U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–876 PDF 2005

SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND

COURT PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1751

APRIL 26, 2005

Serial No. 109–44

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. 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 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Special Counsel for Intelligence 

and Homeland Security 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Deputy Chief Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 26, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

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

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Jane R. Roth, Chair, Committee on Security and Facilities, 

Judicial Conference of the United States 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

The Honorable Cynthia Stevens Kent, District Court Judge, 114th Judicial 

District Court, Smith County, Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

The Honorable Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Eastern District 

of Virginia 

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

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

Mr. John F. Clark, United States Marshal, Eastern District of Virginia, 

appearing for the United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 75

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, and Homeland Security .................................................................... 76

Prepared Statement of Mary McQueen, President, National Center for State 

Courts .................................................................................................................... 76

Letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, dated April 1, 

2005, submitted by the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 81

Response to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Paul J. McNulty, 

United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia ....................................... 85

(1)

SECURE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND

COURT PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome you to this very important legislative hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, to examine the problem of violence in and around our courthouses against 

judges, prosecutors, witnesses, law enforcement, and other court 

personnel, and the comprehensive bipartisan proposal recently introduced by my good friends and colleagues, Representative 

Gohmert and Representative Weiner, H.R. 1751, the ‘‘Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.’’

Recent tragic events—the killing of family members of United 

States District Judge Joan Lefkow; and the brutal slayings of 

Judge Rowland Barton, his court reporter, his deputy sheriff, and 

a Federal officer in Atlanta; and the cold-blooded shootings outside 

of the Tyler, Texas courthouse—all underscore the importance of 

security for judges, courthouse personnel, witnesses, and law enforcement. This is a problem which threatens the very integrity of 

our judicial system. 

Our Committee has, for many years, as you all know, focused on 

the issue of protecting witnesses and victims of crime. That problem continues to exist, but has now grown with recent brutal acts 

of violence, increasing number of threats, and attempts to derail 

our civil and criminal justice system. 

We must 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 of violence when carrying out their duties. 

Our mission here is to provide the resources and the tools necessary to ensure that our judicial system works. Our words must 

translate into deeds and meaningful reforms and resources. 

Courthouse protection does not simply mean in and around the 

courthouse itself. Security needs to extend to the homes and areas 

that judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and witnesses live. 

Without such protection, justice will truly be denied, as criminals 

2

seek to undermine our justice system; whether it be a disgruntled 

civil litigant, a dangerous criminal seeking to take out a judge or 

a prosecutor, kill a gang member who has agreed to testify against 

other gang members, or murder innocent civilian witnesses who 

have done nothing wrong other than carry out their civil obligation 

to testify against a violent criminal. 

At the Federal level, the United States Marshals Service carries 

a heavy obligation to protect those working in the Judicial Branch, 

as well as witnesses in Federal trials. 

The Committee has heard concerns about the United States Marshals’ ability to carry out its duties. A recent Inspector General’s 

report raised questions about the marshals’ witness protection program. In addition, we’ve heard that marshals may not have adequate resources to fulfill its mission; that questions have been 

raised about allocation of resources between the field and headquarters locations; and that arbitrary decisions at the marshals’

headquarters adversely affect both morale and security efforts in 

the field. 

The Subcommittee intends to examine these issues, and I’m 

grateful for my support—for the support of my good friend and colleague, Ranking Minority Member ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, for his commitment to conduct oversight of the U.S. Marshals Service to determine what, if any, additional measures may be needed. 

At the State and local level, I’m very interested in hearing what 

Congress can do, if anything, to assist in the protection of their 

courts and their witnesses. I’m already aware of a dire need for assistance in the creation of witness protection programs at the State 

and local level. As we all know, the bulk of criminal prosecution 

occurs at the State and local level. 

I was disturbed to hear recently that 40 percent of homicide 

prosecutions in Baltimore, Maryland, are dismissed or derailed by 

witness intimidation, threats, and violence. Moreover, I was furthermore disturbed to learn that there are existing websites on the 

Internet which disclose the identity and personal information of 

judges, witnesses, law enforcement, and other criminal justice personnel. These techniques of witness intimidation must not continue. 

I want to take a moment to thank Representative Gohmert, the 

gentleman from Texas, and Representative Weiner, the gentleman 

from New York, who have crafted comprehensive legislation in 

H.R. 1751 to address these issues. I congratulate them for their bipartisan effort. 

There’s more to be done, and I’m committed to making sure that 

the Subcommittee continues to examine all these issues. As I said, 

the integrity of our judicial system is at risk, and we must act now. 

And I want to say a word or two about mandatory minimums. 

They’ve been kicked around a lot recently. And I’m sure Mr. 

McNulty is going to address that today. I have——

Mr. SCOTT. I’m going to maybe address it, too. 

Mr. COBLE. And the Ranking Member says he may address it, as 

well. 

I have consistently voted in favor of mandatory minimums, but 

I’m revisiting that. Oh, you can’t dare talk against mandatory 

3

minimums; you’re soft on crime! Well, I’m not soft on crime, but I 

want to be sure that there are adequate safety nets. 

Folks, when you impose an absolute standard, inevitably, in my 

opinion, there is going to be an injustice or an inequity imposed at 

either individuals or groups, small however they may be. I think 

there’s a place for mandatory minimums. But as I revisit it, I want 

to be doggone sure that there is a safety net; because I’m afraid 

that sometimes someone may fall through the cracks. Now, the 

hardline proponents of mandatory minimums: ‘‘Oh, no, no one falls 

through the cracks.’’ Well, that may or may not be true. Paul, you 

might could educate me more thoroughly on that. 

I think, folks, it’s a situation where reasonable men and women 

can differ. I think convincing arguments can be made on each side 

of this issue. And I’m sure Mr. McNulty is going to address it. The 

Minority Member implies that he’s going to address it. But subject 

to interpretation, of course. 

I don’t want anybody to think that I’m abandoning my past support on mandatory minimums, because I’m not. But I want to be 

sure about the safety net, and I’m not thoroughly convinced it’s 

there. It may well be there. 

Having said all that, I guess what I—in conclusion, Mr. Scott, before I surrender it to you—— Mr. SCOTT. Surrender? [Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. Pardon? What did you say? 

Mr. SCOTT. Surrender? 

Mr. COBLE. Before I surrender the mike to you. Many advocates 

see this issue, folks, as all black or all white. I see subtle shades 

of gray. And I want to visit that more thoroughly. 

And having said that, I want to recognize my good friend—I 

guess he’s still a good friend—the Ranking Member from Virginia, 

Mr. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you’re changing your position on mandatory minimums, you’re going to become a much better friend. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, now, would the gentleman yield? I didn’t say 

I’d change my position. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to join you as 

we convene the hearing on security in our courts and protecting 

our judges and others associated with court operations. Unfortunately, as you’ve indicated, I’m unable to join you in supporting the 

bill before us because of the extraneous matters that are in the bill. 

With several sensational incidents in recent years involving murders of judges, family members of judges, court personnel, witnesses, and others, we’ve come to see the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and security for persons associated with them. 

All agree that enhancement of security for our courts and all persons associated with them—that increasing that security is imperative. Yet the proponents of H.R. 1751 have chosen to address those 

needs in a manner apparently calculated to prevent or undermine 

the prospects of broad bipartisan and general support for that effort. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 1751 is yet another effort to use an appropriate issue of concern to the Nation as a vehicle for extraneous 

controversial and general provisions of the law that are unnecesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Sep 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042605B\20876.000 HJUD1 PsN: 20876
4

sary, costly, and often counterproductive to that concern. Yet again, 

in this Congress we’re considering a bill that purports to address 

a serious concern, security in the courts, when in essence, the bill 

is merely a host for more draconian criminal penalties aimed at ensuring that bit players and major players of crime face the same 

consequences. 

Among other provisions in H.R. 1751—among other provisions, 

H.R. 1751 contains seven new death penalties; a speedy habeas corpus procedure to ensure that more innocent people are put to 

death; and increasing the number by applying the provision to ex 

post facto, you’ve got 22 new mandatory minimum sentences, provisions to punish attempts and conspiracies the same as completing 

the offense. 

The habeas corpus provision is particularly troubling, given that 

119 death row inmates have been exonerated over the last 12 

years—that’s almost one a month—after languishing on death row 

for many years. The impact of the provision seems to ensure that 

innocent people will be executed before they have enough time for 

the evidence to develop to exonerate them. 

As with the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the public rationale undergirding of this provision is apparently that it is inconsistent with an effective death penalty if we let the courts get 

clogged up by all these innocent defendants. 

The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death 

penalty in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crimes, racially discriminatory, and it’s found much more 

often now to be erroneously applied. A 23-year comprehensive 

study of the death penalty found that 68 percent of the death penalties applied were erroneous. That is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death over the last 12 years have been completely 

exonerated. It’s not surprising that with such a sorry record of 

death penalty administration that several States are abolishing the 

death penalty, or had them overturned by courts, or placed moratoriums on their application while studies are being conducted, or 

just haven’t applied a death penalty in many years. Connecticut, 

for example, hadn’t executed anyone for 45 years. 

Some have referenced the econometric research of economist Joanna Shepherd as justification for the death penalty. More recently, she has done further analysis and elaboration on her research, and concluded that executions deter murders in six States; 

they have no effect on murders in eight States; and they increase 

murders in 13 States. That is the research justifying the death 

penalty. 

Now, mandatory minimum sentences clearly detract from the importance of the bill. Through rigorous study and analysis, mandatory minimums have been shown to be less effective, and thus 

waste money when compared to more effective approaches in the 

criminal justice system. And they are discriminatorily applied. And 

they violate common sense. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I’d like unanimous consent to insert into 

this record, as we have others, the letter from the Judicial Conference that, among other things, notes that the mandatory minimums violate common sense. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

5

[The information referred to is available in the Appendix.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, to suggest that opposition of mandatory minimums is soft on crime, I think, is inaccurate. When the plan is 

cost-ineffective, wasting money, is discriminatory, and violates common sense, it seems to me that opposing such a plan is not soft on 

crime. Mandatory minimums are just inappropriate, and don’t 

work. 

Now, even though you’ve got the mandatory minimums in there, 

the ones in the bill appear arbitrary and confusing. For example, 

under section 7 of the bill, an individual who threatens a witness, 

victim, or informant, will get a mandatory 10-year sentence. However, the same individual threatening a judge, under section 2 of 

the bill would only receive a mandatory minimum of 5 years. 

Now, we’re not going to quote the numerous studies regarding 

the problems with mandatory minimums. But when we combine 

the impact of this bill and its mandatory minimums with the impact of similar bills that we’re considering—the gang bill and the 

drug bill recently considered by this Committee—clearly, there will 

be a massive prison impact if they’re all enacted into law. The indications from the Sentencing Commission assessing the impact of 

the gang bill alone is in excess of $7 billion over the next 10 years. 

So I hope that you will join me, Mr. Chairman, in requiring a prison impact assessment from the Department of Justice regarding all 

of these measures. 

Just as clearly, Mr. Chairman, with the number of death penalties and mandatory minimums that we have that would apply to 

incidents that we have seen in our courts. We’re not talking about 

the kind of people that will be deterred by such measures. And I 

hope we’re not going to insult the public by suggesting that some 

who—somebody who would have shot a judge decided not to because we passed a new mandatory minimum sentence. 

So I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I hope 

that we might actually enhance court security. But finally, Mr. 

Chairman, let me just say that I have a concern about discussing 

court security in a public session. And I don’t know if you want to 

join me in this, but I would invite the witnesses, if they have concerns about talking about some of the security issues in public, to 

invite us to discuss these in private. Sometimes security measures 

are best not discussed in public. And if some would rather do it in 

private, I would invite that process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. And never has he been so 

friendly to me. Never, never. But I have not abandoned my other 

role. I want to make that clear. But I guess the good news—and 

I’m looking directly at the U.S. Attorney. What attracted me to 

mandatory minimums to begin with were a couple of features. 

Number one, it provided the prosecution with added leverage. I 

think no one will argue with that. It promoted—or at least it hopefully promoted—consistency in sentencing. If ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott commits a crime, and Howard Coble committed a crime under similar 

circumstances, hopefully, they will be awarded an identical sentence. That was one of the reasons. I just hope that we have not 

made the judges too inflexible in doing it. 

I’m just thinking aloud today. And we’ll visit this, I’m sure, thoroughly as we go along. 

6

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. The letter that will be introduced into the record 

from the Judicial Conference points out that, unfortunately, people 

who commit similar crimes may be very dissimilar in the seriousness of the crime. Just because they violated the same code section 

doesn’t mean that the seriousness of the crime is identical. 

And they said that people who are similar will get very different 

mandatory minimums; whereas those who are the same often get 

very different sentences. And it’s that inconsistency that they point 

out violates common sense in many areas. 

For example, in that drug bill we considered a couple of weeks 

ago, if you commit a crime within the zone, you get the draconian 

mandatory minimums; two feet away, outside of the zone, you don’t 

get the mandatory minimum. Two people who have essentially 

committed the same crime, getting vastly different sentences because of the mandatory minimums. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. We’ve been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. Good to 

have you with us, Bill. 

Ladies and gentlemen, good to have you panelists, and those in 

the hearing room, as well. It is the practice of the Subcommittee 

to swear in all witnesses appearing before it. If you would, please 

stand and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We have four distinguished witnesses—— Mr. SCOTT. Can we ask them to sit down? 

Mr. COBLE. Oh, yes, you may be seated. I stand corrected. You 

may indeed resume your seats. I’m not used to being—you judges 

are used to giving directions to that. [Laughter.] 

We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our first 

witness is the Honorable Jane R. Roth, U.S. Court of Appeals 

Judge for the Third Circuit. In addition to serving as a U.S. Circuit 

Court Judge, Judge Roth is the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee—strike that—of the Committee on Security and Facilities of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

Judge Roth received her undergraduate degree from Smith College, and obtained her law degree from the Harvard Law School. 

Following law school, Judge Roth served as attorney for Richards, 

Layton and Finger, and as a United States District Court Judge for 

the State of Delaware. 

Our next judge in line, the honorable—is Judge Kent. In addition 

to being a constituent of our friend to the far end, Representative 

Gohmert, she is also a personal friend. And he has asked permission to introduce her today, and I recognize the distinguished gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed my great 

pleasure to introduce my good friend, formerly fellow district judge 

in Texas, Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent. Judge Kent does have over 

20 years on the bench. She had been a county court law judge in 

Texas, beginning back in 1984, and then in ’88 went to the district 

bench; has been a district judge there. 

7

She got her B.A. from the University of Houston in ’75; and then 

2 years later, got her law degree. She was on the fast track 

through high school; she was on the fast track through college; she 

was on the fast track through law school. And she’s pretty much 

been ahead of most of us all her life. 

She’s also gotten her Master’s of judicial studies there at the National Judicial College associated with the University of Nevada at 

Reno, in ’99; and is working on her Ph.D. in the judicial studies 

program, as well. She’s been a faculty member of the National Judicial College since ’92; has been a constant teacher and lecturer 

on continuing legal education, including courses like ‘‘Advanced 

Evidence,’’ ‘‘Handling Capital Cases,’’ and ‘‘Business Law.’’ She coauthored the Texas Bench Book for District Judges and the Texas 

Bench Book for County Court Law Judges. She’s written and published on Dalbert issues regarding experts and gatekeepers. 

She’s been married for 29 years to Don Kent, civil defense attorney. They have three grown sons. She is a constituent, as you said; 

but even more important to me, she’s my dear friend. And I’m 

proud to introduce Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas. And good to have 

you with us, as well, Judge. 

Mr. Paul McNulty, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is our third witness. In addition to serving as a 

U.S. Attorney, Mr. McNulty serves as the Vice Chairman of the 

Washington Center—Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area. 

Prior to becoming a U.S. Attorney, Mr. McNulty directed President George W. Bush’s transition team for the Department of Justice, and then served as principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. He also served on this very Committee for 8 years, first as a 

minority counsel, and subsequently as the chief counsel. Mr. 

McNulty is a graduate of Grove City College, and obtained his law 

degree from the Capital University School of Law. 

Our final witness is the Honorable John F. Clark, United States 

Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to his current appointment, Marshal Clark served as the Acting Marshal and Chief 

Deputy Director for the District. He has held numerous senior 

management positions with the Marshals Service, including Chief 

of the Internal Affairs Division, and Chief of the International Fugitive Investigations Division. Marshal Clark is a graduate of Syracuse University. 

