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

57–940 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–579 

EXPLORING FEDERAL SOLUTIONS TO THE STATE 

AND LOCAL FUGITIVE CRISIS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 19, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–70 

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 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 38 

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

WITNESSES 

Bartlett, Dennis A., Executive Director, American Bail Coalition, Fairfax, 

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 18 

Gaillard, Marc, Second Deputy to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 11 

Patrignani, John, Acting Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 14 

Preski, David, Chief of the Pre-Trial Service Division, First Judicial District 

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................................................... 16 

Weise, Roy G., Senior Advisor, Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia ......................................... 17 

Williams, Seth, District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ........................... 2 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bartlett, Dennis A., Executive Director, American Bail Coalition, Fairfax, 

Virginia, statement .............................................................................................. 27 

Gaillard, Marc, Second Deputy to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, statement ..................................................................................... 39 

Patrignani, John, Acting Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................. 41 

Preski, David, Chief of the Pre-Trial Service Division, First Judicial District 

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................................. 50 

Weise, Roy G., Senior Advisor, Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, statement ...................... 51 

Williams, Seth, District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ........ 54 

(1) 

EXPLORING FEDERAL SOLUTIONS TO THE 

STATE AND LOCAL FUGITIVE CRISIS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter 

presiding. 

Present: Seth Williams, District Attorney; John Patrignani, Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Marc 

Gaillard; Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions; Roy G. Weise, 

Senior Advisor, Criminal Justice Information Services; David 

Preski, Chief of the Pre-Trial Service Division at the First Judicial 

District of Pennsylvania; and Dennis A. Bartlett, Executive Director, The American Bail Coalition. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. In early 2008, the St. Louis Post Dispatch published a series of articles, but here you have something that is far 

beyond Philadelphia. These fugitives move in interstate commerce, 

so that it really is a Federal problem. We find a lack of funding 

on the recordkeeping or on the entries of these fugitives to pose an 

enormous problem. 

This is a matter where I think the Federal Government ought to 

play a significant role. Then-Senator Biden thought so, Senator 

Durbin thought so, in introducing legislation, but it hasn’t progressed, with so many other things on the Senate and Congressional docket. But we see, with more than a million fugitives at 

large and the criminal justice system breaking down, that the efforts that Senator Biden made to have Federal funding and Federal 

grants ought to be carried forward, and that is something that 

we’re going to take a look at when we get into the specifics on this 

issue. 

We have a distinguished array of witnesses today. Our lead witness is sitting beside me, Hon. Seth Williams. He has been District 

Attorney of Philadelphia now for just a couple of weeks. DA Williams brings a distinguished record to this position: a graduate of 

Penn State University, where he first led the Black Caucus, and 

then was president of the student body, representing some 57,000 

students; got his law degree at Georgetown, with distinction; 

served in the District Attorney’s Office for 10 years, so he knows 

2 

the nuts and bolts of the operation from having been there; headed 

up a great many unique efforts by the District Attorney’s Office 

and is taking over from another distinguished Philadelphia District 

Attorney, District Attorney Len Abraham. 

So many of these problems are really beyond the scope of what 

the DA can do and what the DA can control when you’re talking 

about the interaction of witness intimidation, bench warrants, fugitives. But the DA, in our system, is really the central figure. 

As is generally known, I was District Attorney in Philadelphia 

and assisted before that, and know the problems of the office intimately and am very much concerned about what’s happening in 

this city. It’s my hometown. I live here. I’m proud to say I do not 

live in Washington. Every Monday morning I travel the State and 

get to Washington late in the afternoon and back on Friday. Beyond the scope of a problem for Philadelphia, it proliferates out 

into the suburbs. Surrounding counties are not safe. The region is 

not safe and it’s a national problem. These fugitives move in interstate commerce. 

So this is a matter where I think the Federal Government has 

a very legitimate and important role, and I intend to push to see 

to it that appropriate action is taken at the Federal level. 

Well, welcome, Mr. District Attorney. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF SETH WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, thank you. Good morning to everyone that’s 

here. 

First, I’d like to thank you, Senator, for taking leadership on this 

issue and for hosting this series of hearings. It’s of great import. 

I, like you, as a Philadelphian, was saddened at first when I read 

the series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer titled, ‘‘Justice 

Delayed, Dismissed and Denied,’’ and I have it with me. We have 

spoken about this several times, both personally and in public forums such as this. 

I, as a Philadelphian, and I know you, was saddened by the statistics of our broken criminal justice system. I felt vindicated in 

many ways. As a politician, I was talking about many of these 

issues for the last 5 years to anyone that would listen, and I’m very 

glad that someone found the empirical evidence and the data and 

that you, and others, are listening now. 

I’m very thankful and hopeful that these hearings, the articles 

in the newspaper, and also the fact that we all are in a fiscal crisis 

right now and that there is a new District Attorney, hopefully all 

of those forces acting together can bring us together to work to 

solve the problem, both from a Federal, a State, and a local level. 

So again, let me just thank you for your leadership. More important than just the bright lights and the cameras being on, I look 

forward to my staff working with your staff, working with the 

staffs of all those who are here today, to discuss how we can solve 

this problem. 

I have said many times that our criminal justice system is broken. You touched on the fact that the most recent hearing you had 

dealt with victim intimidation. I have to do all that I can as a District Attorney to ensure that the system works. 

3 

One of the ways we can do that is by protecting our victims, but 

when defendants are fugitives and fail to appear, it revictimizes 

our victims over and over again. They don’t get their cup of justice 

filled. I heard many stories about you talking about filling the cup 

of justice for everyone that came into the DA’s office. When a defendant fails to appear, the victim is left wanting to know, what 

happens to them? What is ever going to happen to their case? So 

I’m very glad that we’re here to talk about fugitives and the different ways that we can go about trying to address the problem. 

I recognize that I have 2 minutes and 27 seconds left, so I’ll try 

to be as—— 

Senator SPECTER. Let’s turn off the timer. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That’s all right. I’ll try to be as pointed as possible. 

Senator SPECTER. I’m in charge here: turn off the clock. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But I believe the primary reason we have so 

many fugitives walking our streets, is our bail system in Philadelphia is broken. You are correct, there are nearly 50,000 fugitives 

in the city of Philadelphia. Each year, about 1 out of 3 defendants 

fails to show up for at least one court hearing. There are barely 

more than 50 court officers to catch these fugitives. Philadelphia 

courts issue approximately 25,000 bench warrants each year for 

criminal defendants who do not show up for court, and over the 

last 30 years fugitives owe the city approximately $1 billion in forfeited bail. 

There are many reasons the system is broken. Hopefully there 

can be many solutions to this broken system. But I have spoken 

quite often that if we’re going to change the system, if we’re going 

to address criminal behavior, it’s not the severity of punishment 

that matters, it’s not that we’re going to give someone 50 to 100 

years, it’s the certainty of punishment that changes behavior. If it’s 

criminal behavior, if it’s trying to housebreak a pet, or if it’s raising 

three daughters like I have, it’s the certainty of punishment. Clearly, there is no certainty of punishment when nearly 1 out of 3 defendants in a year fails to appear and a bench warrant is issued. 

So, I believe we have to do all that we can to increase the certainty by increasing the effectiveness of our bail system and reducing the number of fugitives. So I have a list, and I ask that my 

written notes and testimony be entered into the Senate record. 

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

Mr. WILLIAMS. I have several bullet points I’d like to touch on 

briefly, but I believe all that it comes to, is we have to have a holistic approach. There’s no one single magic bullet that we can have 

to change it. There are many things that we have to do. I know 

that I’m going to be pushing for us to have more hearings, both 

preliminary hearings and trials, in the absence of defendants that 

fail to appear. 

If we can show that they wilfully failed to appear, that they 

knew of the date, then we have to proceed if the victim shows up 

to proceed with that preliminary hearing, to preserve that testimony and to be able to move that case forward. Many defendants 

know, and make fun of, our criminal justice system. They thumb 

4 

their noses. They know if they fail to appear, the victim will become frustrated and be worn out like they’re on the Baton Death 

March. If we can proceed with these hearings in their absence, the 

victim will feel as though they were heard and we can proceed with 

their trial. That’s one area that I would like to work on. 

