I , , i., '

I ~'

) :

, , :~

," )

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

nCJrs This microfiche was produced from documents received for , inclusion in the NCJRS data base, Since NCJRS cannot ex~rclse control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary, The resolution c~art on this frame rimy be used to evaluate the document q~~lty, .

, C-"-, • • ..,.,.....""".''':''' .... '='.''''''''; •• ''''9'!1''.'''.'=~~-1 .. " .... -. -.' .' ..-' 'f'

., . '" I., \, ........ --I'~ ... , ...... ,,_ .. _'1 • ..,.~,... "iT ... :.::~ r-·· . _.- ~ 1 ...... -' -,- ~"'\ - . . ~-. .' .

1.0

1.1

:: 111112.8 111112.5

W 1~13.2 W W I~ I:: I.:i W J.:.

r.:. " "' .... 111111.8

111111.25 111111.4

111111.6 .

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A

! ,

~ I .' --'--~----~-'-:-. .~. ~"'-"l ,. ., . ,,,,... ,,~1Il'1ii"_ ;"'ri.c"_""""!~..:: .. ~

Microfil~ing procedures used to create this fiche comply witn Hie standards ~et forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. .. .

(J

','

I - ~ .. ---.~--.,~--~----,--.

IDATE.FI:MED

:. . •.... ' j (8.l~:JZB:q t- . ..' I ~ .~. ~

Ii:

.0

(:. ..

HEARINGS ~ "-f

,,'} ".

"SUBCQMMITTER.ON -, .. ,' ..... ,;,,;,f10Y11In~~~rAL EF~ICIE~QY2: '. '

;"", ',AND.'fHE'DIS,TRICT OF COLUMBIA: .. ,-" t .. ·

"1'1 '''"'. '..,',' .' .'..,' " ,. . . ' ,.,J.,' ". "~

-, OF THE . ~, '.' " ' . .';

.. '. COMMITTEE ON ',;-:: ' ,>." ' ,,' . '1'."G()VERNMENTALAFFMRS:·:·~' :" ,:",

. '. ' '. ,.' .. : .•.... " - 'oj. - ' ..

.,UNITED·· STATES.' SENATE·, '" '~:';"'~':":~""">.- ":- ·.: •. '·:.r~r'>

Nl~T¥~FJIfTJI CONGRESS .....

'. ~',

., .•. l SECOIiD,13.lQSSIO~ ~ .. ;';',.: . j." ;'

" ""'ON':" ,;> ~

\'\~:,: .; ;,' B.R.,'·',7747 ., AN ACT TO A~ENDi:[iITLE230FTimDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COl)~ WITH RESPECT TO THE RELEASE,OR DETENTION PRIOR TO .TRIAL .. OF iPERSONS.CHARG~n wri'a.CERTAINVIOLENT OR

D+,~GER6Jm ORIl\IES, -~R, F()nOTH~:a. PURPOSES~

. , " .

t·

I· :.J '\ ;\') 'I';" ; ' .

; "~

r 'I~" .' ~ 11

fti: ~.¢- .

{:- t ,". ""." ~~

,~J"

~, '~.'. ;, . '. I -'1, .. I) r

"

.:,..

l!

, -,

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

. --

r r

',(,'

1

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ABRAHAM: RIBICOF~, C6nnec~lcu't. Ohairman

• CHARLES H. PERCY, ilUnols HENRY M. JACKSON,}VllSh~ng,ton JACOB K.JAVITS, New York

" '"

ElDMUND S. ?tWSKIE,:Malne I.WILLIAMV. ROTl!',JR., :Delaware THOMAS F. EAG:LETON, Missour1;rED STEVENS, :A!a,ska . I nd LAWTON CHILES, Florida, CHARLES NCC.MATHIAS, JR., Mary a SAM NUNN, Georgia ,JOHN C. DANFORTH, M!Hsourl , JOHN GLENN, Ohio . H.JOHN HEINZ III, PenD sylvania JIM SASSER, Tennessee ',' ' ' .' 'j , ',,' .

MURIEL HUMPHREY, Minnesota • ohiel Oounti~l andStal1 Direotor • RICHARD A. WEGUAN'ELLEN S., MIL,LER, profeBBionalSta!!

