words, because the Houston Police Department career criminal detail routinely makes diagrams, photographs of the scene and locates witnesses, as well as carrying out the individualized requests of the prosecutor.

IV. CAREER CRIMINAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES

In an effort to provide objective standards for selection of cases for the career criminal program, a set of guidelines has been established. Generally, the career criminal project concentrates on those who commit crimes of violence and on those whose past criminal histories indicate they pose a significant threat to our community. Although crimes of passion or violence between family members or close acquaintances are serious, the program concentrates on crimes where the victim and defendant are strangers to one another, where personal relationships play no part in the crime. This principle of case selection is designed to provide some measure of compensation to the victim and, hopefully, deterrence for the randomness of particular crimes: robbery, burglary, rape and muggings. The specific guidelines for case selection are as follows. Any defendant filed on for the felony of: rape (sexual abuse), attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, violation of Controlled Substances Act, theft, or forgery, robbery, aggravated robbery, and who is :

(1) An ex-convict, or

(2) on bail for a pending felony (or a felony on appeal), or

(3) on probation for a felony offense, or

(4) a multiple felony offender (three or more completely separate transactions).

will be processed by the career criminal program. It is essential that the criteria for career criminal designation be uncomplicated.

V. GOALS OF THE CAREER CRIMINAL PROGRAM

(1) Speedy trials: The first goal of the program is to take the career criminal, as defined by our criteria, through the criminal justice system as quickly as possible. Prosecutors who screen the cases identify the career criminal and personally handle the case from shortly after filing. This procedure has been successful in drastically reducing the time from filing charges to the time of indictment, and from the time of indictment to arraignment. The average career criminal case requires 10.9 days for indictment, and a case rejected by the career criminal project requires 28.4 days. The average time from indictment to arraignment for a career criminal case is 15.3 days, for a case rejected by the project, 23.5 days. The average time from indictment to jury trial setting for a career criminal case is 139.7 days and 151.3 days for cases rejected by the project.

(2) Bail: The second major goal of the career criminal project is to set a high bail for the career criminal and where appropriate, to hold the defendant without bail. The Texas Constitution was recently amended to allow State District Judges discretion to deny bail in the following cases:

(a) when a person is accused of a non-capital felony and has two prior convictions.

(b) when a person is accused of a non-capital felony, committed while on bail for a prior felony in which he has been indicted.

(c) when a person with a prior felony conviction is accused of a non-capital felony involving the use of a deadly weapon.

In bail hearings, the career criminal assistant assigned to the case will have full knowledge of the facts in the case and will work toward the denial of bail in all cases. The reason for this is that a good number of defendants being processed by the program were actually on bond in connection with other felonies allegedly committed prior to their being processed by the career criminal project for a subsequent offense. During the first two years of operation, 833 defendants were accepted into the program and only 141 made bond.

(3) Sentencing: Another goal of the Harris County career criminal project is to gain better verdicts in sentencing as a result of the intensive investigation and follow-up work done on the designated career criminal project cases. Concentration in this area has resulted in an average jury trial sentence of 53.3 years and an average sentence (including jury trials and dispositions without trial) of 30.4 years during the first two years of operation. These appropriately severe penalties in jury trials are a result of the jury's harsh reaction to the incriminating evidence uncovered by intensive investigation. The state's position is also measurably strengthened in plea negotiations because a defendant does not want to risk the almost certain harsh consequences of a jury trial.

VI. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CAREER CRIMINAL PROGRAM

s a measure of the career criminal program, I would like to point out some strative statistics. As of September 22, 1978:

nce the program began in July, 1975, Harris County has experienced a arkable decrease in the number of robberies. This trend is especially notable hat Houston is the nation's fastest growing city with approximately 60,000 residents per year during the past few years. There have also been decreases he rate of burglaries, assaults, and auto thefts. The following chart shows crime rate in Harris County, reported as number of crimes per hundred sand residents.