We could effectively carry out the financial background checks 

for those who put up bail money. It’s been often said that it’s easier 

to get bail than it is to get a loan for a car, so we have to go 

through the proper background checks of the people who are putting up money so when they fail to appear, we can go after the 90 

percent. You’re very familiar with it in Philadelphia, that if bail is 

set the defendant only has to put up 10 percent. For many, we 

don’t know really who signed up. What collateral do they have? We 

have to do a much better checking of the background of those who 

are putting up the money so that we can then see if we can go after 

it. 

I believe also—and you’ve been very helpful—in our programs for 

Safe Surrender. I believe that we have to be able to increase the 

Safe Surrender programs in Philadelphia where we can work with 

communities, the clergy, the Federal marshals, our own First Judicial District, warrant officers, to provide an opportunity for defendants who are fugitives to surrender themselves in an environment 

that they feel safe. 

Also, it’s a way to protect our police officers and our warrant officers who are out, like Officer Joseph LeClair who was killed in the 

line of duty while he was trying to effect an arrest on a warrant 

for a fugitive. The majority of police officers that lose their lives in 

the line of duty do so when they’re pulling over a person who is 

wanted as a fugitives just at a routine traffic stop. So, Safe Surrender programs can help us reduce the number of fugitives by 

keeping them in the system, allowing them to turn themselves in. 

We also have to do all that we can to better monitoring defendants that are out on bail. So you spoke of ways in which the Federal Government could help. I believe that the Federal Government, of course, could help us with funding for technologies, new 

technologies. The defendants have the latest weapons, they have 

the latest technologies. We have to stop playing catch-up and start 

catching them. 

By having the most recent technologies, like GPS systems, defendants could get bail, but also have a monitoring system so that 

if they did fail to appear we could more easily find them. That’s 

a possibility also. I could go on and on and on and on and talk 

about many other theories that I have, but I really believe that it’s 

going to take a holistic approach, that we in the District Attorney’s 

Office have to do all that we can. 

I believe that we can use some of the most recent technologies, 

again, to change some of the theories about how we issue bail. Instead of just, what is the person’s ability to pay, we can use risk 

analysis: what is the risk of not just their failing to appear, but of 

committing another crime while they’re out on bail? 

By working with Professor Goldcamp and Professor Sherman 

from University of Pennsylvania, we can instill new risk analysis 

in the charging and in the bail function so that we can better determine who is most likely to come. About 2 percent of the defendVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Aug 25, 2010 Jkt 057940 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57940.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

ants are the most violent. If we can find better ways to monitor 

that 2 percent, I believe that we could do a lot to reduce the fact 

of violence on the streets, but also those that will appear at court. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Williams, starting with the issue of Safe 

Surrender, is that approach now in practice in Philadelphia, so 

that if a fugitive decides to surrender, the fugitive will be permitted to do so? What penalties, if any, will he face at that point, 

and how does it work? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, currently, if a defendant fails to appear, he 

or she at any time can surrender him or herself in the criminal justice system center and a new date will be issued for their hearing. 

That’s part of where the system breaks down, because the victim 

has showed up, the defendant failed to appear. The defendant could 

show up that day, months later, or years later. 

Senator SPECTER. Is there any penalty attached for somebody 

who comes forward in the Safe Surrender program? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, there is not. To answer your question, the 

Safe Surrender program, as I understand it, really took place last 

year over a 4-day period at a church in South Philadelphia. The 

clergy were involved, the Federal marshals were involved, our 

court system was involved. 

Senator SPECTER. How successful was it? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was very successful, and many individuals 

turned themselves in. But it was focused for the first time just on 

non-violent felons and on misdemeanants. 

Senator SPECTER. With someone who does not voluntarily come 

in but is apprehended, what is your view as to additional punishment for having jumped bail? Should there be a separate offense 

for jumping bail? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Pennsylvania Crimes Code does have, as you 

are well aware, a separate provision for punishment for the wilful 

failure to appear. The judge could also issue a contempt holding for 

that person, which would add another possible 5 months’ incarceration that could be consecutive or concurrent. 

Senator SPECTER. So the statute does allow for increasing the 

penalty which is prescribed by statute for an offense? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. So if someone is apprehended for larceny, you 

could add to the 5-year sentence provided. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Would there be any utility in having a separate offense or indicting for a separate criminal charge? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, part of the problem would be that it would 

just add more cases to the list, the preliminary hearing list, more 

paperwork, in some ways. I think while that’s an option, and we 

utilize that in some cases, I think trying to find ways on the front 

end to reduce those that have the most potential to be fugitives, 

but also when a person fails to appear, to just proceed in their absence. 

I think what they hope is that they don’t show up, that the victim showed up, that when they come back again the victim won’t 

come because either the victim just doesn’t care or just doesn’t 

want to show up anymore because they’re so frustrated with the 

6 

system, and that the defendants defeat the system by frustrating 

the victims, by this gamesmanship. 

The Commonwealth has to say what our status is first, and often 

the defendants will leave rooms and there’s this gamesmanship. I 

think if the defendant failed to appear, if we can proceed more 

often in their absence and the message got out that that was happening, Senator, I think that would defeat the purpose of so many 

of them trying to game the system. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, trial in absentia, which means trial in 

their absence, has been upheld by the appellate courts. As new 

process of law, if someone does not show up you could try them, 

even though he or she is not there. 

To what extent is trial by absentia employed now in the Court 

of Common Pleas? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Senator, it is rarely employed because—one of the 

reasons is that all the defendant’s constitutional rights cannot be 

waived in their absence currently, so we would have to do a jury 

trial if the defendant failed to appear previously. So, if we did all 

of the fugitive cases via jury trial, again, that would just bog down 

the system. So there are many theories on how we could proceed. 

We could, at an earlier point in the hearings, in a court of record, 

have, as part of the colloquy—after they’ve been held for court, at 

at some point a colloquy where they’re told that if they fail to appear at a subsequent hearing, that they would waive their right to 

a jury trial by their wilful failure to appear. If they understood 

what their rights are—all the rights that we have—this building is 

an edifice to glorify the Constitution, but all of the rights we have 

can be waived. So if they maybe had a waiver, a colloquy early on, 

that could expedite the need for having jury trials for all those fugitives subsequently. 

Senator SPECTER. It would be, probably, technical if you have a 

colloquy and you say, if you fail to show up, do you hereby waive 

your right to a jury trial? It’s pretty difficult to get that if the person could decline. Well, I think it is a subject which ought to be 

explored. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Because the appellate courts have upheld it. 

There is a constitutional right to a jury trial, so we can’t change 

it by legislation. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Correct. 

Senator SPECTER. But we ought to explore ways of implementing 

trial by absentia, which would put people on notice that they can’t 

game the system and have witnesses not show up because they 

failed to appear. 

Mr. Williams, let me turn to the subject of the first hearing to 

get your views as to the approach of having a Federal offense for 

intimidating a witness in a State criminal procedure. Your experience is extensive. To what extent do you believe that there would 

be more apprehension of someone to intimidate a witness if that 

person knew that the FBI was going to be on the case or going to 

be tried in the Federal court where the sentencing is on record as 

being tougher? How effective would a Federal statute be? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I believe that it would be helpful. I don’t 

want to abdicate all of my own responsibilities as District Attorney 

7 

to finding ways that we can ensure the safety of our victims, the 

protection of them, to ensure that more witnesses are willing to 

come forward. We have to do all that we can so that, when people 

in some ways intimidate our witnesses, that they are punished in 

State court. So, that’s my responsibility. I’m going to do all that we 

can internally to see that we can do that job better. 