PAUL HOFF, oounBel, ~cmber .' , .' " ulatorY ELI E. NOBLEUAN, oounsd 'THEODOREJ. JACOBS, Ooun8el (Reg PAUL C. ROSENTHAL, Ooun8C! IRA S SHAPIRO, OOllnsl1l , . " ' .. Reform)'"

. E BARFIELD ProleBsion"u,,! staff ' ... G'RAHAU Ooun8e! (RegUlatory CLAUDE . ", JAUES ;u. '

Member • ! st !! ' Reform). l A. 8'8tant CLAUDIA T. INGRAb[, prolesBwna a. ETHELZ. GEISINGER. S!'eoia B I

Member (Regulatory Reform) , , alsta!! Member

've A.dmini.strator and ProfeBBlon MARILYN A. HARRIS, EfDeout~ A PREAST Ohief Oler/(,

ELIZABETH . .' 00:n8el to the Minority JOHN B. CHILDER;. O~'~I oounse! to the Minority

BRIAN CONBOY, peel? do the Minority CONSTANCE B. EVANS, Oounse fJ Editor

HAROLD C, ANI?ERSON, Sta

, , " AND THE DISTRI<1rOF COLUMBIA' GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY: " , ." ., '.

THOMAS F.EAGLETON, Missouri, 01cla:':":~HIAS JR., Maryland , • CHARLES Mc . J>U>. •

JAMES R. SASSER. Tennessee TED STEVEN'S, Alaska

HADLEY R. ROFF, Staff Direotor '

(n)

~: '

': .. "

• '. ~<

't'

I.,! 'I 1 i I !

·1 r~ I ) 1

)f

I I

, \

... ~, ., !

, ! \

'./

" , ...

-.

r'

"

..

, ':"

~ ct:!i=4",.~. 7:'"~··h:;:::: .. :':::::::::7;!::;::~::::=~~::::~~~

", "

: ,

I,

NCJRS

APR 7';J~ - ~

Opening statement: SenatorEagleton __________ " ... _;;,~;..;:._!: ___ ..::.:...;:. ___ ,,_-_, J ff·

WITNESSES

TUEi!DAY, JANUARY 31, 1978

",'

.'

,Earl J. Silbert, U.S. attorney fOl:"tlieDistrict' of 'Col\nnoia, accompmlied .. by Carl S. Ratili; prinCipal aSsistant U.S. attorney; .and DanielJ.;Bern-, . .stein, chief, career criminal unit ______ .,- ___ ,. ______________ ,,+ _____ .:. __ JJ;arold R. Greene, chief)u!ige, Superior Co~rt of the District o~ CQlumbfa. __ Burtell M. Jefferson, chief of police, Metropolitan Police I>~partment,.pls~

trict of Columbia, accompanied by Robert Deso, deputy general counsel; and Charles Hersey,8upervIsor, maJor violators' section~ .... ~~,-,_':' ___ ": ___ _

George E .. Holland, superintendent, DetentIon SerVices" l)istrict . of Columbia Department of Corrections ____ ,.---,..-,.-----------~---. .!--

;Robert B. Curtiss, chaii"man, Police and Fire Comjriltte!,!, 1"ederation of 'Citizens Associations, District Of Columbla __ .:. ________ '_.-"-----,---.:.--,>

Bruce D. Beaudin, director, District of Columbia Bail Agency, accotilpanied "'by John Carv:er, d,eputy dfrector,.. _____ ,.,.-.:.,-::-":-,,._,.;.:.---;.,..~-'.:,-;.:7-~.;.=--

. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1978

~rofessor Caleb Foote, School of Law, UniverSIty' of Cl$fornia at'Berkeley_ H. Albion Ferreil,chairman, :Qistrictof Columbia,Bpardof rarole ___ ~'_<. __ Paul R; Rice~ professor of 'law], the American UniversitY·Schoo1.of Law ___ _

... "

i'age

1

2 41

62

81

92

93

109 149 161

"RalphJ. Temple, American Liivil Liberties Union of 'the ~ationalCap.ital . Area_-' ____________________________________________ ~_:.:..'-__ ---'.:.:..-. 186

Bernice Just; Friends Committee' on National·Legislation ... ___ .:'- . ..:.:.:------ 213 Eu~ene L~ ~hoden, Jr., director; Washington Urban Leligue Youth Arbitra-

tIOn Center - _______ :- __ "_-'",;'_~_' __ .,..,. ,, __ - _-:- __ "'_-; __ ,.,_-: ", ___ ,._~-'.,- ___ _ John J. Mudd, assistant directQri O(Iice'of'S6ciatI?evelopnrent, A:rchdio-

cese of W ashington ________ o.:_:.! __ c.: ___ ..: __ :..:....:_.:.:...::.:.::;:..~ ______________ _ William McDonald, professor, Georgetown University __________ '-______ _

217

228 241 255 William Hamilton, president, Institute for Law. and Social Research_",'..: __ :..