Mr. McNulty, it is good to have you back on the Hill. It’s good 

to have you, Judge Roth, Judge Kent, and Marshal Clark, on the 

Hill. 

Folks, we abide rather rigidly by the 5-minute rule, as you all 

have been told previously. If you could, confine your oral statements to 5 minutes. And your warning is when the red light illuminates into your eye. That tells you the ice on which you have been 

skating is thin. Then you will terminate. 

Now, we’re going to make an exception today, and I don’t think 

there’ll be any objection to this. Judge Kent will provide for us a 

5-minute presentation—Judge, the film. So you will give your testimony, Judge Kent, and then at the conclusion of your testimony, 

8

we will observe the film that you have brought to show us. And I 

think that will——

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. COBLE. I’m told you’re going to do the film first. All right. 

So when Judge Roth completes her testimony, we’ll recognize you, 

Judge Kent, for the showing of the film, and then your oral testimony. And then we’ll move along to Mr. McNulty and Marshal 

Clark. 

Judge Roth, you may start. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JANE R. ROTH, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND FACILITIES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Judge ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Your mike I don’t think is on, Judge Roth. 

The red light to which I referred is on the panel that appears before you all. Judge Roth. 

Judge ROTH. Yes, thank you. This hearing presents an opportunity for all of us to heighten awareness of the current state of 

judicial security, which by statute is provided by the United States 

Marshals Service. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you and the Members of the Subcommittee were horrified when you learned of the murders of 

United States District Judge Joan Lefkow’s husband and mother in 

her home in Chicago. Subsequent events in a county courthouse in 

Atlanta serve as a vivid reminder of the potential dangers that participants in the judicial process face in this country every day. 

At its March 15 session, the Judicial Conference approved a resolution which calls upon the leaders of the Department of Justice 

and the Marshals Service to review fully and expeditiously all aspects of judicial security, and in particular security at judges’

homes and other locations away from the courthouse. The resolution also calls for adequate funding for this essential function. 

The primary statutory duty of the Marshals Service is the protection of the judiciary. The Marshals Service acknowledges its duty 

to fulfill this role; yet time and time again, we have found that the 

Service does not have the resources necessary to fulfill this obligation. When we have repeatedly expressed our concern to the Marshals Service and to the Attorney General about Marshals Service 

staffing levels, we have been assured that the judiciary will be protected. Our requests to examine staffing levels have not, however, 

been honored. Our requests to participate in the determination of 

adequate staffing levels have been denied. 

And I think, ironically, there is no representative from the Marshals Service headquarters here today to explain those denials. 

For years, the Marshals Service has experienced significant staffing shortages. Although we have not been privy to actual staffing 

allocations by judicial district, many United States Marshals report 

to us that their staffing levels have been significantly reduced. The 

Marshals Service has acknowledged to us that the districts are operating up to 30 percent below the number of deputy marshals 

needed to perform all of the local marshals’ responsibilities adequately. 

9

There are examples of Marshals Service staffing shortages across 

the country, particularly along the southern and southwestern borders. The Federal courts have expressed strong concerns about judicial protection for several decades. In fact, in 1982, the Government Accountability Office issued a report about the dilemma faced 

by the Marshals Service because its mission is not solely dedicated 

to the protection of the Judicial Branch. 

In that report, it was noted that U.S. Marshals are responsible 

for accomplishing missions and objectives of both the Executive and 

Judicial Branches of the Government. The GAO also noted at the 

time that it believes this is a difficult and unworkable management 

condition, and that the Director of the Marshals Service cannot 

properly manage law enforcement responsibilities assigned by the 

Attorney General, and the operation of the Federal judicial process 

suffers. 

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this report is almost 25 years old; 

but as I re-read it in preparation for this hearing, it became clear 

to me that the concerns outlined in the report are as relevant today 

as they were when the report was first released. The fact is that 

the Marshals Service is forced to serve two masters, and that there 

is constant tension and competition between the Marshals’ law enforcement responsibilities and its primary statutory mission of security for the Judicial Branch. 

The Marshals Service’s judicial security program also has experienced significant budgetary problems because, in our view, its law 

enforcement responsibilities have higher visibility than prisoner 

transportation, courtroom and off-site security, and threat assessment for judges and their families. 

It seems to my Committee that the Marshals Service never gets 

the resources it needs to get the job done. The Executive Branch 

consistently recommends slashing funds before the requests even 

make their way to Congress. In an op-ed that I penned for the 

April 9 edition of The Washington Post, I called upon key decisionmakers to help us. I am therefore seeking your assistance in helping to protect the Federal judiciary in several ways. 

In February 1990, after the December 1989 assassination of 

Judge Robert Vance at his home in Birmingham, Alabama, by an 

explosive device sent by a disgruntled litigant, the judiciary called 

upon the Justice Department to implement a program of off-site security for judges. This incident was the third assassination of a 

Federal judge in recent history. All of these murders occurred away 

from the courthouse. 

The judiciary’s request after the Vance murder was, in retrospect, a modest one: an education program for judges, their families, and court employees, about security precautions that should 

be taken when they are not in the courthouse, and a package of 

security equipment for every Federal judicial officer, including a 

home intrusion detection system. 

Although the Department and the Marshals Service initially supported this approach, the Department abruptly withdrew its support for funding such an initiative in November 1990, just 11 

months after Judge Vance’s death. That is a cause of a great deal 

of our frustration. 

10

1The Judicial Conference of the United States is the judiciary’s policy-making body. 

Let me outline for you the steps that we would like you to take 

in connection with the bill before you—— First, support the request for $12 million that would provide a 

comprehensive package of off-site security equipment for all judges. 

Support section 13 of the bill, that would require consultation 

and coordination by both the Director of the Administrative Office 

of the Courts and the Director of the United States Marshals Service regarding security requirements for the Judicial Branch of Government. 

Support section 14 of the bill, that would establish significantly 

greater penalties for the recording of malicious liens against Federal judges. 

Support section 15 of the bill, that would provide emergency authority to conduct court proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of a court. The need for this legislation became apparent after 

September 11th. 

Support section 17 of the bill, that would provide permanent authorization to redact information from financial disclosure reports 

that could endanger the filer. It is important for Congress to act 

soon, because this essential security measure for Federal judges, 

employees, and their families will expire on December 31. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you. I speak on behalf of all the judges throughout the country. 

They appreciate giving us this opportunity. And I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Roth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE R. ROTH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Jane R. Roth. I sit on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and serve 

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

of the United States.1 This hearing presents an opportunity for all of us to heighten 

awareness of the current state of judicial security, which, by statute, is provided by 

the United States Marshals Service, an agency that is part of the Executive 

Branch’s Department of Justice. (See 28 U.S.C. § 566 (a)). 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you and the members of the Subcommittee were 

horrified when you learned of the murders of United States District Judge Joan 

Lefkow’s husband and mother in her home in Chicago. Subsequent events in a county courthouse in Atlanta serve as a vivid reminder of the potential dangers that participants in the judicial process face in this country every day. At its March 15, 

2005, session the Judicial Conference approved a resolution which calls upon the 

leaders of the Department of Justice and U.S. Marshals Service ‘‘to review fully and 

expeditiously all aspects of judicial security, and in particular security at judges’

homes and other locations away from the courthouse.’’ The resolution also calls for 

‘‘adequate funding for this essential function.’’ A copy of the resolution is attached 

to this statement. 

STAFFING SHORTAGES A MAJOR CONCERN

The primary statutory duty of the Marshals Service is the protection of the judiciary. The Marshals Service acknowledges its duty to fulfill this role. Yet, time and 

time again we have found that the Service does not have the resources necessary 

to fulfill this obligation. When we have repeatedly expressed our concern to the 

Marshals Service and the Attorney General about Marshals Service staffing levels, 

we have been assured that the judiciary will be protected. Our requests to examine 

staffing levels have not, however, been honored. Our requests to participate in the 

determination of adequate staffing levels have been denied. 

For years, the Marshals Service has experienced significant staffing shortages. Although we have not been privy to actual staffing allocations by judicial district, 

11

2 U.S. Marshals’ Dilemma: Serving Two Branches of Government, GGD-82-3, April 19, 1982. 

many U.S. Marshals report to us that their staffing levels have been significantly 

reduced. Some Marshals tell us that the districts are operating up to 30 percent 

below the number of deputy marshals needed to perform all of the local Marshal’s responsibilities adequately. 

There are examples of Marshals Service staffing shortages across the country, 

particularly along the southern and southwestern borders. Several years ago the 

chief district judge in the Southern District of Florida had to make an urgent plea 

for staffing to the Congress on behalf of his local Marshal. Of particular concern to 

some judges is the use of contract employees, usually off-duty local enforcement officers, to transport prisoners. Significant resources have been provided by Congress 

to the Marshals Service in recent years because the judiciary has requested funding 

that augments the funds requested by the Justice Department for the Marshals 

Service. In virtually every instance, it is because of the judiciary, not the Executive 

Branch, that significant levels of additional financial resources have been provided 

to the Marshals Service. Notwithstanding our efforts, the Marshals Service is still 

experiencing budget problems. 

At this point, the judiciary cannot tell the Congress or any other interested party 

whether the local Marshals have enough resources and staff. Furthermore, the Department refuses to share any information about Marshals Service staffing levels 

and formulas or to consider suggestions for change with us. The Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee meets twice a year with the Attorney General to discuss security matters. Typically I attend that meeting. At this meeting last month, 

I expressed my concern to the Attorney General about leadership at the Marshals 

Service, the vacancies in several critical positions of great importance to the judiciary at the Marshals Service, the need for detailed information about Marshals Service staffing levels, and the need for courtroom security by deputy marshals in all 

criminal proceedings in which a defendant is present, i.e., not only when a defendant is in custody. 

COMPETING INTERESTS AFFECT RESOURCE AVAILABILITY

The problem of available resources is endemic in the system. The federal courts 

have expressed strong concerns about judicial protection for several decades. In fact, 

in 1982, the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) 

issued a report about the dilemma faced by the United States Marshals Service because its mission is not solely dedicated to the protection of the judicial branch.2

In that report, it was noted that ‘‘U.S. Marshals are responsible . . . for accomplishing missions and objectives of both the executive and judicial branches of the 

Government.’’ The GAO also noted at the time that it believes ‘‘. . . this is a difficult and unworkable management condition’’ and that the Director of the Marshals 

Service ‘‘. . . cannot properly manage law enforcement responsibilities assigned by 

the Attorney General, and the operation of the Federal judicial process suffers.’’ Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this report is almost 25 years old. But as I reread it in preparation for this hearing, it became clear to me that the concerns outlined in the report are as relevant today as they were when the report was first 

released. The fact is that the Marshals Service is forced to serve two masters and 

that there is constant tension and competition between the Marshals’ law enforcement responsibilities, which, of course, include fugitive apprehension, asset forfeiture, and witness protection, and its primary statutory mission of security for the 

judicial branch. The Marshals Service’s judicial security program also has experienced significant budgetary problems because, in the view of the Committee on Security and Facilities, its law enforcement responsibilities have higher visibility than 

prisoner transportation, courtroom and off-site security and threat assessment for 

judges and their families. 

It seems to my Committee that the Marshals Service never gets the resources it 

needs to get the job done. The Executive Branch consistently recommends slashing 

funds before the requests even make their way to Congress. In an op-ed piece that 

I penned for the April 9, 2005, edition of The Washington Post, I called upon key 

decision makers to help us. Some people believe that the Department of Justice will 

never support full resource levels for the Marshals Service, in spite of any Department of Justice statements to the contrary. Therefore, I am seeking your assistance 

in helping to protect the federal judiciary in several ways. 

OFF-SITE SECURITY

In February of 1990, after the December 1989 assassination of Judge Robert 

Vance at his home in Birmingham, Alabama, by an explosive device sent by a disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Sep 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\042605B\20876.000 HJUD1 PsN: 20876
12

3 It should also be noted that there is presently no permanent head of the Division within 

the Marshals Service who is responsible for judicial security. An individual has been acting in 

that position for almost 12 months. 

gruntled litigant, the judiciary called upon the Justice Department to implement a 

program of off-site security for judges. This incident was the third assassination of 

a judge in recent history. All of these murders occurred away from the courthouse. 

The judiciary certainly did not ask for a protective detail for every judge in response to Judge Vance’s death, as this was fiscally unfeasible. Its request was, in 

retrospect, a modest one—an education program for judges, their families and court 

employees about security precautions that should be taken when they are not in the 

courthouse, and a package of security equipment for every federal judicial officer, 

including a home intrusion detection system. Although the Department and the 

Marshals Service initially supported this approach, the Department abruptly withdrew its support for funding such an initiative in November of 1990, just 11 months 

after Judge Vance’s death. In 1994, GAO issued another report on judicial security 

that found that the Department of Justice should incorporate consideration of offsite security needs into district security surveys and plans, using risk-management 

principles to identify, evaluate, and prioritize such needs. After four and a half 

years, in December 1998, an off-site security policy was ultimately issued by the 

Marshals Service. The judiciary does not know how effectively the policy has been 

implemented because it is not privy to any internal policy or program reviews conducted by the Department of Justice or the Marshals Service. Furthermore, it was 

the judiciary, not the Department of Justice, which initiated the development of a 

training video and other materials used to educate members of the judiciary about 

off-site security precautions. 

In March of 2004, concerns were expressed by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General about the Marshals Service’s ability to assess threats, a matter directly 

related to off-site security. In December 2004, the Director of the Marshals Service 

reported that progress had been made with addressing the problems outlined in that 

IG report. But because the Marshals Service and the Department will only share 

limited amounts of information about how Marshals Service resources are deployed, 

it’s anyone’s guess as to whether threats against the judiciary are being handled appropriately. Based on what little we do know, only three people are tasked at Marshals Service headquarters with staffing the Office of Protective Intelligence as a 

primary responsibility. At one point, these staff members did not even report to the 

individual responsible for judicial security within the Marshals Service. Threat assessment cannot be a collateral duty. A focused, coordinated program with adequately trained personnel needs to be a priority.3

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

I have tried on numerous occasions to establish a working group with the Department that could address both on- and off-site security needs of the judicial branch. 

One attempt at establishing such a group took place about four years ago—and 

failed. We had hoped that senior political and career officials would have engaged 

in this effort. Quite frankly, both the Marshals Service and the Department have 

refused to participate in a formal standing group that would be charged with assessing security needs for the judicial branch on an ongoing basis. The Committee on 

Security and Facilities believes that had the group been established, the Marshals 

Service and the judiciary would have been the obvious beneficiaries and that precious time would not have been lost. After the Department’s Inspector General 

issued its critical report of the Marshals Service in March 2004, I again attempted 

to create a working group on judicial security. Again, the Department did not engage with us in this effort. 

The new Attorney General has established a working group within the Department of Justice to make recommendations on judicial security within sixty days. We 

greatly appreciate the Attorney General’s efforts. Although actions have been taken 

to obtain input from the judiciary by this group, the judiciary is not a standing 

member of the group and the group is not specifically focused on security for judges 

and their families. Based on the past history I have enumerated, I am hopeful, but 

not confident, that this working group will provide useful advice to the Department 

of Justice and the Marshals Service. Unfortunately, it is almost two months since 

the tragic deaths of Judge Lefkow’s family members, and the judiciary still does not 

know what specific plans the Marshals Service and the Department have for addressing our concerns. 

13

WHAT ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN TO ASSIST THE JUDICIARY?

Although much remains to be done, this Subcommittee can help the judicial 

branch in a number of ways at this time by: 

(1) Supporting a request for $12 million that would provide a comprehensive 

package of off-site security equipment for all judges. On April 21, 2005, the Senate 

passed a supplemental appropriations bill that includes $11.9 million for the U.S. 

Marshals Service for increased judicial security outside of courthouse facilities, including priority consideration of home intrusion detection systems in the homes of 

federal judges. I am hopeful that this amendment that was adopted on the Senate 

floor will be supported in the conference on that bill, and that funds will be provided 

for home intrusion detection systems for all federal judges. 

(2) Supporting section 13 of H.R. 1751 that would require consultation and coordination by both the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

and the Director of the United States Marshals Service regarding security requirements for the judicial branch of government. As described throughout this statement, efforts have been made for decades to obtain information from the Department and the Marshals Service about our security needs. The 1982 GAO report included a recommendation that would require the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to cooperate with and assist the Attorney General 

in defining and obtaining pertinent information needed to determine each district 

court’s base-level resource needs for U.S. Marshal personnel, and apprise Congress 

during the appropriation and authorization process, about the nature and status of 

any problems related to the use of marshals’ resources and actions taken to resolve 

these problems. 