But I believe that a Federal law and the use of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI, and making examples of those that intimidate 

witnesses could in many ways change the culture. But again, it 

takes a holistic approach. We have to do all that we can to change 

the hearts and the minds of the young people that are doing this 

intimidation. We have to do all that we can to reach out to community members and potential victims, or future victims, to let them 

know that the police, the District Attorney’s Office, will be there for 

them. I think that we have to do that every day. 

So I look forward to doing that, both on our end, but would look 

forward to the opportunity to work with Federal authorities to 

prosecute people that are intimidating and victimizing our victims 

over and over again. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I like your attitude of not wanting somebody else to take over your responsibilities. You have the job. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Uh-huh. 

Senator SPECTER. When I was District Attorney, I found I 

couldn’t get sentences, that there were many burglars, repeat robbers who were getting insufficient sentences. When I got to the 

Senate, I introduced legislation which became the Armed Career 

Criminal bill, that anybody convicted of three or more offenses, like 

robbery, burglary, drug sales, found in possession of a firearm, 

would be tried in the Federal court and get a mandatory life sentence, which means 15 years to life in the Federal system. 

Now, looking for Federal help, that has been—I’m sure you’re familiar with it—a very important piece of legislation. But it seemed 

to me as DA, wanting to carry out my job, when I found the courts 

were not cooperating, to bring the Federal Government into it, taking those career criminals into Federal court, was a big, big help. 

So, I would analogize that to getting assistance from the Federal 

Government where there are forces beyond the control of the local 

prosecutor. What do you think? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, again, I’m hopeful that we’ll have this opportunity. 

Senator SPECTER. How has the Armed Career Criminal bill 

worked, in your experience, in sending those cases to Federal 

court? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Very well. The Federal Alternative State Trials 

program that exists currently is one that is very helpful. You know, 

but again, the defendants have to know about it, so in addition to 

the fact that we have a very good working relationship with the 

U.S. Attorney, just the ads that are on public transportation, when 

defendants see—or those public service announcements that are 

commercials—the funding that we can have to educate the public 

about the punishments of what will happen if you do commit a 

crime with a handgun, and how you could be prosecuted in Federal 

court. 

8 

Again, we have to change the hearts and minds, and that comes 

from the general deterrence and the specific deterrence. So when 

people see the SEPTA ads on the back of a bus, that you can go 

to Federal prison, you won’t be up on State row, you won’t even be 

at Greaterford, you might be somewhere in Colorado or Illinois, 

that drastically, in many ways, changes the mind-sets of the people 

who are considering those offenses. When people hear about people 

who have been sentenced, the general deterrence, again, is very effective. 

Senator SPECTER. There have been some suggestions of seeking 

family sureties with the home property as collateral. Do you think 

that is worth exploring? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do. Again, I believe that we have to be open to 

all the different possibilities. Having private entities or public entities that go after that balance of the bail would be helpful. But specifically, if the family member has to put up the bail and the defendant knows that his mother, his grandmother, or some family 

member will be at a loss as a result of their failure to appear, they 

might take more personal responsibility to show up. Also, the family members might make them show up, and if they don’t show up, 

they might be more apt to help the authorities to locate them so 

that grandma or the aunt doesn’t lose her home or the $15,000 that 

she put up. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think it’s too tough to subject grandma 

to the possible loss of her home? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is difficult. I understand that. But I hope that 

that would be a way just to motivate the defendant to show up, 

and also, again, as a way so that you don’t lose the value of that 

home, for them to surrender the defendant in a more timely manner. That would thwart, again, you know, the gamesmanship that 

we so often see on a daily basis at the Criminal Justice Center. 

Senator SPECTER. We’ve talked about, extensively, the fugitive 

problem, some comments about the intimidation of witnesses. I’m 

not sure where we’re going to progress on these hearings. We may 

have more or we may not. But one of the subjects in the Inquirer 

series has been the issue of continuances. While you’re here, I’d 

like your observations on how serious the problem is of continuances, where lawyers will not appear for putting ‘‘busy’’ slips and 

are in fact not busy. 

We talked, on the earlier hearing, on intimidation, about a special program we have for a lawyer who had a very large volume 

of cases and might have multiple listings on the same day that we 

put on the ‘‘busy’’ slip, but wasn’t busy anywhere. We had a special 

courtroom established for that individual. It was challenged in the 

Federal court as a denial of his constitutional rights. I won that 

case. But how big a problem, from your experience in 10 years in 

the DA’s office, is this issue of continuances to wear out the witnesses, so it’s continued again, and again, and again and the witnesses don’t show up? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It’s a serious problem, Senator. I was speaking 

with a judge and he mentioned that a defense attorney referred to 

the Criminal Justice Center here in Philadelphia as the Valhalla 

for defense attorneys. After having won the primary, I wanted to 

do all that I could to be the best District Attorney for the city of 

9 

Philadelphia, so I began traveling to other jurisdictions to speak 

with other District Attorneys about their systems. 

I went far and wide. I went to Montgomery County, I went to 

Dauphin County, I met with the DA of Allegheny County, I went 

to Brooklyn, I went to San Francisco, and San Diego, just to name 

a few. Our system here—one of the reasons why we have so many 

failures to appear, is that there are so many listings for the defendant in the course of a criminal case. We can do a lot to reduce the 

number of times that the defendant has to appear. I think in many 

ways that would reduce the bench warrants that are issued. It 

would reduce the victimization of our victims, the revictimization, 

that they have to come to court over, and over, and over again. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, on the continuance issue, don’t you have 

to have the cooperation of the judge to deny the application for continuance? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We do. 

Senator SPECTER. So, frequently, the expression, the attorney-client relationship has not been consummated, taking that expression. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Rule one. 

Senator SPECTER. Now it’s, Mr. Green hasn’t shown up. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right. 

Senator SPECTER. So what do you suggest be done on the continuance issue? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, again, I believe that we can do a lot by holistically changing the level—the number of times cases have to be 

listed, by requiring—not requiring the—— 

Senator SPECTER. I’m sorry. How do you do it if you limit the 

number of times it has to be listed? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. We can change the order. At a preliminary hearing, it’s always, ‘‘Is the Commonwealth ready? ’’ If the defense had 

to state what their status was first, that would change this. If the 

defense attorneys were not allowed to have a listing, a continuance 

at the first listing when they see that the Commonwealth is ready, 

just because rule one, or Mr. Green hasn’t shown up, the defense 

attorney hasn’t been paid, that wasn’t allowed. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, that requires tougher action by the 

judge. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. And that can’t take Federal legislation, that takes the judiciary acting to police itself. I believe again, 

as a result of these reports, as a result of your interests, as a result 

also of all these entities having a fiscal crisis, that we are going 

to begin working together now to eliminate these potentials and 

the problems that you see, such as the multiple continuances. 

Senator SPECTER. Have you seen any evidence of a crack-down 

on the continuance problem so far? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I believe we have begun working with the 

judiciary, just as of last week, to begin a process to review the 

criminal courts and the process and protocols that we have in 

Philadelphia. I’m hopeful that that can be an impetus to find solutions, again, like these hearings. 

Senator SPECTER. How adequate are the sentences handed down 

by the common pleas judges? 

10 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, again, we do have a sentencing guideline, 

a Sentencing Commission here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that tries to make all of them uniform. For the most part, 

the judges do act and fall with their sentences within the sentencing guidelines. Some judges are more apt to find some aggravating circumstances and some more to look into the mitigated 

range, but I believe that for the most part the sentencing is not the 

issue when it comes to our fugitive problem. That is a separate and 

distinct issue. 

But I believe that for the most part, the public elects judges in 

Pennsylvania without knowing much about who they are and what 

their philosophies are. You can’t even ask them questions about 

what they would do when they became judges. I know that’s an 

issue for another hearing and another day. But, you know, again, 

it’s not the severity of the punishment of what that sentence would 

be, it’s the certainty. In Philadelphia, the defendants know that 

there is no certainty. 

Senator SPECTER. There was an effort made in the Constitutional 

Convention of 1969 to change the election of judges. What’s your 

view on that subject, if you care to offer one? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I believe there are many different theories. 

