(Appendix A)

Two CASE HISTORIES

The following are examples of typical cases which illustrate the need for special attention to crimes involving career criminals.

I

On a balmy evening in central Houston, Mary Smith was going up to see her son who was in the hospital for a special operation. Mary lived several hundred miles from Houston and had come to the city in the hopes that the specialists in the Houston Medical Center could save her son's life.

Mary was in the hospital parking lot on her way to see her son. Just as she was getting out of her car, Lee Crofton, a two-time convicted felon, accosted her at shotgun point, forcing her back into her car, Crofton then forced Mary to drive to a secluded part of town where he forced here into the back seat and tore off her clothing.

The defendant robbed and repeatedly raped Mary and then told her she was going to die a slow death. As the defendant got out of the car to put his pants on, Mary jumped out of the car and ran. The defendant proceeded to chase Mary down in the car in an attempt to run over her. She was able to escape and seek help.

The defendant was arrested on the same day and his bond was set at $100,000. Ten days later the defendant was indicted and twenty days later the defendant plead guilty and was sentenced to 45 years in the Texas Department of Corrections.

II

Bill Davis was sitting in his car on the parking lot of a shopping center in Southeast Houston waiting for his wife to come out of a store. Bill was relaxing, reading a paper when Don Sutton, a habitual criminal, walked up and pointed a shotgun at Bill's head. The defendant said, "Don't move or I'll blow your head off." The defendant proceeded to get in the backseat of the car and force Bill to drive to a secluded road on the fringes of the city.

Bill pulled onto a back road and stopped the car. The defendant told Bill to get out of the car and place his watch, money, and credit cards on the hood of the car and step back. The defendant collected the valuables and then told Bill. “This is it for you, I'm going to kill you." Bill had to do something or die, so he feigned a heart attack. The defendant, thinking Bill would die anyway, proceeded to bind and gag Bill, leaving him for dead.

Bill was able to wrangle out of the ropes and seek help. Upon finding assistance, Bill had a real heart attack which nearly took his life. He spent 22 days in the hospital, several of those in intensive care. Bill recovered and was later to positively identify the defendant in a lineup.

Police were alerted to be on the watch for Mr. Davis' car. The car was spotted several days later and when the police attempted to stop the defendant he tried to evade arrest. Police chased the defendant through the city at high speed, finally foreing the defendant to stop.

Upon a legal search of the car Bill Davis' watch was found and the shotgun used in the crime was also found. Charges were filed on May 24, 1978 and the defendant was held without bond. The defendant was offered 45 years in the pen, but he refused and demanded a speedy trial. Sixty days later the defendant was serving a life sentence in the Texas Department of Corrections.

(Appendix B)

NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING, ANNAPOLIS, MD.

RESOLUTION

Whereas, law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies have demonstrated acute needs for assistance in the development and implementation of projects and programs to combat criminal activities; and

Whereas, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has been created by the Congress through enactment of the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968 to provide such assistance: and

Whereas, the primary responsibility of crime control is vested in state and local governments; and

Whereas, to prevent crime and to insure the greater safety of United citizens, state and local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts must be better unified and coordinated, more efficiently administered, and more effectively operated at all levels of governments; and

Whereas, there is pending before Congress legislation which will authorize the continuation and funding of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration;

and

Whereas the continued infusion of Federal funds at an undiminished level into the Criminal Justice System on both state and local level's necessary and vital to encourage, support and maintain important existing and imaginative programs designed to enhance the Administration of Criminal Justice. Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National District Attorneys Association strongly urges the Congress to promptly enact legislation which will authorize the continued existence of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for at least a three year period; and Be it further

Resolved, That such legislation provides for no reduction in the present level of funding; and

Resolved, That the National District Attorneys Association urges that such legislation not mandate the creation of judicial planning councils nor specially fund such disciplines as a separate entity, which would fragment efforts to coordinate the functions and activities of criminal justice system; and Lastly, be it Resolved, That the National District of Attorneys Association urges that such legislation give the Attorney General of the United States the responsibility for setting policy and establishing a national advisory board to review priorities and proposals for discretionary and research grants of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have unanimously caused this resolution to be duly adopted this 14th day of May 1976.