Notwithstanding our best efforts, no information has been provided by the Department that can help us to evaluate whether we are being provided with adequate 

protection. Therefore, a statutory change is needed to ensure that the judiciary obtains the information it needs to make recommendations about judicial security to 

key decision makers. As the primary user of marshals’ services, enactment of this 

legislative change will help the judiciary to assess its security needs. 

(3) Supporting section 14 of the bill that would establish significantly greater 

penalties for the recording of malicious liens against federal judges. In recent years, 

members of the federal judiciary have been victimized by persons seeking to intimidate or harass them by the filing of false liens against the judge’s real or personal 

property. These liens are usually filed in an effort to harass a judge who has presided over a criminal or civil case involving the filer, or who has otherwise acted 

against the interests or perceived interests of the filer, his family, or his acquaintances. These liens are also filed to harass a judge against whom a civil action has 

been initiated by the individual who has filed the lien. Often, such liens are placed 

on the property of judges based on the allegation that the property is at issue in 

the lawsuit. While the incidences of filing such liens have occurred in all regions 

of the country, they are most prevalent in Washington and other western states. 

(4) Supporting firearms training for judges. Threats against federal judges continue at a disturbing rate. Security of judges is oftentimes a personal matter. For 

that reason, the Judicial Conference supports a proposal to allow judges to carry 

firearms from state-to-state. The Judicial Conference does not believe it is prudent 

for judges who carry firearms to do so without effective professional training, or 

without regular certification of proficiency as a condition precedent for carrying a 

weapon. All state and federal law enforcement officers receive such training and certification. Federal judges should be required to do so as well. A statutory change 

would require, as a legal condition precedent to carrying a firearm, that judges be 

trained and certified in a firearms use and safety program provided by the U.S. 

Marshals Service with the cooperation of the Judicial Conference. The Department 

of Justice and the Marshals Service do not oppose this initiative. 

(5) Supporting section 15 of the bill that would provide emergency authority to 

conduct court proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of a court. The need for 

this legislation has become apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001, and the impact of these disasters on court operations, in particular in New 

York City. In emergency conditions, a federal court facility in an adjoining district 

(or circuit) might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, litigants, 

jurors and the public than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. 

This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, D.C., Dallas and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts 

of more than one judicial district. The advent of electronic court records systems will 

facilitate implementation of this authority by providing judges, court staff and attorneys with remote access to case documents. 

14

(6) Supporting section 17 of the bill that would provide permanent authorization 

to redact information from financial disclosure reports that could endanger the filer. 

It is important for Congress to act soon because this essential security measure for 

federal judges, employees, and their families will expire on December 31, 2005. 

In 1998, Congress amended the Ethics in Government Act to provide the judiciary 

with authority to redact financial disclosure reports before they are released to the 

public. Congress recognized that the judiciary faced security risks greater than 

those of 25 years earlier when the Ethics in Government Act first became law. Congress established a process by which the judiciary would consult with the United 

States Marshals Service to determine whether information on a financial disclosure 

report should be redacted because its release could jeopardize the life or safety of 

a judge or judiciary employee. 

Not a day goes by without some unauthorized incursion into an information database containing personal information. These incursions, when coupled with other 

personal information already available on the Internet, give wrongdoers the capability to cause harm as never before. Were the redaction authority to be removed 

from the Act, certain personal information in the financial disclosure reports, not 

otherwise widely available, such as the unsecured location where a spouse works 

or a child attends school, may be widely publicized through the Internet and other 

information outlets. It will become that much harder to maintain the anonymity 

that has helped in the past to shield judges from personal attacks by disgruntled 

litigants and anti-government organizations. 

We believe that making the redaction authority permanent by removing the sunset provision from section 105(b)(3)(E) of the Act can be done without diminishing 

the basic purpose of the Act—to allow members of the public to form independent 

opinions as to the integrity of government officials. The judiciary recognizes the 

value of providing the public with a way to independently judge the conduct of government officials. The regulations adopted by the Judicial Conference carefully balance judges’ security concerns with the public’s right to view the information contained in financial disclosure reports. The judiciary has made a concerted effort to 

ensure that the authority conferred by section 105(b)(3) is exercised in a consistent 

and prudent manner. 

While H.R. 1751, which was introduced on April 21, 2005, addresses most of these 

issues, the bill also contains various provisions that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences. The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum 

sentencing provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide 

proportionality and fairness in punishment. While we recognize the desire to increase the security of persons associated with the justice system, we believe that 

this can be accomplished without resort to the creation of mandatory minimums. 

In addition, section 10 of the bill places specific time frames on the district courts 

and courts of appeals in considering writs of habeas corpus on behalf of a person 

in state custody for a crime that involved the killing of a public safety officer. The 

district court would have to decide motions for evidentiary hearings, conduct any 

evidentiary hearings, and enter a final decision within specific time periods. The 

courts of appeals would also have to act within certain time frames in deciding appeals from orders granting or denying such writs and deciding whether to grant a 

petition for rehearing en banc. The Judicial Conference strongly opposes the statutory imposition of litigation priority, expediting requirements, or time limitation 

rules in specified types of civil cases brought in federal court beyond those civil actions already identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1657 as warranting expedited review. Section 

1657, which provides that United States courts shall determine the order in which 

civil actions are heard, already recognizes that habeas corpus petitions should be 

treated as an exception and must be given expedited consideration. The Judicial 

Conference views 28 U.S.C. § 1657 as sufficiently recognizing both the appropriateness of federal courts generally determining case management priorities and the desire to expedite consideration of limited types of actions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee 

today. Federal judges from throughout the country join me in expressing our appreciation for the time and attention you and the Subcommittee’s staff have given to 

our security needs during these difficult times. We hope that action on the initial 

steps described above will help facilitate better communication between the judicial 

and executive branches and ultimately lead to an upgraded and improved United 

States Marshals Service. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might 

have.

15

ATTACHMENT

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

RESOLUTION ON JUDICIAL SECURITY

ADOPTED MARCH 15, 2005

The brutal murders of the husband and mother of United States Judge Joan 

Humphrey Lefkow of the Northern District of Illinois on February 28, 2005, are an 

attack against the rule of law in the United States. This tragedy suffered by a member of our judicial family, as well as the horrific events that occurred on March 11, 

2005, in the courthouse in Fulton County, Georgia, strike at the core of our system 

of government. A fair and impartial judiciary is the backbone of a democracy. These 

tragic events cannot and will not undermine the judiciary’s essential role in our society. 

We, the members of the Judicial Conference, call upon leaders of the United 

States Department of Justice and of the United States Marshals Service (whose primary responsibility is the security of members of the federal judiciary and their 

families) to review fully and expeditiously all aspects of judicial security and, in particular, security at judges’ homes and other locations away from the courthouse. We 

also call upon both the legislative and executive branches to provide adequate funding for this essential function. 

Accordingly, the Judicial Conference of the United States declares that (1) the crisis in off-site judicial security evidenced in part by the recent deaths of Judge 

Lefkow’s husband and mother is of the gravest concern to the federal judiciary, and 

(2) addressing this matter is of the highest urgency to the Conference and will be 

the top priority in the judiciary’s discussions with the Attorney General of the 

United States and other Justice Department representatives, including the Director 

of the United States Marshals Service.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Judge Kent, you may proceed with the showing of your film and 

then your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA STEVENS KENT, 

114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS 

Judge KENT. Thank you, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member 

Scott, and other Members of the Committee. I am Judge Cynthia 

Stevens Kent, and I’ve been a judge in east Texas for more than 

20 years. 

Before I begin my testimony—I appreciate the time—I wanted to 

share with you a short video of the terror that I experienced firsthand on February 24, 2005, along with hundreds of east Texas citizens, at the Smith County Courthouse shooting. And they’ll play 

the video at this time. The first part is from a television account, 

which will give you an overview. And then, we have a security camera in the first floor of the courthouse. 

[Video played.] 

Judge KENT. Now, the next part is from the security camera on 

the first floor of the courthouse. I was handling a high-profile capital case, and had added security in my courtroom because of an 

escape risk. Had I not had that, these officers would not have been 

at the courthouse to respond to this situation on the steps of the 

courthouse, and the assailant would have been able to enter the 

courthouse or kill more people on the streets. 

[Security tape footage played, with commentary by Judge Kent, 

as follows:] 

Judge KENT. That gentleman was John DeNoles, a defense investigator. 

16

You can see on the top left Ms. Arroyo and her son are walking, 

and they’re now being shot at right now by Mr. Arroyo. She is— and he’s moved around to the top left. She is now dead. 

This is a citizen who was walking into the courthouse, now running into the courthouse to avoid the shots. 

Her son has been shot. 

Officer Dolison here is now responding, along with Sergeant Alan 

Langston. Officer Dolison and Langston are looking for the assailant. He’s over to the left. Officer Dolison gets shot four times, seriously injured. I’m glad to report, he is now in rehabilitation at this 

time. 

All of the—you know, you can’t see anything now because all of 

the back windows have been shot out of the courthouse. There were 

70 bullets found inside of the courthouse after this shooting. That’s 

not including the ones shot elsewhere. 

This is a citizen who was outside, diving into the courthouse to 

avoid the shots. 

Sergeant Langston was hiding behind a metal trash can. 

We now have Deputy Michael Strickland, Detective Clay Perrett, 

and Lt. Marlin Suell, who have come out of my courtroom on the 

second floor to respond to the shooting happening downstairs. They 

come forward to try to take aim on the assailant outside, who has 

now killed a private citizen, Mr. Wilson. 

Officer Suell has now been hit in the head, struck by a bullet by 

the assailant. Michael Strickland steps down to reload. Detective 

Perrett has now just been shot in the head, also. Those were grazing shots, and they did survive those injuries. 

Coming now, you’re going to see the shooter has now gone to get 

in his car. He’s starting to drive off in that red truck there. There 

is Investigator Jim Castle, who is responding, being shot at. There 

is Deputy Brown Carlton, who is now responding, along with Officer Dustin Rust. These officers rush out now to try to follow this 

gentleman, who’s shooting as he goes down the street. 

A high-speed chase ensues, and the shooter is killed several 

miles down the road, after shooting as he drives down the streets 

of Tyler, in Smith County. 

This was an extremely serious situation. And we were just 

blessed that I happened to be in a high-security case at the time 

this occurred, so there were some officers available to respond to 

this situation. 

And I’ll start my testimony at this time. 

Mr. COBLE. Very well. 

Judge KENT. Over the years, I have received numerous death 

threats, as have many judges in America. I am currently the subject of a very serious threat, and would be remiss at this time not 

to thank Texas Ranger Kenny Ray, and the Texas Rangers, the 

FBI, the ATF, the Tyler Police Department, the Smith County 

Sheriff’s Office, and the Smith County District Attorney’s Office, for 

their aggressive and professional investigation and protection. 

One only has to watch the video that we have just seen to see 

the bravery and courage of the peace officers that responded to the 

Smith County shooting, and also to understand the need for H.R. 

1751 and other legislation to protect judges and all involved in the 

judicial system. 

17

As any person in America, it is my personal responsibility to use 

common sense in protecting myself against acts of violence. As a 

Texan, I take full advantage of my constitutionally-protected right 

to self defense. However, these threats are not just a personal 

threat against me and my family. These are acts of domestic terrorism, and are meant to disrupt our judicial system and our civilization. 

I’ve spoken with many judges in Texas and around the Nation 

regarding courthouse and judicial security. As you can see from 

these charts, incidents in court are a real present threat. The National Center for State Courts has graciously assisted me in assembling some information which might be helpful to each of you in 

your decisions on how to protect our judicial system from disruption and attack. 

Last Thursday, in D.C., the National Center, in conjunction with 

the National Sheriffs Association, hosted the National Summit on 

Court Safety and Security. Also, there is a chart highlighting their 

preliminary findings from the summit, which are included in my 

full written testimony. Many of these findings are also included in 

Congressman Gohmert’s H.R. 1751. 

Additionally, I have included recommendations and draft language for amendments for future legislation to enhance the protection of our judicial system. And I’d like to highlight just a few of 

the most important recommendations, several of which are included in 1751. 

First, to make personal security for judges a legislative and law 

enforcement priority. Congress should provide funding for home 

and court security systems for the Federal judiciary, and maybe 

consider a tax credit to State judges who have home security systems installed or upgraded. 

Restrictions on Internet and public dissemination of personal information concerning judges, law enforcement officials, jurors, prosecutors, and other court personnel, should be enacted. And systems 

should be set up to alert law enforcement when someone is accessing that information on judges. 

To pass and aggressively prosecute laws which provide tougher 

penalties for threats, assaults, and murders of judges. And I support the provisions of H.R. 1751 which provide for what you all call 

mandatory minimum sentencing for threats and crimes of violence 

against individuals covered by the bill. We call them ‘‘punishment 

ranges’’ in Texas. 

To establish a grant program to distribute funds to enhance security for State courts by providing for assessments, technical assistance, education, and training. And I’ve attached some suggested 

language for this proposal. 

To create a national clearinghouse to collect and correlate Federal and State breaches of security against judges and our courts, 

to help develop protocols for aggressively responding to these 

threats. 

To consider legislation which would allow properly trained and 

certified judicial officers to carry personal protection, even when 

traveling outside of their home state. 

To enhance funding for Federal investigation and prosecution of 

prison and street gangs in America. 

18

To amend the definition of the ‘‘local unit of government’’ to include State and local courts, to ensure that these courts are eligible 

to apply directly for Federal funding for justice-related programs. 

To include in Federal statutory language the mandate that State 

courts are included in the planning for the disbursement of Federal 

funding administered by State executive agencies. 

And finally, to create a small set-aside of the homeland security 

funding, to assist State courts in meeting the requirements of the 

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and providing for security needs of the 

State courts. And I’ve attached some proposed language for congressional consideration. 

Even in America, we certainly face foreign threats against our 

way of life. I know that each of you is thoughtful and serious in 

your approach to keep us free and safe from these foreign security 

threats. The domestic threats against the judicial system are also 

very real, and certainly worthy of your attention and thoughtful 

legislation. And I thank you for your time this afternoon. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Kent follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA STEVENS KENT

My name is Cynthia Stevens Kent and I serve as Judge of the 114th Judicial District Court in Tyler, Smith County, Texas. I have been invited by the Chair of this 

Committee, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. of Wisconsin and by the 

sponsor of H.R. 1751, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, to testify regarding 

judicial security issues from the perspective of a State Judge. 

I appreciate the invitation and I hope that I can do justice in expressing some 

of the security concerns and needs of the state judiciary in America. The state judiciary appreciates this committee and Congressman Gohmert’s and Congressman Anthony Weiner’s interest and attention to crime, terrorism and security concerns as 

they relate to the security of judges, witnesses, jurors, and other court participants 

and personnel. 

I have served as a judge in East Texas since 1984. From 1984 to 1988 I served 

as a County Court at Law Judge with general civil jurisdiction and misdemeanor 

criminal jurisdiction. From 1989 to the present I have served as a state district 

court judge with general civil jurisdiction and felony criminal jurisdiction and have 

presided over thousands of cases. I am a past Chair of the Judicial Section of the 

State Bar of Texas and Past Chair of the Texas Center for the Judiciary, Inc., on 

the faculty of the National Judicial College and the Texas Center for the Judiciary. 

I have been an invited faculty member at numerous judicial conferences across the 

United States. I am privileged to have served our nation and the state of Texas as 

a member of the judicial branch of government. 

Our American system of self government includes an important defender of liberty 

and critical check and balance in the state and federal judicial system. Recently, 

there is increased discussion and debate regarding decision making by the judiciary. 

Some agree with certain decisions and others disagree. However, I know that almost 

all of the members of the American judiciary are hard working people who carefully 

listen to the facts of cases and scholarly apply the laws passed by the legislatures 

within the restraints of our various constitutions. This is my work as a simple country judge. 

We have seen the problems of societies without strong and independent judicial 

systems. We have seen the disruption of civilizations where members of the judiciary are threatened, kidnapped, and killed. 

Several years ago in D.C., I attended a National Judicial College course entitled 

‘‘When Justice Fails.’’ This course discussed the threats and intimidation used 

against the judicial system in Nazi Germany and the ultimate failure of the judges 

to protect the rights, freedoms, liberty and life of the minority and oppositional 

voices in the world. Today we see that disruption in some South American countries 

whose judges are threatened and killed because someone disagrees with their decisions or enforcement of the law. 