I actually teach a course—used to teach a class—at Penn State 

where we talked about the merit selection process or a mixed process like the Missouri program, where the executive gets to have a 

board that’s comprised of community members, members of the 

legal field, to come with people they believe are qualified and meet 

some sort of minimum standard to be a member of the judiciary. 

Then there’s a public election based on those people that were 

deemed appropriate. I think a hybrid of appointment and direct 

election, I think, would be helpful in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Senator SPECTER. In the Federal system, Senator Casey and I 

have a panel, going back to Senator Hines’ and my time together 

years ago, a nominating panel. People who want to be Federal 

judges are screened. Senators then review it and make a recommendation to the President, which is really along the line of 

merit selection. What do you think of that for the State courts? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think that has a lot of merit, but I do believe that the public having something more than ‘‘they elected the 

executive that made the nomination,’’ and the appointment has a 

little more of an egalitarian effect, a democratic effect, and people 

feel they’re a part of it. So just the second step after the executive 

or the legislative branches have worked together to make this nomination to allow the public to basically give their imprimatur or 

their stamp of Good Housekeeping, as it were, I think is very 

democratic. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Williams, thank you very much for 

coming in today. There are going to be lots of problems. I know 

Senator Casey and the Philadelphia Congressional delegation 

would join me in saying that we want to be helpful to you. You’ve 

got a big job and we want to help you carry it out. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I have big shoes to fill, yours, Governor Rendell, Ron Castile, Len Abraham. I look forward to, again, 

working with you and your staff to solve these problems and to 

11 

make Philadelphia a safer city for all of us to live, work, and to 

raise our families. 

Senator SPECTER. You are the first District Attorney who didn’t 

work in my office in modern times. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. You had Rendell following for 8 years, and you 

had Ron Castile elected twice, and you had Len Abraham reelected. 

So, you’ll find the shoes fine. Thank you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. 

We will now turn to our panel. Mr. John Patrignani, Mr. David 

Preski, Mr. Roy Weise, and Mr. Dennis Bartlett, if you would come 

forward. 

We understand the DA has a lot of duties back at City Hall, so 

thank you for coming in. 

We are going to begin, before proceeding to the panel, with a 

statement from Mr. Marc Gaillard, from the Office of the Clerk of 

Quarter Sessions. Welcome, Mr. Gaillard. We look forward to your 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARC GAILLARD, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF 

QUARTER SESSIONS, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. GAILLARD. Good morning, and thank you, Senator. Again, 

good morning, Senator Specter and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak 

with you today on behalf of Hon. Vivian T. Miller. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Gaillard, pull the mic just a little closer. 

Mr. GAILLARD. I am Marc Gaillard, deputy to the Clerk of Court 

of Sessions in Philadelphia County. We understand that we are 

here to speak with you about the way the bail process works in 

Philadelphia County, and particularly our involvement in it, so we 

will start by explaining the bail process in Philadelphia. 

In order to be released from confinement after being arrested, a 

defendant pays 10 percent of the bail, which is set by the bail commissioner at the arraignment. When the bail is posted, the money 

is placed into a Quarter Sessions account by an employee of the 

First Judicial District, who also generates a bail acceptance log. 

The accounts and logs are reconciled and maintained by the Clerk 

of Quarter Sessions. Of the 10 percent collected bail, 30 percent 

goes to the city. If the defendant complies with all subpoenas and 

the case is concluded, the surety can apply for the refund of the 

remaining 70 percent of the posted bail. 

If, over the course of a case, the defendant does not show up for 

any of his or her court appointments, the judge orders a bench warrant to be issued and the bail sued out, which means the defendant 

has 20 days to surrender and receive a new court date. If the defendant does not surrender within 20 days, a judgment for the full 

amount of the bail is issued against the surety. The surety now 

owes the city of Philadelphia the remaining 90 percent of the bail 

that was not collected earlier. There has been a lot of talk in the 

media that, dating back to 1968, the total amount of this forfeited 

bail owed the city is $1 billion. That is part of the reason why we’re 

all here today. 

12 

Before I address how the 90 percent gets collected, I would like 

to speak for a little bit about the $1 billion figure that has been 

accepted as the amount owed the city. Before we came here, we 

prepared a report to show the amount of bail forfeited from last 

year. In 2009, the amount of the forfeited 90 percent cash bail was 

$2.2 million. Over the past few years the crime and arrest rates 

have been relatively high, so one might surmise that the rate of 

forfeitures is equally high and remains relatively constant. 

To generate an estimate of the amount of forfeited bail owed the 

city, going back to 1968, let us double the number from last year 

and assume that the city is owed $5 million per year. This gives 

us an estimate of $205 million for the same time period, a far cry 

from the $1 billion that has been quoted so freely. We strongly caution against any reference to $1 billion until such time as anyone 

can produce any backup documentation. No matter what the actual 

amount is, we can agree that there is a significant amount of 

money owed to the city and we need to understand how this happens. 

From a Quarter Sessions perspective, once a bench warrant is 

issued we have no additional responsibility until the defendant is 

rearrested or surrenders. If this does not occur within 20 days of 

the bench warrant, we mail a 20-day letter to the surety advising 

that if the defendant does not surrender within 20 days, the surety 

will be liable for the entire amount of the bail. After the 20 days, 

a default judgment is entered against the surety. 

Since Mrs. Miller’s first term, it has never been our responsibility to collect forfeited bail. We simply send a percentage of the 

collected bail to the city’s Revenue Department. Prior to the inception of the state-wide computer system installed in 2006, we did 

this upon receipt of a judgment letter from the First Judicial District. Now the court clerks in the courtroom issue the judgments 

directly into the computer system and the accounting clerks respond accordingly. 

But without getting into the blame game, as a member of the 

criminal justice system we are committed to being a part of the solution going forward. However, we realize that a significant percentage of the outstanding funds is uncollectible: some sureties are 

dead, imprisoned, or their whereabouts are completely unknown. 

Also, many are without the financial means to satisfy these debts. 

These facts notwithstanding, we want to see as much of this money 

collected as possible for the benefit of the city. We attempted to 

hire a collection firm previously, but the contract wasn’t approved 

by the Law Department. 

Since then, we have been working with a collection firm retained 

by the First Judicial District, and we will continue to provide any 

information or assistance to aid them in their duties. Over the past 

year, there have been many allegations made about the Quarter 

Sessions, suggesting that we have been remiss in the execution of 

our duties within the Philadelphia criminal justice system. This is 

simply not the case. With limited resources and workloads that 

constantly increase as we continue to take on functions previously 

performed by other judicial partners, we remain committed to the 

City of Philadelphia. 

13 

In these tough economic times, we are committed to working as 

efficiently as possible. We have conducted a thorough analysis of 

the processes executed by our accounting, our bail, and our cost 

and fines units to determine if there is room for improvement. The 

exercise has uncovered some areas for improvement. For example, 

we will be adjusting the way bail refunds are processed so that 

some 5 to 25 hours of effort will be saved on a daily basis. These 

hours can be redirected to other pressing needs within the office. 

A similar exercise analyzing our court clerks and our filing operations is currently under way. 

Senator, we want to be a part of the solution to the problems 

Philadelphia’s criminal justice system is experiencing and not the 

scapegoat. We look forward to sitting at the table with our partners 

in the system to devise the right solutions. 

Again, Senator, we thank you for inviting us, for your invitation 

to this hearing, and your commitment to the people of Philadelphia. On behalf of Hon. Vivian T. Miller, we thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Gaillard. 

Mr. GAILLARD. Yes, sir? 

Senator SPECTER. Who should be responsible for collecting the 

bail if the Clerk of Quarter Sessions does not have that responsibility? 

Mr. GAILLARD. Actually, I brought some other members of the 

staff that want to answer some specific questions. From our understanding, that seems to be a gray area. I mean, we’ve even spoken 

to staff that have been with the department for some 35 years who 

can remember a point in time where that issue was never addressed. It’s always been the Department’s stance that we collected 

the 10 percent that was owed, made sure that got into the city’s 

general fund, but the 90 percent, from my understanding, was always a gray area of responsibility. 