Jeffrey A.Roth,senioreconomicaD.'alys~, ,Institut~ for Law andSoc~al Re:' .searcn, Washington, D.Q ___ M,. ___ ':. __ ::;_::._:.. __ ~.-_~-_- __ .,-----,.:--.,.-:.:,. "'255

J. Patrick Hickey,: director, PUi?lj.c Def~p.der Service fbI' the. Distri.ctof' ' ColumbitL,;:.._-:_:...,, ___ ..:.,._:..,.-',.:. .. _,.-.-,_,-;,:..-----4--'---.,-,,:. __ ,--";;_'-~:"---,.~71

Alphabetic~lli8t o/witnesses: " . , . Beaudin. Bruce D.: Testimony:.. _______ - ... --.- ... .:.--~.:.:...:-:.._--.:.--:..-.:.--

:. 'Fiollared stateInent _______ :::.:. __ :::...;._::._..:~'..,_..:.'_..: ... ____ ..:,_..:~..:.:.:.._:. __ 'Clirtiss ;Robert B.: . ,.' . . . ~'Te~6i.tilony--.~-----;..- ___ ,::,_~ _.:: :: ___ ..:c.":..: __ :,":;:.'':' __ .: __ -' _____ '--:- - __ _ Ferrell H:"A1bion:· . ., " ' '.:' , , . T~8tiInony.:-"'"r_,.:.':....:.:..:-..,...."ii~-;;r;~--;..--~..:.:.:..:-..:--;_,----,,'~:,:...:;..~--'-:..--

. Prepared stat~m\lnt---_-~,:,,:...::""-_:,,-_-:.--_----~---_---~-----

93 103

92

149 156

Foote, Prof,. Calebl ' ,." '., .' TestimonY,' ~_"'-".- --:---- -- ~-:"- - - :--(t" ----~" -.':' '---;:'.-': ---- ':;:--.'..-' .109 Prepared f,tatement _______ k!02_--~------------------- ,.~/-3· (;;>

Greene; I.Iarold H.:· •.• . . '\... . . , .

~;~:~d~tate{riei'J.t=====6~~E3C======================== . Hamilton, William: Testimony _________________________________ _

(III)

41 47

255

, , "

'-r r

".

, L

1 I

,.-t ~ti.~.~ 4~~ ',. :~~~ IV ~~. ~(\>~, .. !.),. :.I ~. .. ":. tt ..... ~ {,~ .. ~:..: .~ ~

'} - es-Continued " ~:liZp1tabeticaJ list of ~:~ss __________ \_ ' H' key J. PatnCr •. '\ ,., '" ______________ _ Pall.

271 275

~ lC Te'tib:iony:;--jr!;.U------G"G:;;&~~-~ ____________________ :-'; P:~:red statement _______________ _ ' repa E . " __________ ,

Holland, .George .. --------------------;:-3f~----------

! .

TestlIDOny--------t-With-att!1chmenL_,.~_~_=_ _ " 81 85 P~ep!J,l'jl!i sta~?n : .. ,t',:-~.. " , ".' . _______ _

~etfel1!on;. ~l!l'teU " '- ~-----,-------------.--.--lI~ie-;;tigations ~.,'. "Testlmony----------·di . t.Reportofthe Cnmma ____ 65 F urth Quarterly Rem VlB ___________________ ~. , •. 7.5

°Division, Feb. 27, 1978---a;~=~:s::_-~---", ___ --", .. -,---.~--,.~-, ~ 62

Prepa!ed statement __ ,. _______ , ____________ 213 Just Bermce: ,. 't -----:-.,------------ ____ 215 'Testimony _____________ - ... --_. __ ~ _____ .------------------

Prepared ~t!l-te~eJlt-;;----,~-- '. ,'..' _______ ,.-_ 241

MCDT!~~O~~~~~_:_-------~~=~7dL2======:.=~===~~--:'~~'---~,-~. '~48 'PreB!U'edstateme~~----::-::--.. .', _', . . '. . _____ : ___ ; ,228

MUd~~tr!~':y~~~_~ ~t-::7- --::-:====~== ::======:.=.===.=~::: -;_ -:; -: ___ ', 237 Piepared.st~teme~ .--:--:-,-:--- , .' " ""'-~_":_:" __ ' 217

Rboaen Eugene,L., Jr:. " " ___ '-_---..:-.,-.-'-.:....,----------. __ ,: ___ . '219 • .Te;timOny-----_--:---:_:-~_:C~-~~;-~-:---~,.--..,--:_,.-~." ... '