Even in America we certainly face foreign threats against our way of life. I know 

that each of you is thoughtful and serious in your approach to keep us free and safe 

from those foreign security threats. The domestic threats against our way of life is 

also very real and certainly worthy of your attention and thoughtful legislation. 

19

H.R. 1751, a bipartisan bill, is a thoughtful and wonderful start to addressing the 

need to protect judges, prosecutors, jurors, witnesses, and those who are involved 

in our judicial systems. It is proposed federal legislation and so rightly focuses on 

security for federal courts and judges. However, there is much that Congress can 

do to assist the states in enhancing security for state courts, judges, and those required to attend court proceedings. 

Many of you are aware of the recent, tragic, and much publicized shooting outside 

the Smith County courthouse where I work. We are all aware of the murder of 

Judge Joan Lefkow’s husband and mother and the murder of Judge Rowland 

Barnes, his court reporter, his deputy sheriff, and a federal officer in Atlanta. These 

are domestic attacks against individuals and against our system of justice which 

have occurred in the last two months. 

Over the years, I have received numerous death threats, as have many judges in 

America. I am currently the subject of a very serious threat and I would be remiss 

not to thank Texas Ranger Kenny Ray, the F.B.I., ATF, Tyler Police Department, 

Smith County Sheriff’s Office, and Smith County District Attorney’s office for their 

aggressive and professional investigation and protection. One only has to watch the 

video’s I have provided Congressman Gohmert from the February 24, 2005 shooting 

in Tyler to see the bravery and courage of the peace officers as they respond to the 

Smith County shooting. The common threat of professionalism and valor of these 

public servants in Tyler, Atlanta, Chicago, D.C., New York City, and around the nations is remarkable and we are blessed to have these men and women protecting 

and serving America. 

Although some of these threats against the judiciary are by mentally disturbed 

individuals who would not actually carry out their threat, many of these threats are 

very real and imminent concerns. 

As any person in America, it is my personal responsibility to use common sense 

in protecting myself against acts of violence. As a Texan, I take full advantage of 

my Constitutionally protected right to self defense. However, these threats are not 

just a personal threat against me and my family, these are acts of domestic terrorism and are meant to disrupt our judicial system and our civilization. 

I have spoken with many judges in Texas and around the nation regarding courthouse and judicial security. The National Center for State Courts has graciously assisted me in assembling some information which might be helpful to each of you 

in your decisions on how to protect our judicial system from disruption and attack. 

The National Judicial College and the Texas Center for the Judiciary, Inc. have also 

assisted me in gathering information for this presentation. Finally my twenty years 

of service as a state judge handling dangerous people and high profile cases has 

helped me formulate a number of suggestions for your committee’s consideration.

1. Personal security for judges should be a legislative and law enforcement 

priority.

A. Congress should provide funding for home and court security systems for 

the federal judiciary.

B. Congress should provide a tax credit to state judges to have home security systems installed or upgraded.

C. Public access to certain private information on judges should be limited 

or pulled, if requested, from public view. For example diagrams of the 

judge’s homes should not be included on the website of the local tax appraisal district.

D. Systems should be set up to alert law enforcement when someone is accessing public information on judges.

2. Laws which provide tougher penalties for threats, assaults, and murders of 

judges should be passed and aggressively prosecuted. I support the provisions of H.R. 1751 which provide mandatory minimum sentences for threats 

and crimes of violence against individuals covered by the bill.

3. Establish a grant program to distribute funds to state courts to enhance security for state courts. This grant program should include provisions for 

evaluating court facilities and procedures, technical assistance to implement 

needed improvements, enhanced security equipment, technology and operations, enhanced information sharing, and to develop and provide for the 

education and training of judges, law enforcement personnel, court house 

security and court personnel on security procedures and appropriate responses to a crises situation

4. A national clearing house should be created to collect and correlate federal 

and state breaches of security on judges and develop protocols for aggressively responding to these threats.

20

5. Consider federal legislation which would allow properly trained and certified judicial officers to carry personal protection when traveling outside 

their home state.

6. Provide additional funds to the U.S. Marshall’s office to enhance their invited security audits of state, and local courthouses and availability to assist local law enforcement in developing security plans and protocols to deal 

with threats against the judges, prosecutors, courthouses, jurors, witnesses, 

and other court personnel.

7. Enhance funding for federal investigation and prosecution of prison and 

street gangs in America. Provide additional funding for federal officers to 

assist state officers in the investigation and prosecution of prison and street 

gangs.

8. Provide federal judges with emergency communication devices to law enforcement with GPS capabilities.

9. Provide tax credits to state judges to purchase emergency communication 

devices to law enforcement with GPS capabilities.

10. Review and amend rules and regulations of prisons in handling mail 

marked ‘‘legal mail’’ to protect against biological terrorism and gang organized threats against the judiciary.

11. Amend the definition of ‘‘local unit of government’’ to include state and local 

courts to ensure that these courts are eligible to apply directly for federal 

funding for justice related programs.

12. Include in federal statutory language the mandate that state courts are included in planning for disbursement of federal funding administered by 

state executive agencies.

13. Create a small set-aside of Homeland Security funding to assist state courts 

in meeting the requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and providing for security needs of the state courts.

The above suggestions are just a few ways in which Congress could assist in 

protecting the judiciary and America from foreign and domestic enemies of freedom. Many of these same proposal should also extent to jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, and court personnel. 

When judges are subject to threats, intimidation, and assault, our entire system 

of justice is under attack. Although free dialogue and public debate regarding judges 

is certainly important and constitutionally protected, responsible legislators and 

politicians should understand that when someone paints with a broad brush the 

simple country judges of America can be smeared with the partisan paint of the day. 

Inciting the public to distrust, disrespect, or threaten the members of the judicial 

system only invites anarchy. There are good and bad judges just as there are good 

and bad plumbers. However, keeping our judges secure and independent helps prevent justice from failing the designs of our founding fathers and the needs of 2005 

America.

21

ATTACHMENT


Kent1.eps
22


Kent2.eps
23


Kent3.eps
24


Kent4.eps
25

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Mr. McNulty. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL J. McNULTY, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Chairman, it’s a delight to be here today— I should know how to use microphones by now—to see you, Mr. 

Chairman, and Mr. Scott, my fellow Virginian. His district includes 

large portions of the Eastern District of Virginia. And Mr. 

Delahunt, it’s nice to see you again, and to meet Congressman 

Gohmert. 

This subject, of course, is most important, to discuss the safety 

of our judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officials, victims, and 

witnesses involved in the American judicial system. 

Really, this is about all citizens who come in contact with the 

system of justice; because as that video so graphically depicted, 

people coming to do business at the courthouse, for all kinds of reasons, can be subject to harm as a result of these attacks on the administration of justice. And really, it’s an attack on the rule of law; 

because our entire way of life as Americans is built upon the rule 

of law, and this requires the safe administration of justice. 

I’d like to discuss some of the impact of these incidents on the 

Eastern District of Virginia. The recent events—but in fact, going 

back to Oklahoma City—have really heightened our concern for 

safety at the Federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. The effects of domestic terrorism, like the Oklahoma City bombing, and 

the threat of international terrorism on the security of the Federal 

courthouses and U.S. Attorney facilities around the country, have 

been felt especially—those threats have been felt especially in Alexandria. 

Our Federal courthouse complex was actually being built when 

the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. And as a result, security upgrades were installed, such as a blast wall, and intrusion detection 

devices, and the elimination of public parking in the building. 

Since September 11, however, concern has increased about 

threats to the courthouses generally, and to U.S. Attorney offices. 

In the Alexandria courthouse complex we have made many 

changes. Visible security enhancements were installed, including 

jersey walls, hydraulic barriers, camera systems, screening devices, 

shelters in place, and chemical detection systems. In fact, Mr. 

Chairman, I venture to say that probably no courthouse in the 

United States has gone through more security changes more rapidly than what’s happened in Alexandria over the past 3 years. It’s 

really transformed the entire neighborhood. 

In addition, a court security committee has been in place for 

many years in Eastern Virginia. The focus of the committee is the 

security of the court complex in Alexandria, as well as the other 

judicial facilities in the district. We have a courthouse in Richmond, a small courthouse in Newport News, and also in Norfolk. 

The purpose of this committee is to discuss security issues between the Marshals Service and the court family. There are periodic meetings, chaired by the chief judge, and it gives opportunities 

for the court to discuss security concerns and give approval to proposed security upgrades. 

26

My office has a very close working relationship with the marshals, and we have participated in the court security meetings on 

several occasions. The marshal and I, John Clark, frequently share 

threat and event information so that our individual responses are 

well coordinated with regard to the safety and security of our witnesses, the potential threat level of cases being indicted, and the 

possible public and press attention high-profile cases might receive. 

On almost a daily basis, as I turn into the garage in the courthouse, I now see deputy U.S. Marshals dressed in their tactical 

gear, armed with semi-automatic weapons, standing along the sidewalk; in marked contrast to the pre-September 11 security. 

And last week was a very interesting example of the threat faced 

by those who work in our courthouse in Alexandria. We were in the 

midst of a trial involving an individual named Ali Al-Timimi, who 

just earlier today was convicted with providing material support to 

terrorist organizations, a sequel to our Virginia Jihad case. 

At the same time, we were also in the middle of a trial of four 

MS-13 gang members for capital murder of a Federal witness. This 

17-year-old witness was pregnant at the time of her murder. She 

was going to testify in another MS-13 murder case, when she was 

allegedly stabbed to death. The order to murder her, as alleged in 

our indictment—and I say this case is currently being prosecuted, 

so I’m speaking just in terms of the allegations—was given from 

the jailhouse. 

And on top of all of this—the Timimi trial, the MS-13 murder 

case—we also had the Moussaoui plea, and that occurred last 

week, as well. So the Marshals Service and the court security officers were working especially hard. And we see these kinds of challenges at the State level, and my testimony includes some of that. 

I also discuss in my testimony the threats faced by judges. 

I want to say, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that Federal prosecutors—I really want to speak for just a split second about the Federal prosecutors’ threat. They face enormous threats in their jobs. 

And in my testimony, I describe the percentage, or the numbers of 

threats against Federal and local prosecutors, and the kinds of—

types of threats they’ve seen. 

And we’ve had some of these cases in my district, but one in particular, in Seattle, Washington, in October of 2001, involved the 

murder of an Assistant United States Attorney, Tom Wales. He 

was working at home, and he was shot by a sniper through his 

window of his house. That case has not been solved yet, and it has 

been a real wake-up call for all of us in the U.S. Attorney community. 

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing and for drawing attention to this very important subject. I think we have to be proactive. We can’t just wait until these 

crimes occur. And I thank the Committee for its interest in the 

subject. I’m happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNulty follows:]

27

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL J. MCNULTY


McNul1.eps
28


McNul2.eps
29


McNul3.eps
30


McNul4.eps
31


McNul5.eps
32


McNul6.eps
33


McNul7.eps
34


McNul8.eps
35


McNul9.eps
36

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. 

Marshal Clark. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. CLARK, UNITED STATES MARSHAL, 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, APPEARING FOR THE 

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Scott, 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

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

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

our democracy that those who work within our judicial system do 

so without any fear or intimidation. Recent tragic events in Chicago and Atlanta highlight the need for securing our courts and 

protecting those who work in them. 

I’m a 22-year veteran of the United States Marshals Service, and 

I have personal knowledge of the important task of protecting 

judges in our judicial process. During my career, I have protected 

Supreme Court justices, district judges, Government witnesses and 

jurors, and can attest to the fact that it is a difficult and demanding job. 

Since my appointment by President Bush to serve as United 

States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, I have witnessed firsthand the vital importance of protecting our Federal judicial process. Just last week, members of my staff provided a safe 

and secure environment at the U.S. District courthouse in Alexandria, as terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui entered a plea of 

guilty to his involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

During the same week, members of the notorious MS-13 gang 

were on trial for their alleged involvement in the killing of a former 

gang member. At that trial, deputy marshals were on hand to ensure that all present were protected. 

In yet another matter last week, a jury was being protected during their deliberations on a terrorism-related case. 

In recent years, I have come to the realization that events such 

as these are all in a day’s work for the men and women of the 

United States Marshals Service. Because of this, our security planning and execution needs to be the very best it can be, as failure 

is not an option. 

In the Eastern District of Virginia, I am constantly meeting and 

consulting with the judges, Mr. McNulty’s staff, the clerk of court, 

U.S. probation, and others who have a stake in protecting the judicial process. On a regular basis, court security and building security meetings are held to review, assess, and make recommended 

improvements to our existing security plans. 

The Eastern District of Virginia was the first in the nation to 

conduct a terrorism response and readiness drill that simulated a 

chemical and biological attack within the Federal courthouse in Alexandria. It involved a host of local, State, and Federal emergency 

response agencies, as well as role-players from the community and 

the courthouse employee ranks. 

More recently, at the U.S. courthouse in Norfolk, the U.S. Marshals Service hosted a training exercise that involved several area 

police and fire and emergency medical personnel who came toVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Sep 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042605B\20876.000 HJUD1 PsN: 20876
37

gether for a scenario that involved finding and safely disposing of 

mock explosive devices within the courthouse. Exercises like these 

test our communication capability and interoperability with first 

responders and security plans against real-world possibilities. 

We rely heavily on our law enforcement partners, and are constantly assessing, adjusting, and improving security measures, and 

where necessary, to ensure we are as prepared as possible against 

those who might threaten or harm judges or disrupt our judicial 

process. In short, it’s a team effort. 

Throughout our 215-year history, the United States Marshals 

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

ever vigilant and ready. With threats against the judiciary on the 

rise, it is vitally important that we all work together to maintain 

a safe and secure environment for our justice system. 

I’m now happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]

38

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. CLARK


Clark1.eps
39


Clark2.eps
40


Clark3.eps
41


Clark4.eps
42


Clark5.eps
43


Clark6.eps
44


Clark7.eps
45


Clark8.eps
46


Clark9.eps
47


Clark10.eps
48


Clark11.eps
49


Clark12.eps
50


Clark13.eps
51


Clark14.eps
52


Clark15.eps
53

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Dean. We will start our questions now. 

And we impose the 5-minute rule against us, as well, so we’ll be 

ever mindful of the red light. 

Let me say this, in view of something Mr. Scott said earlier, 

folks. During the questioning, if at any time you feel that responding—this is an open forum, after all. If you feel responding would 

in any way compromise your safety, we can attend to that subsequently. Hopefully, that won’t happen. But start my 5 minutes, if 

you will, now. 

Mr. McNulty, given the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker 

Fanfan, making the Federal sentencing guidelines advisory, what 

impact, if any, does that decision have upon mandatory minimums? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I think that mandatory minimums were already an important tool, among many tools that Federal prosecutors have, for getting cooperation of witnesses; but after that decision, I think it makes that tool even more valuable. Because now, 

if you are working with an individual who’s going to provide cooperation in an investigation and you calculate the sentence under 

the guidelines, there’s no guarantee that the judge will actually impose that sentence. There’ll be—the judge is free to depart from the 

range and sentence really at any level. 

Mandatory minimums provide a limit on where that sentence 

could go. And so I think that we are beginning to see how those 

cases that involve mandatory minimums—and that’s certainly a 

sub-set of all of the cases and all of the types of cooperation we 

see—are especially important to us. So I do think that they’ve 

taken on even more significance after Booker Fanfan. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. Mr. Chabot, I think, has a question to 

put to Judge Roth, so I will—let me talk to you for a minute, Marshal Clark, consistent with some of Judge Roth’s testimony. Describe for us, if you will, the resources and any changes in resources that have occurred in the last few years in your district regarding personnel, generally. 

Mr. CLARK. Sure. I currently have an onboard staffing level of 54 

full-time employees. And to highlight how slow the resource growth 

has been within the Marshals Service, when I reported to the district in 1997 as a chief deputy, our full-time employee ceiling was 

at 48. So in that length of time, we have seen a very slight growth. 

Another example I like to use sometimes to highlight the resource issue is that I did have the privilege to serve as a deputy 

marshal in the Richmond office during the mid-1980’s, where we 

had one supervisor and seven deputy marshals. Today, we have 

one supervisor and eight deputy marshals. So from the mid-’80’s to 

current, that’s, again, a very slow growth, I might say. 