LOUIS P. BERGNA,
President.
ARTHUR MARSHALL,
Secretary.

Senator BIDEN. I would like to ask one quick question of you if I may. You point out the need for extra manpower. I know there is a wake of local disapproval of additional taxes. One place everybody seems willing to pay is the criminal justice system especially if results are shown. Who should pay for this in the long run? Should not the Federal Government be building bombers and aircraft carriers and you all stocking your own offices?

Mr. VANCE. I agree 100 percent. But I do think you cannot have a 2 or 3 year program that will be successful. I think you need to aim at the 5 to 10 year level. If you do it on a reduced funding basis, then you will get it. Throw the big carrot out there and the crime program is such that on a successful thing like this it has public appeal.

I am not for it because it has public appeal. I am for it because it applies commonsense and it works. Throw the carrot out there and if the local governments do not pick it up, then that is their fault.

I hope the Federal Government will get out of this business entirely some day. But we are a mobile society. Federal prisoners get out and come to Houston and commit crimes. Our criminals commit Federal crimes. There is a lot of overlap. We need to try to get this problem under control. We need the extra money from the Federal Government to get the problem in hand, but I do not believe the program should be permanently funded by the Federal Government.

Senator, I thank you very much. I apologize to you for leaving so hastily.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Vance. I hope you catch your plane.

You may continue, panel.

Mr. HAAS. Thank you, Senator. My name is Harl Haas. I appear on behalf of the National District Attorney's Association. I am the district attorney for Multnomah County in Portland, Oreg. I also have a prepared statement which I would like to submit.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, and without objection, that statement will be included into the record at this point.

[Material follows:]

STATEMENT OF HARL HASS, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, PORTLAND, Oreg.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Harl Haas. I appear on behalf of the National District Attorney's Association. I have served on Oregon's Criminal Law Revision Commission, and the Judiciary Committees of the Oregon House and Senate. I have been District Attorney of Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) for five and a half years. I am a Vice President of the National District Attorneys Association. I support the concept and commitment of both S. 28 and S. 3216. There are some caveats which I appreciate sharing with you but first I would like to provide the committee with some positive background material which fully supports the commitment this legislation makes.

During the 1960's Portland, Oregon experienced a dramatic increase in the stranger-to-stranger crime rate-particularly burglaries and robberies which increased over 400% between 1961 and the early 1970's. While this devastating crime rise was occurring, the criminal justice system responded very inappropriately by plea bargaining down 90% of the robberies and 81% of the burglary cases in the system. In October of 1973, our office obtained a L.E.A.A. grant to provide a prosecutorial team to attack the burglary-robbery problem. This “Impact” team was given a mandate to prosecute without reducing charges on home burglary, armed robbery and major fencing cases. Assembly line justice was scrapped and each of the deputies was responsible for the case from the time it was issued to the time the defendant was sentenced, rather than have the case slip through several deputies hands enroute to disposition. From October of 1973 to 1976 we prosecuted over 700 cases in that unit. The results refuted many of the fears originally asserted by criminal justice personnel. Initially only 5% of the defendants received a reduced charge in exchange for a plea. This was a dramatic departure from the pre-project rate of 80 to 90%.

The Rand Corporation did an evaluation of our project in 1976 and reached several conclusions. (1) Of all Robbery I guilty pleas charge bargaining reduced drastically with 59% and 1973 to only 6% in 1974. Count bargaining fell from 18% to 16%. (2) Original charge conviction rate for Robbery I by guilty plea rose from 23% in 1973 to 71% in 1974. (3) The impact pre-trial dismissal rate fell from 44% to only 12% and there was a rise in gross plea rates from 41% to 61%. (4) The over-all conviction rate to the charge rose from 47% to 76%. (5) The trial rate increase in Robbery I went from 15% to 27% but for Burglary it dropped from 17% to 13%. (6) A higher proportion of these offenders were incarcerated, going from 67% up to 87%. (7) Impact offenses were moved more expeditiously, for example the median number of days between arraignment and final disposition declined for robbery cases from 71 days to 64 days. Rand concluded "If one believes that stiffer sentences are desirable, it is apparent the dramatic shift in the plea bargaining balance was a shift for the better."