CHANGES IN REPORTED INDEX CRIME RATES, HARRIS COUNTY, 1974–77

VII. PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS

ith all essential ingredients for successful investigation and prosecution of er criminal cases located in the prosecutor's office, I urge the committee, in consideration of funding, to place the greatest amount of resources in the ecutor's office and to require of him the greatest responsibility for success of program. Only the prosecutor can screen all charges filed and establish ria for acceptance of a case into the career criminal program. Only the ecutor's office working in conjunction with local police departments can stigate and prepare these difficult cases for trial. Only the prosecutor's office the experienced attorneys which is the crucial factor in a successful prosecuOnly the prosecutor, in conjunction with court management staff, can age court availability so as to bring the career criminal case to trial as ly as possible.

reer criminal program needs will differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. basic need is always with the prosecutor who must (1) identify the career inal; (2) evaluate the case; (3) gather information past convictions and inal history to justify denial of or sufficiently high bail and to be used for ncement and sentencing; (4) to prepare the case for Grand Jury presentatrial; and (5) to push for early disposition. It should be noted that whether nvestigative resources are a part of the prosecutor's office or the local police cy, they should work under the trial prosecutor's direction.

hile overview from Washington and the State Criminal Justice planning cies are a pre-requisite for any grant, it is clear that a successful career inal program requires that the prosecutor's office have primary adminisve responsibility. The career criminal program should continue to be an on program unfettered of unnecessary administrative requirement. The est Congress has shown in the program is a reflection of our urban citizen's re to be free of the threat of street crime, crimes of violence and crimes

against property. To continue to provide swift justice and to rid the streets of the career criminal in a cost effective manner, we must refrain, in all due respect, from promulgation of unnecessary bureaucratic guidelines.

VIII. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

My primary concern is that any new legislation should vest responsibility in the local prosecutor for classification of cases in selection for career criminal prosecution, and that the local prosecutor maintain control of manpower in the program. In general, the guidelines for the program should be simple and unsophisticated and should be drawn with the purpose of making the program action oriented and not an administrative appendage of Washington or the state. I would now like to turn to a consideration of specific points within the bills.

S. 3216 (Senator Bentsen)

As I understand this bill, the general local government applicant will apply directly to the "administrator" for the grant. I assume the administrator will be within the LEAA when the status of that agency is resolved. It would be helpful if the bill were more specific regarding the funding for any one grant request. As written, the bill provides for grants during the fiscal years 1979 through 1983. Will the local government applicant be required to re-apply each year? (Sec. 310(6)).

The bill is also silent on the question of whether a grant rejection by the federal administrator would disallow a local government applicant from seeking a block grant from their State Criminal Justice Planning Agency.

Section 310(b) (3) requiring criteria to be established for the selection of repeat offenders is a good requirement. This testimony contains a statement of the criteria used by the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

Section 310 (b) (4) which requires collection of information necessary to identify repeat offenders and to follow the cases through the criminal justice system is also a good requirement. Our office has a statistician employed in our career criminal program to keep track of the voluminous statistical tasks. All cases, regardless of their status, are also recorded by computer. We are in the process of implementing a sophisticated program which will increase our ability to manipulate statistical data regarding career criminals.

Regarding the ramifications of the program on detention facilities, sec. 310 (b) (5), we strive to process career criminals as quickly as possible from filing to disposition of the case. While most career criminals do not make bond, and thus are detained in the country jail, they are incarcerated for a minimum time because of the emphasis on speedy indictment and disposition. As a footnote, I should note that Harris County is in the process of building a new jail.

Section 310(b) (9) providing for reasonable reports to the administrator is, of course, a necessary requirement. However, I have heard complaints from several prosecutor's offices around the country that report making can become burdensome and unnecessary, with too many forms and procedures. Again, I emphasize that the career criminal program should be an action program.

S. 28 (Senator Mathias)

Section 101 (b) provides for making technical assistance available as well as grants, and is, I think, a very worthwhile point. Our office, as well as other offices with established programs, would be glad to assist the administrator in this regard by making experienced career criminal prosecutors available to jurisdictions who wanted to start their own project or who needed some management assessment.

Section 112(a)(6) regarding the collection and submission of information to the director as he may "reasonably require" is a vital requirement so long as it does not overburden the prosecutor with preparation of meaningless statistics and paperwork.