So resources, while we are able to use them to the fullest extent 

possible, that I am pleased to say, there are times when we do 

struggle as an agency to provide and meet all of the resource requirements that sometimes are placed upon us. 

For example, additionally within the Eastern District of Virginia, 

we often employ outside resources, such as off-duty sheriff deputies 

or police officers, to help us handle prisoners; for example, within 

the cell block. Last year, within our district we spent approximately $200,000 to pay for such part-time help. So overall, the resource issue is sometimes demanding upon us. 

54

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Marshal. Let me put another question to 

you, Marshal. I am told that the rule varies from district to district 

and State to State, but FBI agents, DEA agents, oftentimes are required to surrender their firearm prior to entering a courtroom. It 

seems to me that that would—well, strike that. Let me say it a different way. 

I believe if these agents, thoroughly trained in firearm safety and 

proficiency, were allowed to retain their firearms, that might well 

be a plus, it seems to me. If the outbreak that occurred in Atlanta, 

for example, if you had an FBI agent or a DEA agent along with 

the Marshals Service in the courtroom, fully armed, that would be 

a far better scenario, it seems to me, than to have an FBI agent 

unarmed. What do you say to that? 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, that’s an interesting question. And 

across the country, you’re right, there are districts that do not 

allow—such as in the Eastern District of Virginia; we do not allow 

law enforcement officers—agents, if you will—to come into the 

courthouse with a weapon. And we certainly make no judgment 

upon their ability, their capability, to safely use that weapon. However, within the courthouse itself, from the Marshals Service perspective, we like to know who is armed and who is not; particularly 

in a courtroom setting. 

And so often we find that agents, particularly Federal agents 

who are in the courthouse representing or participating in the prosecution of their case, sometimes are not dressed in coat and tie. Or 

even if they are, we as an agency may not know that they are 

agents. And therefore, we often have essentially an identity situation, of knowing who is friendly to us, and who is not. So that’s one 

part of the process. 

Another part is in, often, cases such as in Eastern Virginia, the 

judges themselves have requested that just the marshals in our 

court security staff have firearms available to them. 

Mr. COBLE. My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. Judge Roth, you indicated 

that you support section 13 of the bill. How would the difference 

in the procedure help court security? 

Judge ROTH. Well, I have described the frustration of the—— Mr. COBLE. Judge, a little closer to the mike, if you will. 

Judge ROTH. I’m sorry. I have described the frustration of the 

courts in trying to obtain from the Marshals Service exactly what 

staffing patterns are needed of deputy marshals in a court to provide adequate security; and also, whether those staffing patterns 

are being met. I think, with the consultation and coordination between the Director of the Marshals Service and the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the Courts, we could determine appropriate staffing levels for court security in every district, and we 

could make sure that those staffing patterns are being met. 

We receive information from marshals around the country about 

staffing shortages that they currently have. This is confidential information. I don’t want to give it to you, because the people who 

gave us the information can get in trouble. But there are some serious shortages, including inadequate staffing in the cell blocks—one 

deputy marshal being in charge of a cell block containing 30 or 

more prisoners—inadequate day-to-day staffing in the courts. And 

55

we feel that section 13 is important to make sure that we do have 

adequate staffing patterns, and that there are sufficient deputies 

to fill the required slots. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, is section 13 enough? Because you still—

wouldn’t you still have the bifurcated commitment to not only the 

Department of Justice law enforcement, but also to the Judicial 

Branch court security? 

Judge ROTH. I think the bifurcation of responsibilities in the 

Marshals Service is very serious. We would hope that, with the 

passage of section 13, we could participate with the Department of 

Justice in getting adequate funding for the Marshals Service. 

We realize that the Department of Justice must go through OMB 

to get their funding, and sometimes that is cut down. Nevertheless, 

the judiciary has been responsible for getting increased funding for 

a number of functions of the Marshals Service, including the JSIs, 

the Judicial Security Inspectors, for every district. And we feel that 

if we were on top of the information, we could help them get the 

funding that they do need. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, do you support section 13? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I don’t have a position on that. The Department 

of Justice hasn’t taken a position on this bill, and so I can’t give 

you any response today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Marshal Clark, Mr. McNulty mentioned the 

courthouses in Richmond and Newport News, both of which are 

being constructed. Has the Marshals Service been involved in making sure that the construction is done in such a way that security 

can be enhanced? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, we most certainly are. We are involved at every 

level of the—I would say, the construction phase; particularly in 

conjunction with my headquarters, we work out all of our space requirements, our security requirements, issues regarding our cell 

block, prisoner handling. All of that is worked completely through 

with members of our headquarters staff for the security, necessary 

security. 

Mr. SCOTT. Several have mentioned the funding and the staffing. 

Can somebody indicate to me where this money—is there money in 

the bill for additional staffing and additional grants for security? 

Judge ROTH. Mr. Scott, there is $12 million in the bill which 

would be dedicated primarily toward off-site security for judges. I 

think there is more that is needed for an overall review—oh, I’m 

sorry, it’s in the supplemental. There is need for an overall review 

of staffing needs and further requests. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. But the bill does not have that funding? The 

12 million—there’s money in there for witness protection, but I 

didn’t see anything for—sorry? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Grants to the States? Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Weiner, asked me to pose the question about 

the appointment process; whether or not we ought to continue to 

use the patronage system for appointments of marshals, rather 

than a system that would be based more directly on qualifications. 

Should the system be changed? The bill has the appointment 

change from the President to the Attorney General. Is that a good 

56

idea? And will that enhance the possibility, or probability, that 

merit will be the criteria, rather than partisan politics? 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Scott, we certainly have across the Nation some 

very qualified and very well trained marshals that have been appointed throughout the country. However, as a career employee, I 

have probably the unique ability to look on sort of both sides of the 

fence. I am an appointed position; however, I’m also a career individual. 

And so, it would make sense on the one hand to have individuals 

with a career background to assume these positions, such as the 

special agents in charge of various other Federal law enforcement 

agencies. However, the system as it has been since 1789 is a tough 

one to change, as we know. 

So with regard to the provision to strike that and have the appointments made by the Attorney General, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it, and would think that with all measures of fairness we 

could find qualified applicants for the position of marshal. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Scott, I might point out that when I was 

working with the Subcommittee that bill was passed by this Subcommittee twice in the 1990’s. It passed once on the House floor 

on suspension, and died in the Senate. The second time, it actually 

lost on the House floor on a suspension vote, after extensive opposition by sheriffs and others in the country who wanted to continue 

to have those positions available to them. 

Mr. SCOTT. And Mr. Chairman, if I could just pose a question, 

and I don’t need an answer now. But the gentleman from New 

York has apparently sent a letter to the Marshals Service regarding a decision in staffing in the New York area, and hasn’t received 

an answer yet. So if Mr. McNulty can see that a response comes 

to that letter. I think it’s from a judge in the Eastern District of 

New York. We’ll get you the details of that, so you can respond. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Okay. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. In order of appearance, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this 

important hearing and your calling it; appreciate the prompt treatment of this bill. As a bit of a response to some of the things that 

were said early on in the opening statements, in this society it is 

important to have disagreement. It’s important to have criticism. 

But when it comes to our justice system, the delineation between 

criticism and disagreement should stop clearly—a big line of demarcation between criticism, disagreement, and threats of violence 

or violence against those who are participating. 

So I see the justice system as what should be the last bastion of 

civility in our society; that as long as we have a civilized society, 

the courts ought to be protected all the way around, be the last 

place where people can come together, take turns in stating their 

position, putting on evidence, making arguments, and come to a 

civilized conclusion. And that is why I think it is so important to 

protect the system. 

When I hear the term ‘‘draconian’’ used on some of these things 

in the bill, what I see as draconian is having a justice system in 

a civilized society where we do not make extremely severe penalties 

for disrupting that civilized system and making clear to everyone 

57

that we will protect the system because that is what a civilized society will do. Otherwise, we fall into the realm of a Third World 

nation, where these type things occur all the time. 

Judge Kent, thank you, my friend, for being here. You have mentioned a number of things in your opening statements. One of the 

things addressed—and this is, Judge Roth, in talking with you earlier—about fictitious liens. A lot of people haven’t heard about that. 

But there are fictitious liens that have been filed against judges. 

Judge Kent, are you familiar with that personally? 

Judge KENT. Well, I know in Texas we have a group, the Republic of Texas, who doesn’t believe Texas is a State, and they believe 

that they’re an independent republic. And they have their own 

court system set up. And they issue judgments and place liens, and 

try to record those liens in the legitimate system there in Texas. 

And that’s caused a lot of judges a great deal of trouble, with respect to their credit and financial status, because of these fictitious 

liens and judgments that are attempted to be filed against them. 

So I think that’s an issue. And probably, the Federal judiciary faces 

it, also. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And of course, Judge Kent, you mentioned threats 

to you. And of course, all of us that have been judges—or I guess 

most of us—have had threats. And often times, as you’ve indicated, 

it is from people who are incarcerated at the time. And that does 

seem to be a problem. 

You were in the meeting we had with the Federal judges and 

other U.S. Marshal, other law enforcement officials, recently. Are 

you aware of there being an ongoing problem with people behind 

bars, like in State facilities, threatening judges? 

Judge KENT. I am personally aware of this situation. And certainly, I appreciate the remarks earlier about not going into specifics with respect to that; let law enforcement do their job. However, that is the situation, particularly with gangs. There’s a growing group of prison gangs, and having connections on the outside 

with street gangs, that are involved in that type of intimidation 

and threats. 

And I know, you know, what we do in court, as the simple country judge, truly, that I am—I’m awed to be here today—you know, 

is to listen attentively, determine the facts of the case, apply the 

law as the legislature and the Constitution set it out. It is not our 

job to get threatened. It is not our job to have to deal with that 

as judges. And so we rely on law enforcement to help protect us. 

And we’re hopeful that Congress and the State legislatures will 

help us with that, to deal with the prison gangs and deal with 

those threats with aggressive prosecution of those individuals. 

Mr. GOHMERT. We have had situations where people behind bars 

in State prison thought it would be more attractive to be in a Federal penitentiary. And so, they threaten judges, Federal officials, 

hoping they’d get transferred. 

You’re aware, I would take it, that in this bill it proposes stacking any additional threat, or sentence as a result of a threat, on 

top of any State penalty. I thought one of the suggestions by a Federal judge back in Tyler was interesting—well, I see my time’s out. 

But that was to put warnings in State facilities that it won’t help 

you get transferred to a Federal facility if you threaten or plot 

58

against a judge. It will be stacked, and you won’t start doing that 

time until you finish your State time. 

My question was going to be if you thought that would be helpful. 

Judge KENT. And I’m the personal beneficiary of that help. I recently had one of the other threats, and the gentleman was prosecuted in the Federal courts because he used the mail to send the 

threat. And the Federal judge did stack the sentence. And I think 

that sent a strong message. An amazing thing happened: from that 

penitentiary unit, which I had received several threats from, 

they’ve stopped from that unit. So maybe the message got out. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thanks, Judge Kent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to make an 

observation, Mr. Chairman, about your comment about arming of 

DEA agents and other law enforcement officials in the courtroom, 

recently we had a tragedy in the State of Rhode Island—I come 

from New England—where a local police detective had his weapon, 

his handgun, taken from him, and he was killed by a defendant. 

So I think, if I hear the marshal correctly—and you can tell me 

if I’m misinterpreting you—that sometimes those decisions are best 

left to the individuals in charge of security in a particular courthouse. 

Mr. CLARK. I would certainly agree with that; that it is often best 

left to the individual courts. For example, I should clarify further 

that in the Eastern District of Virginia, for example, we already 

have worked out with our local law enforcement first responders 

that, obviously, if there is an emergency within the courthouse or 

some type of an incident, that any first responders, obviously, 

would be allowed to come and go from the court. And it is also difficult sometimes, in working through the policies with the judges 

themselves. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And it clearly has to be coordinated between the court, the service. And some sort of an accounting has 

to be made for whom is permitted to carry a firearm in the courthouse. But again, I would suggest this is not something that we 

should rush into, in terms of taking action here. 

But I want to get to the testimony of Judge Roth, and congratulate you for your candor. 

Judge ROTH. Thank you. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. We often hear, or we heard recently about Congress holding judges accountable. I think what you have effectively 

done here today is challenged us to be accountable. Because I think 

we all share as a goal the protection of the judiciary. Clearly, without an independent judiciary in this country, one that is not susceptible to influence of any sort, our viable, healthy democracy will 

erode. So you have been very candid and very frank in your testimony. It’s refreshing. I suspect that you are a person that tends 

to be very frank and candid under any circumstances. 

But I think it’s important that we read the testimony of Judge 

Roth. Again, to emphasize it and underscore it, ‘‘It seems to my 

Committee that the Marshals Service never gets the resources it 

59

needs to get the job done. The Executive Branch consistently recommends slashing funds before the requests even make their way 

to Congress...Some people believe that the Department of Justice 

will never support full resource levels for the Marshals Service, in 

spite of any Department of Justice statements to the contrary. 

Therefore, I am seeking your assistance in helping to protect the 

Federal judiciary in several ways.’’

You then further state, ‘‘The Department refuses to share any information about Marshals Service staffing levels and formulas, or 

to consider suggestions or change with us.’’ Let me be really clear. 

The Judicial Conference has never—at least, in your experience—

consulted with the Director of the Marshals Service about a needs 

assessment for security for judges. Is that what I can interpret? 

Judge ROTH. We have asked for that information. We have not 

obtained it. We feel——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, you know, I’ll tell you something, Mr. 

Chairman. I think that is unconscionable. 

And I think you indicated earlier that you were—you noticed 

that the Director of the Marshals Service was not here today. 

Judge ROTH. Right. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I’m sure—Mr. Clark, I’m sure you are a career employee that performs your service well. But this just doesn’t 

stand. This is indeed something that I cannot—I just can’t imagine. 

You shock me with your testimony. 

And I would hope that the gentleman from Texas would consider 

an amendment when the time comes, if this bill does go to markup, 

an amendment that would mandate not just simply consultation—

and maybe I should ask for the opinion of Mr. McNulty, since he’s 

here representing the Executive Branch—mandate a needs assessment for the entire Federal judiciary, in a report to Congress, a report to this Judiciary Committee, to ensure that that plan is implemented, both with funding and the resources necessary. Otherwise, 

we’re just sitting here, wasting our time. 

Judge ROTH. We would support——

Mr. DELAHUNT. It starts with that. 

Judge ROTH. We would support such an effort wholeheartedly, 

enthusiastically. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. McNulty, what’s the position of the Executive Branch? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I can’t give you the position of the Executive 

Branch. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, what’s your position, Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Right, as the U.S. Attorney in Virginia. But from 

my limited perspective of what I’ve observed—and by the way, I 

appreciate very much what you’re saying, and I think you’ve raised 

a very important point. 

I know that Attorney General Gonzales has been working closely 

with the judiciary in the last—since he’s been in office, in the last 

2 months. I think they’ve had a number of meetings with the conference on this subject. I think he has established a working group 

within the Department to see how we can better provide security 

to the judiciary. So this is a subject that I know he cares about 

deeply. 

60

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, that’s very good news. And would you 

please convey back to the Attorney General my remarks and my 

observations? And I would hope, okay, that the Department would 

support an amendment to the bill filed by Mr. Weiner and our 

freshman Member of the judiciary, former Judge Gohmert; because 

I just think that is intolerable, particularly given what we have 

seen occurred. 

We don’t even have a needs assessment. This isn’t even about 

providing the necessary resources. We’re operating in the dark 

here. And look what’s happened. And what are we going to do? 

Just simply sit around and pass mandatory sentences, and think 

that that’s going to deter and protect these men and women who 

sit up on that bench? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Delahunt, I appreciate your comments. And 

that’s why we added section 13 in here. Maybe it does need to go 

forward—I mean further than it does. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want a report back to this Committee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I was very concerned when I found from Federal judges that there was no consultation there, or not adequate. 

And I thought that was abysmal. And that’s why 13 is there. If it 

needs to go farther, then I’m open to do what we need to. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the Chair would indulge me for an additional 

30 seconds, I would suggest strongly, as the principal sponsor of 

this legislation, that written within section 113 [sic]—and I’d be 

happy to work with the gentleman—that we mandate a report to 

the Congress, to ensure the implementation of a safety plan for 

Federal judges. 