Senator SPECTER. Are you aware of the audit of the Office of 

Clerk of Quarter Sessions just released this week for the years 

2007 and 2008? 

Mr. GAILLARD. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Which found that there were not reconciliations, causing some $26.8 million to be omitted from the city’s preliminary financial statement and did not report to the city $352.8 

million receivable for fines, costs, and restitutions? 

Mr. GAILLARD. Yes. In fact, we had given answers to the—to the 

department in regards to it. One of the suggestions is that we 

needed to actually increase our accounting department personnel. 

We’ve asked the city for money for it. It’s been approved. We’re in 

the process now of hiring an additional accountant. It’s not reported in a timely enough basis, so we’re trying to address that 

area. 

Senator SPECTER. So your point is, you’ve had insufficient funding to have the personnel to handle these problems? 

Mr. GAILLARD. In the past, yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. Do you disagree with the audit that 

I just referred to? 

Mr. GAILLARD. Actually, we have given written response. We do 

have several discrepancies in terms of what was reported to us, 

14 

and even in terms of them not accurately looking at some of the 

records that were shown to the—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I understand the problems that the Clerk 

of Quarter Sessions has, Ms. Vivian Miller. She’s your superior, 

right? 

Mr. GAILLARD. Yes, she is. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. And we want to explore further the 

operations and the problems that you have with respect to resources and to find out whose job it is to do precisely what. So we 

appreciate your coming in today and we will follow up with Ms. 

Miller. Tell her that I will give her a call personally and try to 

work out the procedures, to find out exactly what is going on to see 

if we can be helpful. 

Mr. GAILLARD. OK. We appreciate that. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you for coming in. Thank you. 

Mr. GAILLARD. Thank you, sir. Senator Specter. Our first witness 

on our panel is Mr. John Patrignani, Acting U.S. Marshal. He 

comes to this job with very extensive service in the U.S. Marshal’s 

Office since 1990, serving in a variety of positions and has intimate 

knowledge of the operation of the fugitive problem. Thank you very 

much for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PATRIGNANI, ACTING U.S. MARSHAL 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Specter and members of the subcommittee. My name is John 

Patrignani, Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss what the U.S. Marshal Service can do to assist in the 

apprehension of dangerous State and local fugitives. 

The Marshal Service has a long and rich history, with fugitive 

apprehension as one of its core missions. In 2006, Congress gave 

us the added responsibility of investigating sex offenders under the 

Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act. 

The success of the Marshal Service’s fugitive apprehension program is unmatched in Federal law enforcement. In fiscal year 2009, 

the USMS arrested more than 127,000 felony fugitives, including 

more than 10,000 sexual offenders. Here in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, the USMS and its State and local partners arrested 

over 1,500 fugitives, and we expect these statistics to increase this 

fiscal year. 

U.S. Marshals lead 82 fugitive task forces that support State and 

local efforts in apprehending violent fugitives. Our partnerships 

with Federal, State and local agencies through the task forces provide the wherewithal necessary to take the worst of the worst fugitives off the streets and help make our communities safer. 

The USMS provides our law enforcement partners with things 

that would not otherwise be available to them, such as overtime 

compensation, equipment, vehicles, technical assistance, and training. The force multiplier effect of the task forces lets criminals 

know that they can run, they can hide, but U.S. Marshals will 

track them down. 

15 

In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Violent Crimes Fugitives Task Force leads the hunt for fugitives. Led by the Marshal 

Service and comprised of four Federal and five State and local 

agency partners, the task force focuses on apprehending Federal, 

State, and local violent and felony fugitives. In fiscal year 2009, the 

task force arrested over 1,500 fugitives, including 114 sex offenders, 5 gang members, and 93 persons wanted for homicide. Investigators also seized 26 firearms, $26,000 in cash, and a quantity of 

narcotics. 

In June 2009, Operation FALCON, which is an acronym that 

stands for Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, was conducted in conjunction with our Federal, State and local partners. 

In the Eastern District, we arrested 333 fugitives during the course 

of the operation, including 4 persons wanted for homicide and 23 

sexual offenders. In addition, investigators seized 5 firearms, 

$5,000 in cash, and a quantity of narcotics. 

Another tool in the fight against crime is the Fugitive Safe Surrender program. Authorized under the Adam Walsh Act, FSS does 

not provide amnesty, instead it encourages persons wanted for nonviolent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender in a 

faith-based or other neutral setting. Partnering with State and 

local law enforcement, the judiciary, and the religious community, 

the U.S. Marshal’s Service has undertaken a total of 17 successful 

fugitive safe surrender operations. During the three operations conducted here in Pennsylvania, nearly 3,000 people self-surrendered, 

including over 1,200 in Philadelphia alone. 

The USMS also provides resources to State and local partners 

through the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program, 

which is managed by the Marshal’s Service. Proceeds from the sale 

of forfeited assets are deposited into the asset forfeiture fund and 

shared with State and local law enforcement agencies based upon 

their involvement in law enforcement actions that led to the forfeiture of the assets. 

The USMS shared more than $7.5 million here in the Eastern 

District in fiscal year 2009. Additionally, the USMS has used asset 

forfeiture funds to purchase and equip nearly 600 vehicles and pay 

overtime costs for State and local law enforcement partners across 

the country. 

The USMS is in a unique position with regard to the entry of 

warrants into the NCIC computer, since it serves as the national 

repository of all Federal arrest warrants that have been issued by 

U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Parole Commission. The Marshal 

Service also has apprehension authority for escaped Federal prisoners, bail-jumpers, parole violations, probation violators, non-compliant sexual offenders, and for fugitives wanted by other Federal 

law enforcement agencies. The USMS maintains nearly 30,000 

wanted persons in NCIC, more records than any other Federal 

agency. 

Mr. Chairman, cooperation and coordination with our Federal, 

State and local law enforcement partners is of the utmost importance to the U.S. Marshal Service. Quite simply, they need us and 

we need them. Through the expansive network of the task forces 

in fugitive roundups such as Operation FALCON, the USMS has 

proved the efficacy of the cooperative law enforcement model which 

16 

seeks to multiply the positive impact of law enforcement at all jurisdictional levels. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before the subcommittee. I am happy to answer any questions you may have, sir. 

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

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you very much. We’ll come 

to the questions later. 

We’ll turn now to Mr. David Preski, Chief of the Pre-Trial Service Division of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. 

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Preski. We look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID PRESKI, CHIEF OF THE PRE-TRIAL 

SERVICE DIVISION AT THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PRESKI. Thank you, Chairman Specter and members of the 

subcommittee. On behalf of the First Judicial District, I thank you 

for the invitation to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SPECTER. The First Judicial District is Philadelphia. 

Mr. PRESKI. Yes, it is. 

My name is David Preski. I’m currently the Chief of the PreTrial Service Division of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. 

The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, through its Pre-Trial 

Service Division, operates a full-service agency. The agency is responsible for many of the components, from arrest to adjudication, 

within the criminal justice process. The agency acts as the informational gatekeeper for all arrested and charged individuals and is responsible for the monitoring, supervision, and enforcement of released individuals and the arrest and apprehension of wanted individuals. 

The Warrant Unit is responsible for the enforcement of all criminal bench warrants and adult probation and parole warrants for 

the First Judicial District. Additionally, the unit is responsible for 

the enforcement of traffic court warrants and domestic relations 

warrants as they relate to child support and custody. 

The Warrant Unit is presently comprised of 52 armed field personnel and approximately 24 part-time administrative staff. The 

unit operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including holidays, 

to complete fugitive investigations for the arrest of individuals 

wanted on bench warrants, probation and parole violations, traffic 

court, and domestic relations warrants. 

Administrative staff process correspondence from law enforcement agencies and departments throughout the Commonwealth in 

conjunction with the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance 

Network, also called CLEAN, in order to confirm the validity of 

criminal warrants for individuals detained in other jurisdictions. 