Prepared state,I~umt-~:---- . ". . .' '. " ,', '"-.: __ :"!:..:..': '-161

. Ri""T!'.~!~·······t:c., ':&~:~:~:Z::::; ::='::: :?C, •.... ,. 174 . Prepared statemen --:---,.: ':',- .. _____ :...! -255

R th Jeffrey A.: . . . . ' _______ ,._.., __ -: '.262

... ~W,!'.j'~t;i..;,;,e;..~:::"':§ :k:~::Z:: ::.: .. ,cc.c.. .cc.: :::: •

Si1be~~st~~!y~------~:;--'---w~;s----:~======~;===:=======;-::7---~'_; ~~ Writt~~ questi~n:~~~:.~~~/o_ ~~ ~ --::,. -bht--6~ji'o~tCSipt: :'4, 0 Prepareds:t.patet· ·aI·. "Dete.c tion, fromtb,~.W/lS.. gt"" ______ ' __ ,.. Editorial' re n . . '.' . , ' ________ --" . ,

Tom ,~3~Jb.~ ... " .... , 'd'::::::::::::: .. " ......... ~::;:. t~ J£estimOny-------t-------~~.6_~:-:;!C ______ ;_---_:,--;--- ,'" Prepared statem~n ------- - . . ED FOR ":

'. ATERIAL SUBMITT , ADDITIO~~ ~EARING RECORD ',_

. '. - ' 284 -----~----.-- ,. '2QU

Tixt of H.R'1J,~7 :iig];;;,i"~,;,·Aif'iW~ Jo=I·~::~~~t· W,;shlng,on ••• Letter ~o Sra

Jail Over Bail, art~cle ~ ~ May-June 1977 -'------;-.d Crusading. of he Columbia.JoU~alismD' ~~6~wFive the CriIninal La,,:, up.. 293

lawyer, l~ • C mmittee of IVISI C i b'a Bar___________ " . Vi""" .ofdthe, 'lIT.;;;~gSe',':Ion, of the D~tri;t 'i! P="'~t, " ....... Mmgan 306 /" .. '

IndiVl,PSa tor Eagleton from George ra, -----'----------:--.,,-P, Lettp.!,cto ena 31 1978 -----------il R bert B CurtISS, ~.

Fe-deration, Jan. , th P~;clit~t-Citizens Qounc, 0 :._. ________ ,.'''il15 Resolution from Seven . ----------------.----------cU-Edwaro.rB. '

chairman-----------cCi>i;trict Citizens AdVlsory COUll ''-1:._-'=______ 316 Resolution from !3econ ---------------:------L

7--="jj b Randy I. S nneborn chalrman _____ --D- t PlliCe in ~ch:to Ive, y __ 317 ~ uD C Ought To Be a ecen 22 1\r"~' ____________ : __ .-

_oJe, • h W Mhingt= Stu, June ." 'i1,,'hii Cifueno A.,,,,,o""n, 31" . ,l3ellotss t etor Eagleton from the Chillum g _________ ::. _____ ~_;-

LeEtterl M Otto preSident--------t-h---jji;tri~t-~fColumbia 13ar, Marie 319 ar . t Eagleton from e __ ' _________ _ Letterktd fe~~c~airperson, Feb. 17'C1978--t;-c~~-;;~i""OTthe ,District of 321 St!'.:.:'~ ~f Jobn R. ~~.~~:c.~.:.:"~-............... _ ...... : . . Columbla ____________ _

I '~ . ~ , ,', ~ ,

PREPARED STATEMENT' OF. PAUL; .R.RICE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, THE AMERICAN • - . .. ':,;' -'" ,tWIVERSITY SCHOOL, OF LAW

~ • If

", , T '; .... ~

~e Supreme Court has i1otrul~d oh " the crmsti t:litionaii ty '~f preventive detenti'o~: 7Ind'ee'd,~side ~from favorlible,~g~age"in two CirCuit ,Court opinions, Carbo v; U.S .. , 82 .S. Ct •. 622 ,(1962) (DOuglas, CircUit' Justic~) and Pernendel'v. U.S., 81: s. Ct. '642 (1961) (Harian, Circuit Justice), in which Supreme Court ~ustices

were sitting 4S' CircUit Judges on apPlications for bail pending appeal, the memberr; of the 1.1~llrt have given little indication of how they would rule. l In Carbo and Fernandez, the JUstices