And we can do it on an annual basis. We could work out the details to that effect. But there’s got to be an accountability here, that 

clearly is lacking. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. I was going to say to the gentleman from Texas, I believe yours and Mr. Weiner’s bill at least 

addresses in part some of Mr. Delahunt’s concerns. And perhaps 

you all can get together subsequently to that end. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first apologize 

to the panel for not having been here at the beginning of the testimony. I will review all the testimony that we have in writing. I 

was participating in a news conference on a bill that’s going to be 

coming before the House this week, CIANA [ph], which passed 

through the Judiciary Committee and through my Subcommittee, 

the Subcommittee on the Constitution. So I want to apologize for 

that. 

Now, I might have missed the Chairman saying this, so if I’m repeating I apologize to him for doing that. But I wanted to congratulate Mr. McNulty for his new position. And I can just say that 

when he was a staff member of the Judiciary Committee he did a 

tremendous job, through some difficult times, as he may recall; 

some that were very national issues and very divisive issues, and 

that we’re still fighting about up here sometimes. 

Mr. COBLE. Will the gentleman suspend? 

Mr. CHABOT. I’ll yield, yes. 

61

Mr. COBLE. In order to suck up to the U.S. Attorney, I, too, want 

to congratulate. [Laughter.] 

I failed to do that. 

Mr. MCNULTY. The bottom of my district does touch North Carolina, so that’s good. 

Mr. CHABOT. Anybody else want to suck up here, while we’re at 

it? 

But really, you did a wonderful job for us then, and I’m sure 

you’re going to do a tremendous job in this new position. So congratulations. It couldn’t have gone to a better person. 

My question is to Judge Roth and to Mr. Clark here. And let me 

preface this by saying that I represent Cincinnati. And the Chief 

Judge of the Federal District Court there for the Southern District 

of Ohio is Sandra Beckwith, who I’ve known for many years. She 

was a judge in Hamilton County, both at the municipal level and 

then the common pleas level. And then she went to the—became 

a county commissioner there. And she and I served on the county 

commission for four or five years together. So I’ve known her very 

well. And we’ve kept in touch on a number of these issues relative 

to the courts, and that’s been a great help to me, and I think to 

her as well. 

But Judge Beckwith has indicated her concern about the security 

in and around the Federal courthouse in Cincinnati. The General 

Marshal Service issued an RWA approval to the GSA in the 

amount of $278,000, to begin the project in August 2000. Subsequently, an RWA in the amount of $150,000 was issued to complete 

the project. 

However, GSA and the Marshals Service determined that an 

extra $230,000 was needed to cover the entire cost. And it was expected that the security system would be funded, approved, and 

built by this year, by 2005. The RWA will expire in August, and 

the original funds may not be available to them. And so that’s just 

to give you a little background on the security issue that we’ve 

been working with there for some time. 

And Judge Roth, in your testimony you referred to what you consider the lack of proper coordination and consultation between the 

U.S. Marshals and the Judicial Conference with respect to resource 

allocation and security needs. Mr. Clark, for the U.S. Marshals office, paints a somewhat different picture. 

Now, maybe what we have is, you know, a difference in perceptions to some degree. But I would ask both you, Judge Roth, and 

you, Marshal Clark, to each address the coordination and information sharing issue. How much already occurs, and what, if anything, needs to be done to improve the coordination and consultation between the Judicial Conference and the marshals? 

Now, the bill includes language aimed at ensuring such coordination and consultation between the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts and the Marshals Service. If enacted, how do you envision 

the process would work? And what specific changes do you believe 

will occur, or should occur? And either one of you is free to go first 

on that. Judge Roth? 

Judge ROTH. If I could begin, let me say first of all we are very 

aware of the problem you speak of in Cincinnati. That has been— is being worked on, and will be solved within the next 10 days. 

62

Mr. CHABOT. Great. Thank you very much. 

Judge ROTH. So Judge Beckwith, I think, will be relieved with 

that resolution. 

The installation of security equipment in courthouses, there has 

been very good coordination between the Marshals Service and the 

courts on that instance. And that is not what we’re concerned 

about in the consultation. The requests for security equipment upgrades in existing courthouses and new courthouses is worked out 

between the Marshals Service and the Administrative Office of the 

Courts, and is approved by my Committee in our budget requests 

every year. 

Our real concern is about the staffing of the Marshals Service. 

What is needed in a given district is deputy United States marshals to provide adequate court security in that district? How is 

that formula established? What does that formula call for? And is 

that formula being met? 

That is what we are primarily concerned about. That is what we 

would see in the terms ‘‘consult’’ and ‘‘coordinate.’’ And we would 

hope that that consulting and coordination, as I mentioned, would 

then lead to the adequate funding to staff the protection necessary 

for each of the districts. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much, Judge. Marshal 

Clark? 

Mr. CLARK. Congressman Chabot, within the Eastern District of 

Virginia, I do coordinate frequently with two members that are on 

the Judicial Facilities and Security Committee. We have Judge 

Henry Hudson, who serves in our Richmond office, and Judge 

Henry Morgan, who serves in the Norfolk division. 

And so I do from time to time get a chance to talk to them about 

some of the issues that are both local in scope and national in 

scope. And they frequently—particularly Judge Hudson—will call 

me to seek my advice or my input on some of the issues that are 

before the Committee. 

I would certainly agree with Judge Roth that wherever we can 

collectively share information, determine what works best in terms 

of staffing levels, from a local perspective I would certainly support 

that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. 

I have a couple of brief questions. We’ll have sort of a modified 

second round here. Judge Roth, I know you’re the chairwoman related to security, so let me ask you about witness intimidation. 

How significant a problem is it in the Federal courts? And have 

you seen an increase or a decrease in recent months? 

Judge ROTH. That is not really a topic that is within the jurisdiction of my Committee. I will be very happy to get—compile that information and get it to you for the record. 

Mr. COBLE. If you would do that, I would appreciate—I’d be interested to know that. 

Judge Kent, you mentioned in your testimony a current threat 

imposed against another judge in Texas. Can you describe the nature of the threat and the security measures, if any, that were 

taken? Or if you can’t do that, I understand that. 

63

Judge KENT. Well, as I, and as the minority Member, said, to 

keep our remarks with respect to security issues maybe close to the 

vest. But there are specific threats that are made at a number of 

judges. We had one in our area, you know, outside of myself, other 

judges, that are extremely serious threats. 

We have in the past—I have to compliment the FBI, because the 

FBI has been very aggressive in helping when there are threats 

that involve even State judicial members, to help in the investigation of that; along with the Texas Rangers and local law enforcement. 

But it is important—and you asked about witnesses—those 

threats against judges and witnesses, that there is aggressive attention to that. Witnesses have—and particularly after our courthouse shooting that you saw, we had witnesses saying they were 

not going to come and testify. And the district attorney’s office had 

to really talk with them and explain to them how we were going 

to keep them safe through added security members in our courthouse, before they would even come to court and testify on misdemeanor cases that were set for trial. Jurors that said they were 

not going to come and serve as jurors because of what they perceived, the lack of security. 

So some of the recommendations by the National Center for 

State Courts, I think, are excellent, where there can be some help 

to the State courts in these security issues. 

Mr. COBLE. So I take it, Your Honor, you would favor assistance 

to States in developing witness protection programs? 

Judge KENT. Absolutely. I think it would help with the witness 

protection programs, and I think there are some other recommendations that could help with general security measures for 

State courts. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does witness protection— does that include protecting witnesses in addition to the witness 

protection plan that we see where they disappear, get a new identity? Are there other witness protections that need to be funded? 

Judge KENT. I think probably these gentlemen would know better than I. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, there are different ways to secure the safety 

of witnesses. On a short-term basis, there are safehouses. And my 

experience, the investigative agency—let’s take the FBI, for example—will take responsibility for securing the safety of a witness on 

a short-term basis. Perhaps it’s over the course of a weekend, or 

just in a period of time preceding trial. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that takes funding. 

Mr. MCNULTY. That takes some funding, though limited funding. 

And we have run into some recent issues, because of budget cutbacks, on that score. 

What the Marshals Service, of course, does is, if those witnesses 

really are going to be facing severe threats over a long time, then 

these investigative agencies essentially nominate someone for the 

witness protection program. They sponsor them. And the Marshals 

Service gives them a new identity and puts them into the full program. 

64

You really have to—and I’ll speak for John Clark for a moment. 

You really have to decide, though, up front, are you going to do it 

or not. Because halfway measures create more problems. 

Mr. SCOTT. A lot of the bill adds, as we have pointed out, mandatory minimums. Are there changes in actually definitions of criminal law that are in the bill, or is it just mostly the increased penalty? Are there any things that are in the bill that would be illegal 

that are not legal now—that are not illegal now, that would be illegal under the legislation? 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think it does expand Federal jurisdiction in 

some places. I’m not an expert on the legislation. I looked it over 

quickly. But as I looked it over, I thought there were some places 

where there were provisions that expanded Federal jurisdiction; 

particularly in relation to law enforcement officers at the local level 

and potential Federal prosecutions involving acts of violence 

against—— Mr. SCOTT. I know, but all of these would have been illegal under 

every State law. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Oh, creating—you mean proscribing conduct 

that’s not prohibited anywhere? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I’m not—I have not—— Mr. SCOTT. You don’t think so? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Didn’t see anything like that. And I wouldn’t 

know for sure, because you have to compare it to State law. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you know, we’ve kind of talked about this. It 

just seems to some of us that increasing a penalty for things that 

are already illegal isn’t going to have a big effect on people’s behavior. I mean, a guy that shot—what?—three, four people, and then 

died in a shoot-out, isn’t going to be deterred by a mandatory minimum sentence. 

And if we’re not proscribing anything that’s not now illegal— there are a couple of things in here, the Internet, the judges’ financial disclosure statements, some others, that I think are technical, 

that I think we could probably work with. 

There’s going to be a problem with the Internet because how you 

can control—we’ve had other pieces of legislation that have pointed 

out how difficult it is to regulate the Internet, because it is an 

international phenomenon, and the server may be about anywhere, 

and everybody that has access to the Internet has access to that. 

And the Department of Justice can’t really do much for a server 

that’s physically situated outside of the country. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One comment I would 

like to address, too, though. I constantly hear people who are 

against death penalties being imposed make the comment there’s 

no effect on murder. And I would concede that where you take 20 

years to implement the capital punishment it’s not much deterrent. 

Having been appointed back in the ’80’s to represent a capital murder defendant who was convicted, and having done an excellent job 

on his behalf, I’m quite familiar with how that all works. But these 

things are a deterrent. 

65

And when you mentioned someone who was killed in the process 

after shooting three or four people not being deterred by enhanced 

penalties, I would point out to the witnesses, to my colleagues in 

Congress, this man went to the trouble of putting on body armor. 

He was thinking about his own well-being after killing these other 

people. And if he will go to the extent to put on body armor, thinking about his own well-being, then the thought process would also 

extend to, ‘‘What’s going to happen to me if I’m caught?’’ So I think 

it can have a deterrent effect. And that’s why we’re pushing forward. 

A couple of other areas I wanted to touch on. Tax credit for State 

judges was mentioned; and also had it mentioned by a Federal 

judge that, gosh, if we’re not going to give them the support, the 

finances, to have off-site security for their cars, their homes, at 

least give them a tax credit. And I’m all for that, and don’t mind 

pushing a bill to that effect. 

We’d need to do that separately, because our friend, Chairman 

Thomas, would probably want to have something to say about that. 

But that would be separate from this bill, and that’s something 

that still might be possible. Mandatory minimums, I think we do 

owe it to the judges, the AUSA that was mentioned. They deserve 

to have home protection, and we need to do what we can to help 

them. 

The witness program, I’d point Members to that; that witness 

protection grant money being available in the bill. 

Also, there was mention earlier about writs. I do believe justice 

delayed is justice denied. And this does make a provision for moving writs along. And I would direct my dear friends and colleagues 

to the fact that, for example, the Ninth Circuit is known for taking 

writs and sitting on them, and sitting on them, and sitting on 

them, and sitting on them. And sometimes, giving people, especially attorneys, deadlines—even judges—is extremely helpful. So 

that’s why we wanted that to be a part of the bill, as well. 

I would like—you know, you’ve made statements, each of the four 

of you. In the time I’ve got left, I would really—since this is not 

a markup, I’d like your input. You’ve heard questions. You’ve heard 

each other testify. Starting with Judge Roth, is there anything else 

that you would like us to consider, or have in mind, or perhaps 

supplement in this bill? 

Judge ROTH. I think the section 13, which we have discussed extensively. I would like to point out that there are other aspects of 

that that concern me; not just the staffing pattern but, for instance, 

the Office of Protective Intelligence at the Marshals Service. Our 

understanding is this is a new office. It has only three people. We 

are concerned whether that office is going to take the proactive role 

necessary in coordination with the other law enforcement agencies 

to determine what the threats are to judges. 

We have been concerned that the Marshals Service does not 

think there’s a threat unless a judge receives a letter or someone 

says, ‘‘I’m going to do you harm.’’ And we think—we believe that 

there must be a greater proactive activity by the Marshals Service 

in their protective intelligence, to determine where threats may 

exist and what may be done in order to protect the courts from 

66

those threats. And we feel that the consultation and coordination 

should extend into that area. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you, Judge. 

Judge KENT. Congressman Gohmert—Judge Gohmert—other 

than my recommendations about being able to carry my gun outside of Texas, to create a small set-aside of Homeland Security 

funding to assist the State courts in meeting the requirements of 

the USA PATRIOT Act. That can provide additional security needs 

for State courts. So to look at the ways that Congress can perhaps 

assess and help State courts in their security needs. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you, Judge. Mr. McNulty? 

Mr. MCNULTY. Well, I would defer to the President’s budget request for the Marshals Service. But I have to say that this Committee, apart from this legislation, may want to work closely with 

the Appropriations Committee, to look at the adequacy of resources. 

The Marshals Service does a tremendous amount of good with 

the limited resources they have. And when Marshal Clark was describing the lack of growth in his office, I was struck by how that 

compares to the growth of prosecutors in my office, the number of 

detainees. Since I’ve been U.S. Attorney for three and a half years, 

I think we went from a population of about 500 people being detained on a given day, pre-trial, to—what?—800 now, right, John? 

Mr. CLARK. That’s correct, if you look at the workload measures 

over the last few years, compared to, perhaps, staffing increases 

that other agencies have received. And certainly, the Marshals 

Service—and I’m speaking, again, from the Eastern District of Virginia; where, again, when I was a deputy marshal in Richmond in 

the mid-’80’s, you practically knew all the prisoners by name. I 

mean, they were—there were not too many. And now, just in a 

place like Richmond, we’re seeing the population approaching 300. 

So to not have the growth level to keep up with the workload demands is certainly, and can be, a burden. So I would certainly support—while the President’s budget has been helpful, I would also 

say that anything the Committee can do to help us there would be 

appreciated. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. We’re pleased to have the 

gentlelady from Texas joining us. Good to see you, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. 

I’m going to ask the gentleman from Texas if he will assume the 

Chair. I have got North Carolina constituents who are waiting to 

bark at me. And as I depart, I want to thank the panel for your 

time and your contribution today. And I want to thank those in the 

audience for having stayed around until the last dog has been 

hanged. I think this has been a good hearing. And we will revisit 

it again. 

Mr. Gohmert. See you later. 

Mr. GOHMERT [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to Mr. Delahunt. I will follow him. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Very well. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few questions for Judge Kent. And thank you for your testimony. I’m sure 

67

that was a very difficult experience. What has been the response—

obviously, we’re a Nation that embraces the principal of federalism. 

And there are clear responsibilities on the part of the State government. What has been the response of the Texas legislature to these 

security issues? If you could, give it just maybe a minute. 

Judge KENT. Yes. I think that the Texas legislature certainly is 

involved with a number of the issues that they’re trying to deal 

with in a short time. They meet a very short time every 2 years. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Have they—excuse me. I’m going to interrupt 

you, because the time is moving. 

Judge KENT. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Have they done anything at all, in terms of providing you the adequate resources? 

Judge KENT. The only thing that they have done in the past 

dealing with the lien situation is they’ve passed some legislation 

dealing with that. Dealing with resources on the local level, they 

do not fund the local counties. That’s up to the county commissioners. And our county commissioners are evaluating our security 

after this situation. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. When did this incident occur? 

Judge KENT. February 24 of this year. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. February 24. So it’s only several months. 

Judge KENT. Absolutely. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are there proposals before the county commission now? 

Judge KENT. They are right now doing a security audit. And 

we’ve had some help from the U.S. Marshals Department to come 

over and help us with that security audit, to design better procedures to, hopefully, increase——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is part of their work looking at the staffing 

needs? 