Warrant Unit investigative personnel are then dispatched to accept custody of confirmed fugitives who are not being held on any 

other criminal charges and return them to the custody of Philadelphia. The Warrant Unit also has a major role in the First Judicial 

District House Arrest Program from the initial investigation, field 

installation, equipment maintenance, and the arrest of violators. 

This unit also maintains an office at the Criminal Justice Center 

17 

to facilitate individuals who surrender peacefully on criminal bench 

warrants. 

During calendar year 2009, the unit was responsible for the arrest of 6,300 individuals wanted on 10,787 warrants. Additionally, 

through its surrender process, the unit processed 17,381 cases, returning them to the active inventory. The Warrant Unit has established excellent working relationships with local, State, and Federal law enforcement partners, including, but not limited to, the 

Philadelphia Police Department, the U.S. Marshal Service, and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The unit has participated in various sweeps, such as Operation FALCON, Operation Pressure 

Point, and Fugitive Safe Surrender. 

The ultimate mission of the Warrant Unit is to reduce the warrant inventory and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. 

Given adequate resources and personnel, the unit will strive to reduce the current outstanding bench warrant catalog. 

Again, Senator Specter, I thank you for the invitation to this 

Committee. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Preski. 

We now turn to our next witness, Mr. Roy Weise, Senior Advisor, 

Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Thank you for coming here, Mr. Weise. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ROY G. WEISE, SENIOR ADVISOR, CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. WEISE. Well, thank you, Senator. I’m Roy Weise, Senior Advisor in the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 

or CJIS, located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. I thank you for this 

opportunity. 

The CJIS division maintains the National Crime Information 

Center, more commonly known as NCIC, which was established in 

1967. It’s a computerized index of documented criminal justice information available to criminal justice agencies nationwide. The information maintained in NCIC assists authorized users in apprehending fugitives, locating missing persons, recovering stolen property, and identifying terrorists. NCIC operates under a shared 

management concept. 

The shared management is achieved through the Advisory Policy 

Board, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 

comprised of Federal, State, local, and tribal criminal justice professionals. The FBI serves as the custodians of the records housed 

at NCIC and maintains the operational availability of the system. 

The entry, modification and removal of records are the responsibility of the law enforcement agency that holds the arrest warrant, 

the missing person report, the theft report, et cetera. 

CJIS works very closely with tribal, local, State, and Federal law 

criminal justice agencies to develop the operational, policy, and procedural guidelines for using this system. Each State has a State 

level and a local agency representative who participates in the 

shared management process. 

18 

Due in large part to the shared management, NCIC has thrived. 

Presently, NCIC contains 19 files with over 15 million records 

which are accessed an average of 7.5 million times each day. The 

system has experienced upgrades, modifications, and policy 

changes in order to adapt to new capabilities and changing requirements, as dictated by the user demands and legislation. 

Although there are no mandates requiring the entry of warrants 

into NCIC, law enforcement personnel rely greatly upon the use of 

the system. In 2007, the CJIS Advisory Policy Board convened a 

Warrant Task Force to address many outstanding warrant-related 

topics. The task force is comprised of a panel of subject matter experts who understand and place special emphasis on the importance of a wanted person file record entry by State and local law 

enforcement. 

Through initiatives by the local and State agencies and the efforts of the task force, the number of warrants has improved over 

the years. In 2002, there were entries for 800,000 fugitives in 

NCIC; today there are 1.7 million. Having said that, the task force, 

the members of the shared management, and CJIS realize that 

there is room for more improvement. 

Senator Specter, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here 

on this issue. It is regarded very seriously by the FBI and the CJIS 

division. I look forward to any questions you may have. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Weise. 

Our fourth and final witness on this panel is Mr. Dennis Bartlett, executive director of The American Bail Coalition. 

We appreciate your appearing here today, Mr. Bartlett. The floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS A. BARTLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

THE AMERICAN BAIL COALITION, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the invitation to appear. I am Dennis Bartlett, the executive director of The American 

Bail Coalition, which is an association of 13 bail insurance companies. Our companies write most of the bail in the United States. 

Although the State of Pennsylvania permits the use of commercial surety bail for court appearance bonds, it also allows for local 

court rules. In 2006, Philadelphia allowed the use of commercial 

bail after a prohibition of over three decades. The new regulations, 

however, are so restrictive as to act as disincentives, hence, practically speaking, the use of commercial bail here is negligible. 

Nobody can estimate how the use of commercial bail might have 

attenuated Philadelphia’s current bail crisis, but we do know this: 

(1) commercial bail gets its defendants to court, and if we don’t we 

pay the forfeitures in cash. Nationwide, commercial bail has a solid 

track record in accomplishing the basic purpose of bail, that is, getting defendants to court. For every 100 defendants we bond out, we 

will have about 8 of them skip, and of that handful we will recover, 

on average, 5 or 6, for an overall success rate of 97 to 98 percent. 

This success rate probably explains why, since 1990, State courts 

have doubled the use of commercial surety bonds. 

19 

Lest I sound like Cicero, pro domo sua, this record has been confirmed by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, plus a number of academic studies, which are detailed in the written testimony. We’re 

not Federal, but we might be part of the solution. If, in the opinion 

of the Federal Government, commercial bail is deemed a helpful 

ancillary to the criminal justice system, that is, getting clients to 

court, recovering fugitives, paying forfeitures for those who don’t, 

how can the Federal Government enhance this role? 

One of the main obstacles to commercial bail is Federal funding 

granted to those who use these funds to try to eliminate commercial bail. The chief source of such funding is found in the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance and other agencies of DOJ’s Office of Justice 

Programs. Recipients of government largesse, such as the National 

Association of Pre-Trial Service Agencies and the Pre—Trial Justice Institute, make no secret of their intention to eliminate commercial bail nationwide and replace it with government-run pretrial service agencies. 

As far back as 1996, Congress chided OJB for such lopsided endorsements: ‘‘Pre-trial release. The Committee is concerned that 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance has awarded grants to programs 

that encourage the use of unsecured release for individuals charged 

with serious and violent crimes. The Committee believes that balanced information should be provided to States and localities regarding all available pre-trial alternatives.’’ Hence, if commercial 

bail has a positive effect on the U.S. criminal justice system, al 

fortiori, Federal funding, which goes to undercut it seems out of 

place. 

Furthermore, if pre-trial service agencies are recipients of Federal funding, it is not unreasonable for them to be accountable for 

their performance. According to a recent survey of 171 such agencies by the Pre-Trial Justice Institute, less than half of these agencies keep records, even of failures to appear. Furthermore, PJIA 

states that many of these agencies are disinclined to keep records 

out of fear that their poor performance will be used against them, 

especially in the budget process. 

Pre-trial service agencies should be subject to reporting requirements that record who is released on what charge, how many times 

that person has failed to appear, and the offense committed while 

on release pending trial, and if money bail is used, a record of the 

bond amount and how much was fortified, how much paid, and, 

more importantly, how much owed. 

There is a new development. It’s a modest trend and it should 

be encouraged. Pre-trial service agencies recommend that their clients be released on commercial surety bonds. According to the PJI 

survey, pre-trial service agencies recommend about 20 percent of 

the time that their clients be bailed out on a commercial surety 

bail bond. Agencies who have partnered with commercial bail on 

this have reduced their FTA rates drastically. Naturally, those who 

advocate the demise of commercial bail oppose this trend. The 

same cannot be said for us; we welcome such cooperation. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 

20 

Mr. Preski, we’ll begin with you. According to a Bureau of Justice 

Statistics report from 2004, Philadelphia is tied with Newark, New 

Jersey as having the Nation’s highest fugitive felony rate of 11 percent. According to the Inquirer story, the total number of fugitives 

in Philadelphia today is almost 47,000, specifically, 46,839. Do 

those statistics sound about right to you? 

Mr. PRESKI. Yes, they do. 