One concern expressed was that prosecutors might refuse to issue a case that normally would be considered an issuable case. However, the Oregon Law Enforce ment Council which is Oregon's S.P.A., in evaluating the two-year project noted that “During the two impact years, the unit prosecuted 59% more burglary, robbery and theft cases than it had in 1972–1973."

The overall result is that the defendants in these categories were treated more seriously by the criminal justice system and their convictions characterized their criminal conduct.

In 1974, prior to our project, impact Burglaries jumped 8% and Robbery 32%. With the project in full force from 1975 to 1977, there has been a three year average drop in Burglary rates of 3% and Robbery rates have been stabilized. This trend is encouraging.

The success of that unit prompted us in May of 1977 to expand the no plea reduction policy by adding to that category the crimes of Robbery II when committed with a weapon, Burglary II, furnishing heroin or cocaine, supplying contraband, Forgery I, Escape I and II and Ex-Convicts in Possession. A review of our office statistics last year revealed that our trial rate was 21% of the cases issued. While this is approximately 10% higher than the rates for many offices our size, it certainly is a trial rate we can accommodate.

We also directed our attention to targeting not only specific crimes but defendants with protracted criminal records. In October of 1976 we received a L.E.A.A. grant to fund a Career Criminal Unit in our office. To achieve this goal we established standards that an offender qualifies to be prosecuted in the Career Criminal Program if he has at least two prior felony convictions when arrested. He also qualifies if, while on parole, probation or some other form of supervision for a prior felony and he commits a crime of violence against a person or a burglary in a dwelling. There is a third, seldom used, criteria that allows a case to be accepted by the Unit if there are particular or compelling reasons why the offender should receive special handling.

We have provided training to the police and sheriff's offices to insure that Career Criminals are targeted and sent to that unit for prosecution. Significantly the deputy that issues criminal charges handles the case throughout its' journey through the criminal justice system from issuing through parole hearings. These cases are identified in our office by being placed in a special red Career Criminal folder. When the case is issued, the deputy immediately notifies security relase recognizance officers in the appropriate court that a Career Criminal case has been filed against the offender and provides additional information relating to why the offender should not be released. The deputy then appears at the arraignment for the purpose of arguing against the reduced security amount for release and usually requests higher than normal security amounts because of the offenders criminal history. To achieve the goal of maintaining a short arrest to trial period, the unit obtains indictments prior to preliminary hearings and vigorously asserts the state's right to a speedy trial by resisting non-essential motions for continuances.

Career Criminal cases are prosecuted without any plea bargaining, charge reduction or sentencing bargaining. No case is dismissed without the approval of the Unit chief and every plea of guilty is reviewed by her.

Consistent with the Unit's goal of advocating maximum punishment for a particular offender in all cases when the offender is considered an appropriate candidate, the Unit takes the necessary steps to persuade the court that dangerous offender treatment, as allowed by the Oregon statutes, should be given. Throughout the entire process the Career Criminal Unit works with the main office's Victims Assistance Programs to make sure the victim is involved at every stage of the proceeding.

The Career Criminal Unit emphasizes increasing the number of trials in order to provide a greater impact at the time of sentencing. The Unit has tried over 58 percent of its cases, much higher than the average 20 percent trial rate. The Unit is comprised of five of the most experienced deputy district attorneys in the office and they are supported by a veteran investigator and clerical staff. The high level experience and the reasonable caseloads has enabled the prosecutors to devote sufficient time to preparing their cases for trial. They have had an extremly high conviction rate of 95.7 percent to the original charges issued. One of the units more successful innovations has been the Career Criminal sentencing panel which is composed of three senior deputies from that unit. They meet prior to sentencing to determine appropriate sentence recommendations to the judge. The deputies make certain to include the victim's wishes in the sentencing, notify and make possible for them to attend the sentencing in person and deliver their remarks directly to the court.