Judge KENT. Absolutely. The staffing needs at the courthouse. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. And have they come forward with, as we 

say, some hard cash? 

Judge KENT. They have come forward with promises to look at 

the situation and see if the cash is available. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Again, you know, with all due respect to 

the Federal role here, we like to think we respect States’ rights 

and, you know, this concept of devolution, because we’re looking to 

the States to step up in many other categories. And I would think 

that this is one that we would be looking to the county commissioners. 

Judge KENT. And I think the States do have to provide the bootson-the-ground security. But I think there’s a number of things Congress can do that will help enhance judicial security, other than 

providing that minute-minute funding. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did I hear you say, was this a—how did this individual unload 70 rounds? 

Judge KENT. He had, they said, an AK-47. He had a Mach-90, 

two clips; a high-powered rifle in his car; over 200 rounds in his 

car, a——

Mr. DELAHUNT. This was an automatic? 

68

Judge KENT. Semi-automatic. A bulletproof vest, and a flack 

jacket. He was prepared for war, and he brought it to the courthouse. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. 

Judge KENT. But luckily, we had some gun power to return fire. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. You know, my friend from Texas here 

talks about the death penalty. You know, clearly, different States 

have different perspectives on that particular issue, as do I, you 

know. And as it pertains to Texas, what were the number of executions in the past year? 

Judge KENT. Each year, it varies. I’ve seen some years where 

we’ve had 20, 30 executions. This year has not been nearly as high, 

up to this point, because it depends on the facts of the particular 

cases and the appeals that go through. We carefully look at the 

cases. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. In terms of the number of homicides in 

Texas, what’s your homicide rate in Texas, per hundred thousand 

of population? 

Judge KENT. I wish this simple country judge could tell you that. 

I’m sorry, I don’t——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Judge Kent, I don’t think you’re a simple country 

judge. [Laughter.] 

Judge KENT. I have—I have to beg to differ. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think you’re a very smart country judge. But 

you’re not simple. 

Judge KENT. I would tell you that the vast majority of murders 

in Texas are not prosecuted as capital murders. Capital murders 

are truly reserved for prosecution for the very, very narrow—— Mr. DELAHUNT. I’m not even—I guess I’m really debating, 

through you, my friend and colleague who’s sitting in the Chair 

right now——

Judge KENT. Okay. 

Mr. DELAHUNT.—about the deterrence effect of the death penalty. 

Judge KENT. Well, it deters that one person. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, it does. But when one examines—and I 

would hope that maybe we could ask the staff of the Committee, 

both majority and minority counsel, to do a comparison between 

the homicide rate in the State of Texas, and I’ll take my own State, 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We’re a non-capital-punishment State. 

And I would suggest to you—and I’m guessing right now—but I’d 

suggest to you that the incidence of homicide in the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, which has no death penalty, and the State of 

Texas, which has, I understand, the highest rate of executions in 

the country—there’d be a considerable difference, in terms of the 

incidence of homicide per one hundred thousand population. And I 

guess that would be the empirical data that I would suggest that 

the death penalty isn’t necessarily a deterrent. 

Judge KENT. Well, and I—and, look, I’m not here to stand up for 

or against the death penalty. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. 

Judge KENT. I really believe that that is an issue best left to the 

State legislature, as you said, to let each State determine what 

they think their law should be in this. 

69

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I wish you would convey that particular 

sentiment to members of the—from Texas, my Texas colleagues 

here that sit on the Judiciary Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Congressman? Mr. Delahunt, I think Virginia has 

a lower, probably, homicide rate than Massachusetts or Texas, and 

does have capital punishment. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. McNulty, then, let’s take that—I’ll take 

that challenge. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Okay. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think—seriously, I think because there are so 

many mandatory sentences and—if the Chair would indulge me for 

an additional minute? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I will. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think, you know, many of us feel very strongly 

in terms of a common and shared goal, which is to protect the judiciary and to protect witnesses and to make sure our judicial system 

is healthy and viable. But many of us, for a variety of different reasons—in my case, because as a State prosecutor for 22 years in a 

major metropolitan jurisdiction, you know, I did not see the benefit 

of mandatory sentencing; other than possibly, as the U.S. Attorney 

indicates, to develop an informant. And even then, there are other 

and better ways to do it, I would respectfully suggest. 

But simply to implicate in every piece of criminal—of crime legislation and criminal justice legislation that comes before this Committee, the death penalty and mandatory sentencing, it just doesn’t 

work. 

And I know my friend, the former judge from Texas, disagrees 

with that. But maybe what we ought to do, not just on this particular legislation, but to have both our staffs work together to try 

to make a good-faith effort in determining the efficacy and effectiveness of the death penalty and mandatory sentencing, and start 

from a common position. 

Because, like I said, I think that there are—I think there’s much 

in this particular proposal that I can support. Unfortunately, you 

know, I dare say there are aspects of it that I can’t. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady from Texas 

has expired. She’d been kind enough to yield to her colleague. Did 

you have a question? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I didn’t yield. I just let him go in front of me. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Oh——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I deferred. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Deferred. I see. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That’s more appropriate. So I’m prepared to 

go at this time for my 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, you may proceed for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much. And I 

thank the witnesses for their presentation and having the opportunity to look at your testimony. I was delayed at another meeting. 

And I thank you for your presence here. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might just offer—first of all, I’d like to ask 

unanimous consent for my statement to be included in the record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Hearing no objection, it will be done. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

70

Let me say to both of the judges; and certainly, welcome back 

Paul, and we’ve watched your work, and it’s been a busy time in 

Virginia; and certainly, to the U.S. Marshal, who we worked closely 

with in the Southern District, of course, a very busy district; that 

we appreciate your service. Not only your service, but the different 

times in which you have to operate. 

I don’t think there’s any Member here that would not enthusiastically—sadly, of course, because of what we have finally 

reached in terms of violence inside the courthouse and courtroom 

and the perimeters—to support a system or a review of the law, to 

ensure that we protect the Nation’s courts, both State and Federal, 

which I think are crucial. 

The tragedy in Chicago, the tragedy in your city, Judge Kent, the 

tragedy in Atlanta, Georgia, is intolerable. And we absolutely 

abhor it. And I believe we can fix it. 

I hope the Chairman, who has authored this bill, will consider 

bills that have been written by Members on the other side of the 

aisle—one in particular that I am presently writing—so that this 

can be a bipartisan effort. And I think if we do it that way, we will 

protect the Nation’s courts, both State and Federal. 

I happen to think that, although the tenth amendment is a very 

strong amendment, that there are some issues that we must collaborate with the States and work on. Because the sanctity of the 

judicial system cannot be, if you will, held in high esteem or protected, if it’s not protected throughout our system; local courts—

which I served on, a city court in Houston—State courts, and of 

course, Federal and to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

It would help me, Judge Kent, if you would just—this individual 

lost his life who was armed beyond even our imagination, was 

there any motive determined? I understand two individuals lost 

their lives, a woman and a child. Did they happen to be related, 

or did I have the wrong information on that? 

Judge KENT. Well, it’s close, Congresswoman. And I appreciate 

your asking the question with respect to that. The gentleman—the 

immediate motive was that he was involved in a child support custody hearing that was supposed to take place in just a few minutes 

after the shooting. And he didn’t want to pay his child support. 

And so he killed his ex-wife; he shot his son. This was the 21-yearold son, not the four—the 10-year-old that the child support dealt 

with. He shot his son in the leg. The son survived. 

It was a civilian who was shooting at him to stop him from this 

murderous rampage he was going on; shot him four times. However, he had a bulletproof vest on, and so the bullets did not stop 

him. He turned and killed the civilian. Then the law enforcement 

came out of the courthouse, out of my courtroom and Judge Rodgers’ courtroom, and repelled the violence. 

So he was heavily armed, and he was coming into that courthouse, if he hadn’t killed her outside. And he would have killed 

more people in our town, had law enforcement not been able to respond to it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So obviously, we need to work collaboratively 

on protecting courts, regardless of the jurisdiction, is my perspective on this. 

71

Let me pose a question to John Clark. I noticed that you’ve only 

got a 6 percent increase in your budget in fiscal year 2006. I don’t 

know how you believe that that’s going to be effective in the mass 

of work that you all do and, of course, in the increased sensitivity 

to the protecting of courts. Is that a sufficient amount? 

Mr. CLARK. The simple answer is: No, it’s not. In many cases, because of the increased workload, because of the demands that are 

being placed on the Marshals Service on an ever-increasing basis 

around the nation, particularly in a post-9/11 era, and speaking 

from the Eastern District of Virginia, as you know, we’ve had a tremendous revamping of our security around the courthouse in Alexandria, around the courthouse in Norfolk and Richmond, increase 

in prisoner population that has really skyrocketed——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if I may, because of the shortness of my 

time, you’ve given me a great piece to jump from. I see 3,800 contract security officers. I guess the question is not, is that effective; 

but wouldn’t it be more effective to have additional resources for 

actual U.S. Marshals and have them in an integrated system? I’m 

reminded, as I said, of the Southern District. 

And I’d ask the Chairman for unanimous consent for an additional minute. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It will be granted. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. For example, there’s a rising influence of MS-13 gang members in the region that I come from. Plus, 

we are overloaded with drug cases, some of them very serious. 

Wouldn’t it be wise to sort of look to an enhanced Marshals Service 

for some of these activities that are coming up? 

Mr. CLARK. Yes, the contract security officers that work around 

the country protecting the interior of the courthouse do a tremendous job, and we’re certainly glad to have them. But what we’re 

faced with, that is from the workload level, often requires deputy 

marshals to handle those duties. 

For example, as I think Judge Roth had pointed out earlier, protective measures, for example, require a tremendous amount of resources to pull off. When you think of protective a detail going 24/

7 for one individual, if they have a family and they’re going to the 

grocery store, you require deputy marshals to essentially escort and 

protect them, much like the President of the United States would 

be protected. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you need—we need a full complement, 

fuller than what we have, of U.S. Marshals. And I looked at Judge 

Gohmert’s—I’m trying to pick it up here, sir—legislation. And I notice a lot of good stuff about retaliation and certainly some very 

good points. But I’ve always believed that prevention is—an ounce 

of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And when you look at our 

new philosophy on terrorism—and I sit on the Homeland Security 

Committee—it is to keep individuals from our shores. We certainly 

want to protect our homeland, but let’s keep them from our shores. 

And it seems that we need legislation that focuses on enhancing 

the prevention that’s necessary; which, Judge Kent, that’s State—

on the State side. And I hope that the legislature responds to your 

needs, because I’d prefer you not having to pull your gun, if you 

will. I know we have a concealed weapons law and judges are alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Sep 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\042605B\20876.000 HJUD1 PsN: 20876
72

lowed to carry their weapons. But I think it’s important to be preventative. 

Might I just say this? And I know, Mr. Clark, you’re trying to 

say something. Let me see if the Chairman will be gracious. But 

let me just say this. The bill has—that’s before us right now, has 

a lot of merits to it. I have to join my colleague on the question 

of mandatory sentences, for this reason. It is because we have a 

conflicted Supreme Court case that has questioned mandatory sentencing. 

I’d like the bill to be able to address these questions with the 

backdrop of that Supreme Court decision. And also, recognizing 

that judges, I think, have the ability to use their good discretion, 

and they know when a bad guy is before them, to know how to sentence them, both on the Federal and the State level. So that concerns me. 

The other concern that I have is a broader question, because I’ve 

made the point that I want you all as safe as you possibly can be. 

We’ve just seen a report that says that our jails are overloaded. 

That means I want, if you will, the bad guys and the terrorists. 

We’re loaded up with more people in jail than any nation in the 

world, and we’re not the largest nation in the world. I think we’ve 

got some frivolous cases where people are being incarcerated. We 

need to address that question. 

Mandatory sentencing adds to some of that frivolity, in terms of 

loading the courts and loading the system; where we need to address questions of providing security for our judges. I’d like to see 

our judges, if they call for it, have 24-hour coverage, State and Federal. That’s money. That’s resources. So we can pass legislation all 

day long, and we’ll never get to the point. 

I think the other thing is, of course, this is not a hearing on 

whether or not we enjoy your decisions; but I think this is an appropriate hearing to make the statement that conversation and 

statements by Members of Congress can be equally threatening, except for the fact that we have a speech and debate protection when 

we don’t like judges’ decisions. So I hope that we’ll be restrained 

from commenting on judges’ decisions at this point. 

Let me close, Mr. Chairman—and thank you for your kindness—

to simply say that, and to the Ranking Member, I want to thank 

him and Mr. Coble for this hearing. It may not be directly related, 

but I guess it’s somewhat extended; and forgive me, not in any way 

taking—making light of the hearing here. I’m going to study this 

bill very carefully. I have a bill; I want to add some more dollars 

to the stated resources for the U.S. Marshals. 

And I hope that I can, by that, work with the State system, 

Judge Kent, and provide maybe some coverage, depending on 

whether it’s a Federal crime, and we can do that. 

But I do think, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member, 

maybe we can have a hearing as well on whether or not law enforcement—which I respect greatly—should be handcuffing a 5-

year-old. And I’m not sure where that takes us, but I think that 

that’s really going beyond the pale and that we need to do——

Mr. GOHMERT. The 1-minute extension has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward 

to working with you, if you’d work with me, as I draft legislation. 

73

And I’m going to be studying this issue, and also working with 

these courts and Mr. Clark. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Thank you. And I’d like to thank the 

witnesses for their testimony. The Subcommittee very much appreciates your contribution. This is a quite serious subject. And we do 

owe those who participate in the judicial process—not just judges, 

but the prosecutors, the witnesses, the jurors—we owe them a debt 

of gratitude. And we also owe them protection. So, I appreciate 

your assistance. 

In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of 

this important issue, the record will be left open for additional submissions for seven days. Also, any written questions that Members 

wish to submit may be submitted within the same seven-day period. 

This concludes the oversight hearing on H.R. 1751, the ‘‘Secure 

Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.’’ We thank you 

all for your cooperation, and this Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(75)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you to convene this hearing on 

securing our courts and protecting our judges and others associated with court operations. Unfortunately, I am unable to join you in supporting the bill before us, due 

to the extraneous political agenda that is the primary focus of the bill. 

With several sensational incidents in recent years involving murders of judges, 

family members of judges, court personal and witnesses, and other victims, we have 

come to see the consequences of insufficient security for our court operations and 

persons associated with them. All are agreed that enhancement of security for our 

courts and all persons associated with them, is imperative. Yet, the proponents of 

H.R. 1751 have chosen to address those needs in a manner apparently calculated 

to prevent or undermine the prospects for broad, bi-partisan and general support 

for the effort. 

Unfortunately, H.R. 1751 is yet another effort to use an appropriate issue of concern to the nation as a vehicle for extraneous, controversial and general provisions 

of law that are unnecessary, costly and counterproductive to that concern. Yet again 

in this Congress, we are considering a bill that purports to address a serious concern—the concern for adequate protection and security of judges and court related 

personnel—when, in its essence, the bill is merely a host for more draconian criminal penalties aimed at ensuring that bit players and major players in a crime face 

the same consequences. 

Among other provisions, H.R. 175i contains 7 new death penalties, a speedy habeas corpus procedure to assure that people are put to death quicker and to increase 

the number by applying the provision ex post facto, 22 new mandatory minimum 

sentences, and provisions to punish attempts and conspiracies the same as completion of an offense. The habeas provision is especially troubling. Given that 119 death 

row inmates who have been exonerated from death penalties over the past 12 years 

after languishing on death row for many years, the impact of this provision would 

be to ensure such persons are executed before they have enough time for the evidence to develop to exonerate them. As with the ‘‘Effective Death Penalty Act of 

1996,’’ the public policy rationale undergirding this provision is apparently that it 

is more important for us to administer executions efficiently than it is for us to administer them accurately. 

The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, is racially discriminatory, and is more often than not found to be erroneously applied. In a 23-year 

comprehensive study of death penalties, 68% were found to be erroneously applied. 

So, it is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 

12 years have been completely exonerated of those crimes. Nor is it surprising with 

such a sorry record of death penalty administrations that several states having abolished the death penalty, or had them overturned by courts, or placed moratoriams 

on their application while studies were being conducted, or just haven’t applied one 

in many years. For example, Connecticut has not executed anyone in 45 years. Some 

have referenced the econometric research of economist Joanna M. Shepherd. More 

recently, she has done further analysis and elaboration on her research, noting that 

‘‘executions deter murders in six states, . . . have no effect on murders in eight 

states, and . . . increase murders in thirteen states.’’