Senator SPECTER. The factual situation also, as reported, is that Philadelphia is owed $1 million in bail monies, but they cannot be 

collected because of the absence of computerized records. Is that 

about right? 

Mr. PRESKI. Senator Specter, the Pre-Trial Service Division is responsible for the collection of the bail. We’re not responsible, when 

bail is entered into judgment, for the collection piece. In other 

words, when an individual comes in to post the bail, our responsibility is to validate the amount of the bail that’s holding the individual and to collect the requisite fee. Once that is done, then the 

bail process is turned over to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. They 

are responsible for the collection. 

Senator SPECTER. It is the responsibility of the Clerk of Quarter 

Sessions to collect the bail? 

Mr. PRESKI. Yes, sir. After it is entered into judgment. 

Senator SPECTER. Are you aware of the audit of the Office of 

Clerk of Quarter Sessions which has just been released this week 

for 2 years, 2007 and 2008, which shows that there was a failure 

to have back reconciliations for $26,800,000 omitted from the city’s 

preliminary financial statement and did not report to the city 

$352,800,000 in receivable funds for restitution? 

Mr. PRESKI. No, I am not. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. PRESKI. The one thing I would like to point out, if the Statewide automation system, which Philadelphia is a part of, any bill 

that is collected by my agency, the requisite information on the individual is part of the record. So whether the bill goes in the name 

of the defendant or in the name of a third-party surety, all that information is part of the criminal process and the criminal record 

process, and that is turned over to the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. 

So they should have the information available to them of who posted the bail when money is entered into judgment. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Preski, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in a 

series of articles in 2008, reported that there are a vast number of 

fugitives who are not entered into the Federal system, into the National Crime Information Center. Do you have any idea how successful the Philadelphia system is for reporting fugitives into that 

system? 

Mr. PRESKI. As of right now, Philadelphia’s warrants are not entered into NCIC, however, they will be, from what I understand, 

in May of 2010. 

Senator SPECTER. Why have they not been registered with the 

Federal system, the National Crime Information Center? 

Mr. PRESKI. I believe it was a logistical problem with computer 

people. But Senator Specter, I’m not totally aware of why. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, it’s a pretty big omission, not to register 

the fugitives with the national system. 

21 

Mr. PRESKI. Correct. 

Senator SPECTER. If the national system has a record of who the 

fugitives are from Philadelphia and they’re apprehended someplace 

else, for example, St. Louis, then there’s an opportunity for the St. 

Louis authorities to notify Philadelphia for Philadelphia to go and 

get the fugitive. 

Mr. PRESKI. You’re absolutely correct. That would put a greater 

burden on the District Attorney’s Office, who is responsible for the 

extradition of that individual. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, that’s the burden of the District Attorney, to prosecute people charged with crime, and you have to bring 

them in. Isn’t the practical effect of not reporting to the national 

clearinghouse fugitives really knowing the system, gaming the system, remaining at large and really thumbing their nose at the 

Philadelphia criminal justice system? 

Mr. PRESKI. Senator Specter, the individuals will be entered into 

the national computer system in May of 2010. Now, I was not part 

of the committee or the reason why they were, or took so long for 

them to be entered into it. 

Senator SPECTER. Who was on the committee? Who is responsible? 

Mr. PRESKI. I’m not aware of that, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, who’s on the committee? 

Mr. PRESKI. I believe it was the Philadelphia State Police, it was 

members of the First Judicial District Management Information 

Services, and court administration. 

Senator SPECTER. This is January. Why should it take until May 

to start entering these fugitives in the national system? 

Mr. PRESKI. I believe it was just logistical problems, from what 

I understand. 

Senator SPECTER. What do you mean by ‘‘logistical problems’’ ? 

Mr. PRESKI. How the warrants were going to be entered in, what 

information was going to be entered in, et cetera. But again, I was 

not part of that, so it’s very difficult for me to answer that. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, who’s responsible for it now? Whom can 

I call up and say, why the delay? 

Mr. PRESKI. I would contact the court administration for the 

First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Mr. Lawrence. 

Senator SPECTER. And he has the answers? 

Mr. PRESKI. I would hope so, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Patrignani, you are the Acting U.S. Marshal. How does the Federal Government work on a similar system? 

If you have a fugitive who doesn’t show up for a Federal trial, is 

that person entered into the National Crime Information Center? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Yes, they are. 

Senator SPECTER. And if they are apprehended somewhere on another charge in some other city, is that information brought to the 

attention of the U.S. Marshal so that you can facilitate their being 

brought back to your court for trial? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Yes, it is. 

Senator SPECTER. And how does that work? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Well, generally the arresting jurisdiction, if it’s 

outside of the Philadelphia area, will run that person. If they identifiers that that person provides to that arresting jurisdiction are 

22 

the same that are entered into NCIC, then they’ll get what’s called 

a ‘‘wanted hit,’’ which will be a computer-generated message letting 

them know that that individual is wanted in another jurisdiction 

for—— 

Senator SPECTER. And then what do you do, go get them? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. What happens to the person who has skipped 

bail? Is there an additional penalty, an additional charge? What is 

the consequence of that? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. There can be, and generally that’s left up to the 

judge who presides over that particular case. 

Senator SPECTER. And what have you seen is the practice? Does 

the judge increase the severity of the sentence? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. I think it varies, Mr. Chairman. Some judges 

have made it more of a practice to add additional penalties for failure to appear and violations of—— 

Senator SPECTER. Is there a separate offense for jumping bail? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Yes, there is. 

Senator SPECTER. So there can be an additional sentence on an 

additional offense? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Weise, what recommendations would you 

have for the kinds of problems which we’re facing here in Philadelphia? You’re a senior advisor for the Criminal Justice Information 

System at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. How effective is the 

system employed in the Federal criminal courts contrasted with 

what we’ve heard about the Philadelphia criminal courts? 

Mr. WEISE. I really feel I’m not qualified to answer that question. 

I couldn’t compare the two, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, how does the Federal system work? 

You’ve heard the description from Mr. Patrignani. How would you 

supplement that? 

Mr. WEISE. The NCIC, we feel, is a very effective weapon. We 

now have 1.7 million warrants in the system. A recent survey 

showed that—not recent. It was actually a few years ago. But it 

showed that we apprehend a fugitive every 90 seconds using the 

system. 

Senator SPECTER. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch cited Federal estimates of 1.9 to 2.7 million active Federal, State, or local felony 

warrants, but only 1.1 million of those warrants having been entered in the National Crime Information Center. Does that sound 

about right to you? 

Mr. WEISE. Yes, sir. That article was written some time ago, so 

the 1.1 million is now 1.7 million. So, we have improved since then. 

Senator SPECTER. So this is a national problem. Those figures 

cited not only Federal, but State and local as well, correct? 

Mr. WEISE. Yes, sir. That’s total. 

Senator SPECTER. And do you have any idea why it is that so 

many fugitive warrants are not entered into the national system? 

Mr. WEISE. I think some of it is the overhead involved in putting 

them in, administrative overhead. There’s a requirement that you 

validate each record every year to make sure that it’s still supposed 

to be in the system, which takes resources. I think sometimes it’s 

a matter of education, and that’s been one of our efforts, is we’ve 

23 

used that St. Louis Post-Dispatch article to—we sent that to every 

chief of police and every sheriff in the country to let them know 

about this issue, feeling that once they’re aware of it they’ll take 

care of it in their jurisdiction as well. 

Senator SPECTER. So with that tremendous number of additional 

people who have jumped bail around the country, State and local, 

it seems the Federal Government has it pretty well in control, as 

described here today. There are a lot of people who are charged 

with crimes who are at large. Any statistics or studies available on 

the crime problem caused by those people who are at large? 

Mr. WEISE. Not that I’m familiar with. The Post-Dispatch article 

did have some good anecdotal information about the crimes that 

are committed—— 

Senator SPECTER. And what was that anecdotal information? 

