaten the judiciary by raising the penalties and sending a good 

message that we are very serious about anybody who threatens a 

Federal judge, would be well worth it. So I would certainly support 

that. 

Mr. COBLE. Judge Bell? 

Judge BELL. Yes, sir. By the way, I suppose I shouldn’t say this, 

but I will. I suppose that one of the reasons that Judge Sentelle 

and I went on a little longer is that we are both from North Carolina. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. Judge, I was not admonishing. I don’t dare admonish 

judges. [Laughter.] 

Judge BELL. The position about which you speak is one that 

would have to be taken by the Government Relations Committee 

of the Conference of Chief Justices and the COSCA. I am not aware 

that we have taken a position on it nor that it was necessary to 

do so for this bill. 

Last time, I do know that we were in favor of a court security 

bill. But, as Judge Sentelle mentioned, I don’t want any discussions 

about provisions where there may be some controversy to affect the 

positive action on this bill. 

Now, we can, if you would like, we can have the Government Relations Committee look at the issue and provide you with information with regard to it. 

Mr. COBLE. That would not be a bad idea. 

Chairman, let me ask one more question. 

What prompted my saying this, Mr. Scott and Mr. Forbes, is a 

Federal prosecutor from my district back home told me recently 

that it is not uncommon for him to be the recipient of threats in 

an ongoing way, and that is what prompted the question. 

Mr. Clark, let me ask you this. Do you all in the Marshals Service have authority to issue administrative subpoenas? 

Mr. CLARK. No, Congressman, we don’t at this point in time, although it is something that we have in the past sought to obtain. 

And we would hopefully find in the future, with congressional support, the ability to obtain it. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, that was my follow-up. I was going to say, 

would this authority enhance the ability of your agency to carry out 

your mission in a more fulfilling way? 

Mr. CLARK. Most definitely. 

And if I can just give you a brief example how: Under the current 

context of judicial security, when we are investigating individuals 

who have threatened a prosecutor, a Federal judge, a local judge, 

whoever the case may be, time is of the essence to be able to quickly gather investigative information and particularly those who we 

know have the means and the capability to carryout a threat. 

So we would absolutely use the administrative subpoena authority to be able to do that. Not to mention in the other various missions that we have where we already have known criminal defendants who are wanted, who actually have an outstanding warrant 

58 

for them, that, again, timing and being able to gather information 

quickly and effectively is of the essence. 

So we feel like administrative subpoena authority would be of 

great value to the Marshals Service. And we are one agency that, 

I believe, needs it and should have it and would be very responsible 

if we did have it. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I don’t presume to tell two Virginians 

how to run their agenda, but this is something that may warrant 

the attention of the Subcommittee as we move along into this session. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I want to thank our witnesses for your testimony. It has 

been very helpful. This is obviously a priority of the Committee, 

and we will get working on it and hopefully we can get this 

through. The Senate has already taken action, so we will take action too. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

ANSWER TO QUESTION POSED BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT TO THE

HONORABLE DAVID BRYAN SENTELLE

We are in the process of expanding and elaborating on each of the Ten Essential 

Elements for Courtroom Safety and Security. Each Element will become a written 

chapter in a large printed document, which we hope will become a compendium of 

best practices in each of these ten areas. For example, we have recently finished 

Essential Element #1, ‘‘Operational Security: Standard Operating Procedures;’’ #2, 

‘‘Facility Security Planning: The Self Audit Survey of Court Facilities;’’ #3, ‘‘Emergency Preparedness and Response: Continuity of Operations;’’ #4 ‘‘Disaster Recovery;’’ #5 ‘‘Threat Assessment;’’ #6 ‘‘Incident Reporting;’’ and #7 ‘‘Funding.’’ The Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators Security and 

Emergency Preparedness Committee are the primary authors of these ten chapters. 

They are currently reviewing Elements 8, 9 and 10. The Committee is planning to 

complete this project by the end of 2007. Final ratification by both Conferences is 

expected in early 2008. 

In terms of state adoption of the Elements, we can report that the following states 

have adopted the recommendations or are in the process of adoption: 

1. Operational Security: Arizona, Delaware, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

2. Facility Security Planning: California, Florida, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. 

3. Emergency Preparedness and Response: California, Florida, Minnesota, 

Pennsylvania and Virginia 

4. Disaster Recovery: California, Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia 

5. Threat Assessment: Michigan, New Jersey and New Mexico 

6. Incident Reporting: Hawaii, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island 

and Wisconsin 

7. Funding: California, Missouri and Pennsylvania 

8. Security Equipment and Costs: drafting of chapter in progress 

9. Resources and Partnerships: drafting of chapter in progress 

10. New Courthouse Design: drafting of chapter in progress 

f 

60 


A-1.eps
61 


A-2.eps
62 


A-3.eps
63 

f 


A-4.eps
64 


B-1.eps
65 


B-2.eps
66 


B-3.eps
67 


B-4.eps
68 


B-5.eps
69 


B-6.eps
70 


B-7.eps
71 


B-8.eps
72 


B-9.eps
73 


B-10.eps
74 


B-11.eps
75 


B-12.eps
76 


B-13.eps
77 


B-14.eps
78 


B-15.eps
79 


B-16.eps
80 


B-17.eps
81 


B-18.eps
82 


B-19.eps
83 


B-20.eps
84 


B-21.eps
85 


B-22.eps
86 


B-23.eps
87 


B-24.eps
88 

Æ 


B-25.eps