Section 114(b) providing that no grant to a local government in a single state shall exceed 12% of the aggregate payments to all eligible units of local government in that year, is not clear. If for instance only two states apply for a grant, each of them would have 50% of the aggregate payment to eligible local governments during that year, a violation of this subsection. The subsection presumes that there will be at least eight applicants from each state. This is not likely in some of the smaller states and not helpful to those states with large cities such as Texas where Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio could justifiably use more than 12% of the aggregate payment within the state. The Houston and Dallas jurisdictions have approximately 40% of the population, and equal amount of the crime, and at least that many of the career criminals by anybody's

dards. Ex-convicts tend to return or move to metropolitan areas. The career inal is basicaly a phenomenon of our complex metropolitan living. In fact, I prosecutors report that career criminals are an insignificant problem unless live close to a big city.

ction 115 (c) providing for financial assistance for the continued funding rograms of demonstrated effectiveness is an excellent point which will help erve the ongoing career criminal programs.

ith regards to the office of repeat offenders, Sec. 123 (a) (3 & 4) provides for establishment of one or more advisory committees and for the Director to ulgate rules, regulations and procedures as may be necessary to carry out unctions. This is a potentially burdensome and unnecessary authority. ction 123(a) (9) is a very obscure delegation of authority and should be fied or deleted.

tle II referring to the Federal Regional Prison System is unrelated to the of the bill. I would recommend that Title II be deleted from the bill so that areer criminal program can stand on its own merits.

IX. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CAREER CRIMINAL PROGRAM

e following is a comparison which illustrates the value of the career crimi›rogram. For the twelve month period from September '78 to September '79, ave budgeted approximately $400,000 for the operation of our career crimiproject, not including the equipment and personnel which were part of the 'ict Attorney's budget prior to the inception of the program. Each year the er criminal program has disposed of approximately 320 cases. Dividing that the $400,000 budget, it is possible to estimate the cost of disposing each : $1,250. This seems to be a minimal cost for a case involving a multiple ofer who poses a great threat to society. The cost is indeed minimal when it is mbered that the conviction rate is approximately 98%. Thus, almost every nditure of $1,250 results in the conviction of a career criminal. On the ave, that criminal will serve 31.5 years in the state penitentiary.

e cost of maintaining a police patrol car on the streets of Houston for one is approximately $100,000. To staff the patrol car requires 4.5 patrolmen an aggregate salary of approximately 79,000. Vehicle cost is $8,500, maintee for an entire year amounts to approximately $13,000. It is an interesting parison and one which I think shows the relative value and cost effectiveness e career criminal program. This is especially true when one considers the poal gain for society is the removal of a criminal who is responsible for a disortionately large part of crime in our communities.

X. SUMMARY

timately, the career criminal program is designed to reduce urban crime and the streets safer for our citizens. In summary, the goals of any career nal program are to:

O build a solid case for presentation in court;

O deny bail, or request an appropriately high bail in accordance with the

;

O present the matter to the grand jury rapidly and seek an early trial; O request a sentence appropriate to the crime and the defendant's past act.

e National District Attorney's Association is in full support of the career nal program concept. I have attached a resolution passed by the NDAA h expresses that support (see Appendix B). On behalf of the National DisAttorney's Association, I pledge our full support and cooperation to assist sub-committee and the Congress in developing an effective, minimal cost r criminal program. I am delighted that the Sub-Committee has seen fit to his vital matter its serious consideration.

closing, I would like to express my deepest personal appreciation to my good d. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, for his tireless efforts in the fight against crime his interest in the career criminal concept. Also, on behalf of the National ict Attorney's Association I wish to commend and thank both Sentaor Bentnd Senator Mathias for an excellent contribution by way of needed legislaGentlemen, I hope that one of these bills will become law. In my opinion the effective expenditure that LEAA has made, that causes the most direct tion of crime, is that money spent on the nation's career criminal programs. or Bentsen's and Senator Mathias' efforts to instigate this successful exnce on a nationwide basis have had enormous impact on the career criminal em. Thank you.

(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 forcing 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