Mr. WEISE. Just, individuals that committed a crime because 

they were not in the system, or perhaps they were in the system 

but when they were arrested and extradition was not accomplished. 

Senator SPECTER. So there are specific cases where people who 

have jumped bail, who are at large, have committed other crimes 

of violence? 

Mr. WEISE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. And with so many at large, it’s a pretty sensible inference that many more are committing crimes of violence. 

Mr. WEISE. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. So it’s a breakdown nationally, not just Philadelphia. We’ve got a lot of company. 

Mr. WEISE. Yes. It’s not unique to Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Huh? 

Mr. WEISE. It’s not unique to Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Not unique to Philadelphia. 

You talk about commercial bail, and your testimony is that commercial bail has been a lot more successful in producing people who 

jump bail. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, sir, I think we are. If you’ve got a 97 to 98 

percent success rate, I think that’s pretty good. 

Senator SPECTER. How good are your statistics? They sound a little too good to be true, Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. They’re industry statistics. It will vary from place 

to place, but that seems to be the general, that 8 percent initial 

skip rate, and then the picking up of 4 or 5. Also, that is confirmed 

by the Bureau of Justice statistics study. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you recommend to a city like Philadelphia that they go back to commercial bail? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I think the courts should have that option, 

and I think for certain defendants it would be a good option. I 

think the city ought to facilitate that. Right now, they have, like 

I said, since 2006, authorized the reintroduction of commercial bail, 

but you have to put down a $250 deposit and you cannot write 

more than $1 million face value. 

Senator SPECTER. A $250 deposit? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Two hundred and fifty thousand. Excuse me. 

Senator SPECTER. Two hundred and fifty thousand. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Correct. 

24 

Senator SPECTER. Who puts the deposit down, the commercial 

bail company? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. The person who’s admitted, the company’s 

that’s admitted to write bail has to put down that deposit. Now, in 

the case of an insurance company, that’s ridiculous because insurance is, in effect, a deposit. I don’t think any property and casualty 

writer in the city has to put down such a deposit. But the cap of $1 million only allows, say, a 10 percent profit, 

so you’re basically putting down a quarter of a million dollars to 

make a $100,000 profit, if that. That’s shared with bail agents and 

insurance companies and so forth, so as somebody said, the squeeze 

is not worth the juice. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Bartlett, do you know the history of Philadelphia moving away from commercial bail to—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. I’ve heard it was the result of, as it was in 

many places 35 years ago or so, corruption in the bail industry. 

Nowadays, it’s highly regulated. A corrupt bail agent today is soon 

a former bail agent. Abuses in the system—it’s very highly selfpoliced. Very few bail agents will tolerate a colleague who is getting a commercial edge based on spurious practices. I’d say that almost any case that you could bring up to me, I could probably tell 

you that behind the prosecution of such abuses are probably other 

bail agents who are coming forth to the authorities regarding those 

abuses. 

Senator SPECTER. When I was District Attorney, there was a lot 

of corruption in the bail system, implicated with a magisterial system where there were shake-downs and people who were under arrest. We used to have a theater across from City Hall called The 

Family Theater, and there were a lot of sting operations. They 

would arrest people on charges involving gays, take them into the 

police district. Suddenly, someone would appear and get them released on bail and extorted large sums of money. The bail system 

went by the boards. But it may be time to take another look at it. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Well, I think under the current situation—you 

know, that’s 35 years ago. I think the situation has changed drastically in that respect. 

Senator SPECTER. I’d like you to submit to the subcommittee 

those statistics, and the backing of those statistics—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Sure. 

Senator SPECTER [contuning]. To show the success rate in the 

high 90s. That sounds like a—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. They are put forth in the studies which I referred 

to in my written testimony. I’ll be happy to get that material to 

your staff. 

Senator SPECTER. We have had a number of efforts to bring the 

Federal Government into the bail picture. Legislation was introduced by Senator Biden—held hearings in 2008—to provide for 

Federal grants authorizing the Attorney General to make Federal 

grants to assist in the funding of locating and apprehending fugitives and bringing them back. Senator Durbin and Senator Elizabeth Dole had similar legislation. Senator Durbin’s staff and my 

staff have been talking about revitalizing that. 

What do you think of that, Mr. Preski? This is an obvious question, but the city of Philadelphia could use some assistance on 

25 

funding the identification of these fugitives and apprehending them 

and bringing them back. 

Mr. PRESKI. Senator, we would welcome any additional funds 

that would assist in that endeavor. I mean, at the present time, if 

you look at the Warrant Unit, in and of itself, we’re down 21 personnel due to budgetary constraints that the First Judicial District 

is under. 

Senator SPECTER. You have only 52 people in the Warrant Unit? 

Mr. PRESKI. I have 52 armed field personnel. 

Senator SPECTER. How many do you need? 

Mr. PRESKI. I would welcome any additional personnel. 

Senator SPECTER. No, I know you’d welcome them, but how many 

do you need? 

Mr. PRESKI. Presently we’re down 21 individuals. I would like to 

replenish and get back to where I was, at least. 

Senator SPECTER. If you had 21 more, up to 73, would that be 

adequate? 

Mr. PRESKI. It would allow us to do our job even better than how 

we do it now. I mean, if you look at these 6,300 arrests for calendar 

year 2009, we would be able to increase that. 

Senator SPECTER. When was the decision made to start putting 

Philadelphia fugitives into the national system next May? When 

was that decision made? 

Mr. PRESKI. I was not part of that decision. 

Senator SPECTER. Who made the decision? 

Mr. PRESKI. Again, I have to defer to my hierarchy on that. I 

know that there were numerous meetings with the State Police, 

with the Philadelphia Police, and in order to complete—— 

Senator SPECTER. Those were inspired by the Philadelphia Inquirer articles? 

Mr. PRESKI. No, it was before that, actually. This has been an 

ongoing discussion. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, how long have the discussions taken? 

Mr. PRESKI. Senator, again, I’m not part of that. I can’t answer 

that. 

Senator SPECTER. Okay. Well, we can find that out. We can find 

that out. 

Mr. PRESKI. I can tell you this, that the Philadelphia warrants 

have been entered into the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network, the CLEAN network, since 2004, so anyone that 

is stopped within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia warrant will be visible to them. 

Senator SPECTER. Since 2004? 

Mr. PRESKI. 2004, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. How effective has that been? 

Mr. PRESKI. It’s highly effective. Highly effective. 

Senator SPECTER. So you knew that if you had these warrants 

entered into a statistical computer and you located people, but inside of Pennsylvania is very limited. These fugitives travel far and 

wide, don’t they, Mr. Preski? 

Mr. PRESKI. Yes, they do, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. 

26 

Mr. Patrignani, would you have any suggestion for how the 

Philadelphia system ought to be restructured to be as effective as 

the Federal system? 

Mr. PATRIGNANI. Well, I would defer to the local officials on that 

matter, Mr. Chairman, just because they’re much more qualified to 

be able to answer their intimate questions. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we will pursue it, Mr. Preski, as you say, 

with the individuals who are charged to try to find out where the 

laxity has been and why it’s going to take so long, until May. 

That’s a long time between now and May. That’s five months—four, 

five months. 

And Mr. Bartlett, we’d appreciate your giving us those statistics 

and the way commercial bail works. That’s something that ought 

to be considered here. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, we thank you all very much for coming 

in, and that concludes our hearing. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

27 


57940.001
28 


57940.002
29 


57940.003
30 


57940.004
31 


57940.005
32 


57940.006
33 


57940.007
34 


57940.008
35 


57940.009
36 


57940.010
37 


57940.011
38 


57940.012
39 


57940.013
40 


57940.014
41 


57940.015
42 


57940.016
43 


57940.017
44 


57940.018
45 


57940.019
46 


57940.020
47 


57940.021
48 


57940.022
49 


57940.023
50 


57940.024
51 


57940.025
52 


57940.026
53 


57940.027
54 


57940.028
55 


57940.029
56 


57940.030
57 


57940.031
58 


57940.032
59 

Æ 


57940.033