After sentencing has been rendered, the deputy district attorney notifies the parole board of the circumstances of the crime, the offender's criminal background and all other information that is available. Similarly we notify them that he has been designated a Career Criminal, we oppose any early release of the defendant. For the very few defendants who receive probation, stringent conditions of probation are requested by the deputy district attorney, including restitution for the victim, waiver of 4th Amendment rights, among others. Any violation of a condition of probation results in immediate motion for revocation and every effort is made to insure incarceration of the offender.

In two years of operation, the Career Criminal Unit has prosecuted 314 defendants. 143 of the defendants plead guilty to the charges. We have tried 202 cases. The resulting trial rate, as I said earlier is 58.6 percent. There have only been 22 cases where the jury brought in a conviction on charges less than those made by the prosecutor's office. There have been 9 cases dismissed, two of those as a result of the death of the defendant. There were only 6 not guilties or not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts. The defendants collectively have been sentenced to 2,415 years, plus 5 life sentences for an average of almost 8 years. We have a liberal bench in my community and the average of 8 years is significantly higher than in other cases. The date of arrest to disposition time is running only 58.3 days.

Collectively these defendants have had 4,001 prior arrests, 1,599 prior felony convictions and 517 prior misdemeanor convictions. They average 10.2 prior arrests, 4.07 prior felony convictions. The plea bargaining rate was 0 percent, the original charge conviction rate has been 95.7 percent.

Why are Career Criminal Units important? They are important in my judgment because they give the prosecutor adequate resources to be on equal footing with the defense and the defendant. They are the icing on the cake whose ingredients are apprehension, swift and certain prosecution without plea bargaining and certain confinement for repeating offenders. The Rand Corporation Study of habitual offenders concluded that each year they are on the street they commit an average of 20 crimes. If those conclusions are correct, taking 314 of them off the streets in Portland for 2,415 years has indeed impacted the crime picture more than any other effort in Oregon history.

Without the Career Criminal Program these seasoned, ring-wise offenders far too often work the system and gain major advantages, especially through plea bargaining. If incarcerated, he is con-wise and with a too busy prosecutor not involved, he obtains early release. The dedication of the criminal justice system to remove these people from the streets will not be enough unless adequate financial resources are made available. In my State, Ballot Measure No. 6, the stepchild of California's Proposition No. 13, practically insures that local property tax dollars are just not going to be available and that is the situation in almost every prosecutor's office in the Nation.

The elasticity of the Federal Income Tax appears to be our only answer. Not only do these programs afford the public more protection but there also is another favorable fall out. Far too often it seems to the citizen's observation, that government is either unable or unwilling to isolate the dangerous, to vindicate the victim or to protect the innocent. The Career Criminal Programs are a positive commitment to those ends and they have a much needed effect of restoring public confidence in our judicial system and government itself.

The third major effect of these programs is the message they provide to the defendant. I know there are many causes of crime-poverty, racial discrimination, inadequate family unit, a lack of effective programs in the juvenile area. There is one reason that is most often overlooked. I sincerely believe and have had felons tell me, that the offender feels the odds are in his favor. The risk of being caught is not large, the chance for plea bargaining is great and the likelihood of substantial imprisonment is small. These programs demonstrate to the offender that he is a target-and that we are dedicated to seeing him pay the check for his repeated criminal behavior. As one offender we prosecuted said when being sentenced, “I will be fifty years old before I get out of prison because they got me in one of those red file folders."

I have reviewed both Senate Bill 3216 and Senate Bill 28 and would have these comments reference to those bills. Prosecutors across the Nation surely would not want this Career Criminal legislation to deplete the appropriations of LEAA. They do not have adequate Career Criminal funds available at this time to continue with the programs presently funded. Any cut from those programs would be unwise. The second observation concerning both bills is that there should be no time limit, that is, the number of years that the programs should be funded. I would urge that you allow that decision to be undertaken by the people in charge of administering the program. I noted, happily, that both bills allow the local jurisdiction to determine their own definition of the category "Career Criminal”. I believe that this is important because there are different types of erime problems facing various jurisdictions. I have pointed out to you earlier in Portland, Oregon, burglaries and robberies were a particular problem at a particular time and by targeting those categories in an intensified prosecutorial effort we were able to effectuate a cooling of crime rates in those instances.