Mandatory minimum sentences clearly detract from the importance of the bill. 

Through rigorous study and analysis, they have been shown to be less effective, and 

thus, to waste money, when compared to more effective and less costly approaches, 

76

to be discriminatorily applied, and to violate common sense. Moreover, the scheme 

of the mandatory minimum sentences in the bill appears arbitrary and is confusing. 

For example, under section 7 of the bill, any individual who threatens a witness, 

victim or informant in retaliation for his or her participation in a court proceeding 

would receive a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence. However, if the same individual threatened a federal judge (under section 2 of the bill) he or she would receive a mandatory minimum of 5 years. 

I won’t quote the numerous studies regarding the problems with mandatory minimum sentences here, but Mr. Chairman, when we combine the impact of this bill 

and its mandatory provisions with the impact of similar provisions in the gang bill 

and the drug bill we recently considered in this committee, clearly there will be a 

massive prison impact if they are enacted into law. The indications from Sentencing 

Commission assessments of the impact of the gang bill, alone, is in excess of $7 billion dollars over the next 10 years. So, I hope you will join me in requiring a prison 

impact assessment from the Department of Justice regarding these measures. 

And just as clearly, Mr. Chairman, with the number of death penalties and mandatory minimum sentences we already have that would apply to the incidents we 

have seen in our courts, we are not talking about the kind of people who are discouraged by such measures. So, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses 

with the hope it will be on what might actually enhance court security and not on 

these extraneous matters. Thank you, Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

While the problem of violence and threats against judges, court officials, and employees, witnesses and victims is not a new one, the problem is growing. Recent 

events—the killing of the Fulton County State judge and other court personnel in 

Atlanta, the murders of a United States District Judge Joan Lefkow’s family members outside Chicago, Illinois, and the murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas 

courthouse—have underscored the problem. According to the Administrative Office 

of 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 violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. 

According to The Third Branch, the primary newsletter of the federal courts, at 

its March 2005 meeting, the Judicial Conference noted that off site security for 

judges is ‘‘of the gravest concern to the federal judiciary’’ and will be the top priority 

in discussions with the Attorney General and Director of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

In addition, the Conference approved a resolution calling for Justice Department 

and Marshals service leaders ‘‘to review fully and expeditiously all aspects of judicial security at judges’ homes and other locations away from the courthouse. Let me 

say Mr. Chairman that I realize the importance of providing adequate protection for 

our Nation’s judges. However, H.R. 1751 reaches too far. 

Not only is it flooded with mandatory minimums, but it is imposes several new 

death penalties. 

The United States Marshals Service is responsible for protecting Federal judge’s and their families, and for security at Federal courthouses. There have been concerns raised as to the United States Marshals management and handling of judicial 

security, the manner in which it conducts threat assessments, and the recent staff 

cuts in the witness protection program. The United States Marshals claim that cuts 

and reallocations have been necessary because of inadequate federal funding of the 

service. 

In addition, at the State and local level, there are significant court security and 

witness protection issues that have been identified. Judges in many States are inadequately protected, and there are no meaningful witness protection programs at the 

State and local level, where 90 percent of the criminal prosecutions occur. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY MCQUEEN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS

Chairman Coble, Member Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

On behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State 

Court Administrators (COSCA), it is a privilege to provide testimony for consideration in the Subcommittee’s hearing examining the security of the Nation’s state 

and federal courts. The Conferences’ memberships consist of the highest judicial offiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Sep 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\042605B\20876.000 HJUD1 PsN: 20876
77

cers and the state court administrators in each of the fifty states, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands 

and the Territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands. The National 

Center for State Courts (NCSC) serves as the Secretariat for the two Conferences 

and provides supportive services to state court leaders including original research, 

consulting services, publications, and national education programs. 

We believe that Congress has an opportunity to make an important and tangible 

difference in improving the safety of our courts and upholding the fundamentals of 

our democratic society. 

INTRODUCTION

This morning thousands of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, lawyers, law enforcement officers, court personnel, court reporters, jurors, witnesses, victims, and 

members of the general public entered a courthouse. They come for one purpose— seeking justice in a safe, neutral forum. What ensures that people can resolve their 

disputes, present evidence before a judge or jury and expect a judge to rule solely 

based upon the law, uninfluenced by intimidation? A forum free from fear, free from 

threats, and free from violence. People will not bring their disputes to courts if the 

likely consequence is intimidation or physical harm. Judges and jurors cannot pursue the truth if they or their families are threatened. 

A democracy cannot long endure if those entrusted with resolving disputes are 

targets of violence and become enmeshed in an environment of fear and intimidation, if officers responsible for security do not have the resources to detect and respond, and if lawyers, parties and the public must evaluate their own personal safety in deciding whether to participate in the process. Freedom from such an environment and the ability to carry out the judicial responsibilities in an open and accessible manner are fundamental components of the exercise of the rule of law. 

We appreciate the problems of violence in the workplace. Indeed, if there is any 

workplace in America where the potential for violence is great, it is the judicial 

workplace. People do not go to court for learning or education, entertainment or fun. 

People are often legally required to attend court. Jurors are summoned to court. 

Witnesses are subpoenaed to court. Defendants are compelled to go to court to face 

criminal charges or civil prosecution. Folks who have given up on resolving their 

disputes peaceably—disputes with their neighbors, disputes with their children, disputes with their families, disputes with their employers—go to court as their last 

resort. Emotions run high because these disputes invariably involve human relationships, and people’s relationships evoke strong feelings. Also, there is the confrontation clause—the right to confront your accusers. Although most of us spend a lot 

of time trying to avoid problems or sweep them under the rug, in court you often 

directly confront your adversary. 

Consequently, in the judicial workplace, there is confrontation between people 

under highly charged sets of emotional circumstances regarding disputes that they 

have been unable to peacefully resolve. There are winners and losers in court. Not 

only is there confrontation and emotion, but at least one of the parties will often 

leave feeling disappointed or angry that they have lost—and they have lost in some 

sort of a final, binding way. Frequently, both sides leave feeling that they have lost 

because of either the process or the court’s ruling. Despite the fact there is no workplace with greater potential for violence it is also true that there is no workplace 

in America where it is more critical that the workplace be free of violence. 

Access to peaceful resolution of disputes is fundamental to our system of government. Coupled with the principle of judicial independence these concepts are the 

envy of the world. Neither access to justice nor judicial independence can exist in 

an environment of intimidation, fear or violence. Under the rule of law, court proceedings are supposed to be open and public. How long will the proceedings be open 

to the public if members of the public, although invited to the courthouse, fear that 

they are going to become embroiled in some sort of a threatening, fearful, or violent 

situation? 

Mr. Chairman, the recent events in Atlanta and Illinois show a disturbing pattern 

with regards to how some people view the judiciary as an institution. These attacks 

and threats towards members of the judicial branch are rapidly reaching a crisis 

point for us. Let me recount some recent examples that we were able to get from 

our members:

• Alaska. Most of the judges in this state have recently received threatening 

communications with repeated references to the Chicago murders. Last year, 

a serious communication to one judge required the intervention of the FBI 

last year. Also during this past year, large numbers of weapons have been 

confiscated as a result of magnetometer screenings.

78

• Arizona. In the past year, there has been a suicide outside a divorce court, 

a firebomb of a Justice of the Peace Court, death threats towards judges, a 

visit by a disturbed litigant to a judge’s home, explicit communications with 

pictures and diagrams to judges on pending cases, and threats by constitutionalists to ‘‘arrest’’ and execute a judge.

• California. Various bomb threats have been received this past year, including 

an incident in which law enforcement was able to arrest the perpetrator before he was able to carry out the actual bombing, an incident in which a firebomb was discovered in a courthouse before it was able to go off, and an incident in which a litigant came into a clerk’s office with a small home-made 

bomb. Explicit threats have been made against judges to carry out violence 

against them. Graffiti has been painted detailing threats against the court 

system. A court received correspondence that contained a vial of blood that 

tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. A wallet found in a courtroom with 

a description of a judge’s car and license plate number. An individual with 

a pending court case was recently arrested videotaping the judges parking lot.

• Mississippi. Death threats have been made against several trial courts judges. 

Threats of destruction of property (buildings) and physical attacks on Justices 

of the Supreme Court have been made.

• New Hampshire. There was a recent incident where an individual entered a 

courthouse and attempted to assault a Court Security Officer during the 

screening process. A recent threat to ‘‘shoot up’’ one of the courthouses was 

also made.

• New York. The New York State court system receives approximately 140 

death threats against judges a year.

Even though we do not have quantitative data to back this up, it is the impression of the state court leadership that the number and severity of these threats have 

been rising in recent years. Furthermore, given that the state courts try approximately 96 million cases per year, the opportunities for incidents and the magnitude 

of the problem cannot be overstated. Also, let me emphasize that while judges and 

court personnel are seriously at risk during any incident, the risk to the public is 

also significant. 

THREATS AGAINST JUDGES

Since the Fulton County incident and the murders of U.S. District Judge Lefkow’s 

husband and mother, we have been inundated with requests for information about 

threats that state court judges receive on the job. The simple fact of the matter is 

that, because of the cost of compiling such a large amount of data, we do not know 

the full extent of the problem. 

In a survey by the family law section of the ABA, 60 percent of respondents indicated that an opposing party in a case had threatened them. From the federal Marshall’s Service, we know that they record an average of 700 inappropriate communications and threats a year against federal judicial officials. This is a marked increase from the 1980s when the average was closer to 240 per year. If you compare 

the number of federal judges to the approximately 32,000 state court judges, there 

is the possibility that we may find a large number of judges that face or have faced 

some sort of physical threat. 

Naturally we must always remember that the potential for violent attacks on 

judges is not limited to the courtroom. An aggressor who targets a specific judge 

may attack the weakest security link in that judge’s world—most likely the home. 

While more difficult, this area of protection cannot be overlooked. 

In order to better position courts and judges to deal with these threats we are 

proposing the following:

• To Establish a Repository for a New Threat Assessment Database.—

Each state would establish a web-based site where threats could be reported 

and local action taken. Federal dollars could support each state in establishing these web-based sites. This coordinated effort would result in: 1) establishing and defining a core set of data elements used by each state and 

2) obtaining data from states for analysis of trends and patterns. This information could then be used to assist states in preventing acts of domestic terrorism and crime and in enhancing their security procedures. By having the 

information from this threat database, we can target our resources where 

they will be most needed. Under the current system, most courts are taking 

an all or nothing approach with virtually no information to guide them in 

overall security planning.

79

• To Establish a Tax Credit for Personal Security Systems for Public 

Officials that Receive Threats as a Result of Performing Their Public 

Duties—Public officials, in order to protect themselves and their families, 

have had to purchase personal security systems as a result of threats and assaults. A tax credit is an appropriate way in which to offset these expenses.

Even though the second item may not be within the purview of this committee, 

we hope to count on your support as we forward it to the tax-writing committees. 

FUNDING CHALLENGES

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing state courts wishing to implement enhanced 

security measures is the issue of resources. The majority of limited jurisdiction 

courts depend on local law enforcement for the personnel to operate the equipment, 

provide adequate response or run security operations in a courthouse. As you know, 

most local governments struggle to meet day-to-day operations of running their governments and have little options to improve or implement new security measures 

in courthouses. Because there is no adequate funding source, many courts report 

that they have no formal security plan. 

CCJ/COSCA and the National Center for State Courts have been disseminating 

promising practices in the courthouse security area. Our efforts in this area have 

been well received. For example, we have circulated the ‘‘Ten Essential Elements 

for Courtroom Safety and Security.’’ The National Center also has compiled a wealth 

of information for state courts looking to upgrade their court security. Materials 

range from sample local court security plans to specific recommendations in courthouse architectural design, computer disaster recovery, and equipment. 

I must caution you that there is only so much that we can get out of streamlining 

and making better use of present resources. Sooner or later courts will need to find 

a way to pay for enhanced security measures. We hope that you will favorably consider our recommendations to allow state courts greater access to federal funds for 

much needed security improvements. 

THE NEW DIMENSION—COURTHOUSE TERRORISM

On September 11, terrorist attacks threw New York City’s court system in disarray because many court buildings and other criminal justice offices were located 

near the site of the World Trade Center. Three court security officers perished when 

they tried to assist in the rescue efforts. The Court of Claims Courthouse, located 

at Five World Trade Center was destroyed. Other courthouses were deep within the 

so-called ‘frozen zone,’ an area that city officials ordered off-limits to all but essential personnel. 

The New York state court leadership, however, moved quickly to ensure that the 

disruption did not last more than one day. Under the leadership of New York State 

Chief Judge Judith Kaye, the focus of the hours following the attacks was to do everything possible to open all the courts. 

The threat of terrorism has created a new dimension in courthouse security. The 

courthouse is a visible, tangible symbol of government. The September 11, 2001 attacks showed painfully the targets governments and other prominent buildings 

present. Thus courts, being a core function of American government, now suffer increased exposure to attacks from those external to the court process. They must be 

provided the same protection that is being provided to other government institutions 

in order to keep them open and accessible. The state courts are dealing with the 

threats posed by terrorism. We, however, need more assistance from the federal government as the large focus shifts to protecting the homeland. This is how you can 

help us. 

As you know, there will be approximately $2.5 billion in federal funding for homeland security awarded in FY2005. As you may not know, very little of this money 

will go to state courts for dealing with the various terrorism-related threats. In a 

recent survey of COSCA members, 76% of the respondents reported that the court 

system had not received any Homeland Security funds. We need to be a part of this 

funding because terrorists often target the positive symbols of the American way of 

life like courts and the law. To improve on this, here are some concepts that we 

forward for your consideration:

• To Create a New Federal Grant Program Specifically Targeted at Assessing and Enhancing State Court Security to Combat International 

and Domestic Terrorism—This program would address the 10 Essential 

Elements for Courtroom Safety and Security as developed by CCJ/COSCA. 

The program would be modeled after the Court Improvement Program (CIP), 

80

the successful federal/state court program that has assisted us in handling 

child abuse and neglect cases.

• To Ensure that State Courts Are Eligible to Apply Directly for Federal Funding—State and local courts have not been able to apply directly 

for some Department of Justice (DOJ) administered programs because of the 

definition of ‘‘unit of local government’’ that has been included in the enabling 

legislation for the various programs. The result of this language is that state 

and local courts are not able to apply directly for these funds, but must ask 

an executive agency to submit an application on their behalf. As part of the 

DOJ reauthorization and as new grant programs are created, we ask that the 

definition of eligible entities is broadened so that state and local courts can 

apply directly for federal grant funds. As an example, when the Violence 

Against Women Act (VAWA) was reauthorized in 2001, the reauthorization 

legislation contained specific language authorizing, ‘‘State and local courts (including juvenile courts)...’’ to apply directly for VAWA funds.

• To Ensure that State Courts Are Included in the Planning for Disbursement of 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. The language that we have suggested is as follows:

‘‘An assurance that, in the development of the grant application, the 

States and units of local governments took into consideration the 

needs of the state judicial branch in strengthening the administration of justice systems and specifically sought the advice of the chief 

of the highest court of the State and, where appropriate, the chief 

judge of the local court, with respect to the application.’’

NATIONAL SUMMIT ON COURT SECURITY

Shortly after the Atlanta and Chicago tragedies, with the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the American Judges Association, the National Association for Court Management, and the National Sheriffs Association as 

sponsors, we held a National Summit on Court Security on April 21, 2005. The 

Summit brought together all members of the court community to review current 

safety and security practices and needs in the courts. The discussions that occurred 

in the summit refined and reinforced the action items we are requesting in this testimony. We commend those who participated in the Summit. We are particularly 

grateful to Attorney General Gonzales and the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs for their leadership in embracing this priority and which provided the 

resources to hold the Summit. 

CONCLUSION

The state courts of this country welcome the Judiciary Committee’s interest in 

courthouse security. We look forward to working with the Committee to develop legislation that addresses courthouse 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 recognizing the national interest in ensuring that our judiciary and 

courts must operate in a safe and secure environment.

81

LETTER FROM THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, DATED APRIL 1, 

2005, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY


JCUS1.eps
82


JCUS2.eps
83


JCUS3.eps
84


JCUS4.eps
85

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE PAUL J. MCNULTY, 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


MQFR0001.eps
86


MQFR0002.eps
87

Æ


MQFR0003.eps