----. <', . . were addressingOnll the,poSSibility of preVent:tvely detaining defendants on the ground of Witness intimidation. Certainly, with regard to the constitut:ionality of preVentive detention on the the ground of community danger, the laAgu~ge in thoseopin~~ ions offers little gu~~ance. IncarCeration of 'defendant:s who have attempted to intimidate, W~tn.sses has been found to ~e wi thin· the inherent common law power o~ _the jUdici~ry since the. conduct giVing riB.! to ~he detention directly relates to the fair­ness 'and integrity of the proceedings over which the jUdge. has jurisdiction and ,is prE!sid~ng. ~, U.'S. v. Gilbert,'.138 U.S. App. D.C, 59,'425 F. 2d 490 (1969), Blunt v. U.S., 322 A. 2d 579,584 (D.C. Ct. App. i974). The·decision of ~e Supreme

, .. Court necessar~~y will tur~on the-court's inte~retation and acceptance of historical precedent •. ~ generallZ; 'Meye~, Constitutiality of Pretrial De~eRtion, 60 Gee. L.J: li39 (1972), Boreman, The Selling of Preventive Detention, 1970 HW. L. Rev •. 879 (1971); and HrUSka, Preventive Detention: The Constitution and the Congress, 3 Creighton L. Rev. 36 (1970).

In this paper.I off~r no insight into the constitutionality of the concept of preventivedetnetion, as it has been codified in sections 23-1322, 1323-,. and 1324 of the D.C. Code., Assuming

1

In Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952) the Court Upheld the refUsal of bail to an alien pending'deportationhearings. Tllese proceedings, hOWever, were CiVil and not within the guar-antees of the eighth amendment:. Due process rights Controlled.

...

. ,-'~.

, .,

,.'

r

,,~,'

j I

r

\' "

(:

"

,\

1: J 1 ,of

J 1 \)

() :~i j j

'I

",

.,

that; J,t' i~, c~;mlltj.~~1:iop!ll,.~: add~ss o,nly. the fairness and, 'constUutionali 1:y. of se,veral o,f the revisions whic!). hav~ been.

proppaed:.ipH.a ... :77~lto, :a~l:tio~·;~3-1322." ; ,.,,: "

The proposed expansion of the permissible period'of preventive detention from sixty to nine.ty days;

One of the major rev:'lsions proposed in H.R;. :7747 ,is tile ... expansion of the permissib~e de.~enti9n period under ~ecti~n l322(d) (2) (A) :\.frOJD sixty' (60) to ninety (90) days. I express ~6 ~P~riiciri~n'the need for or wisdom,of this,exte~~ion of time. Howeve~:' i.t the;detent1~n p~i:-i'od is 8''6 incr~~sed, I do not'be-

.' ~ ~ .. "" .'. ,> - '" t:'. ..... . . '.. -_ •. " '",. :

lieve that it will af;fect the constitutionality ofthe·preven-tive detention c~nce~t to 'which'it :r~iates. If the basic con-

~ • " '. ~ . . '1" .

capt of'preven~ve detentioJ) lsfound to be const.itutional, the amount of t~on~ ,c~ b~deta.ined pending' trial would '1~g1c~llY learn t6 .!)e 'c:ori:~olled' by 'the ~peedY' t;ri~19uarantee ~f the'sixth aman~n't. :" . ' .

In:re~ent Y4lIars. the inOs.t not,ed degisio~. l;>y the Supreme \C;:our.~ c;m.,the iSlu..eo~ :,speedy trial ~as ,.Barker ·v. Wing.o, .407 U.S. 514 (1972) •. AcJtnowledgingin that opinion tha,t pretrial incarc~~ation.!sa ve~se;io~l~tter, becauseof'th~ ~oss-' .ibiii~y that the person ~y ~~t be found ~uilty, the Court de:­lineated four factors which must be balanced in determining when the~i9ht to a ~peedy disposition is violated •. Th6se 'fa~­tors~rei i) the lengthOf thedelayi2)' the reason',for the

delaYT 3i wh~ther the defenda~t'asserted'his'right: and' 4)' the prejudi~e'~ ihe defend~nt:'With regard\i:; t:.!t~" la8t'filcto~;' prej ~dice, the i::~iirf:' noted o~~ i1npri~~nt \we' - "oppressive ..

•• ',"_ 4, " '. ',.. .'~ ~. . .' . ," ',: r. <,:' ' pret.rial incarceration";" IiilPlicHly, H:would seem that: ,the l~rigth of' ~:Ju.aa.ibl~ del~y' is iriversly ~roportic;,nal'; to the . de'~ree" of pr~judice~ 'suffer'ecf b; 'the deferida'nt.· In'ca'rce~ation

. ' - ' ~, . ,-" /\~ '. -; " ',. ' .. , .', ',., "

, aubiatantiallyslit.'l1ld·' ciiJIiiiliilh . the . pernlissibie' 'period of pre-trial d~iaY. 'Wh;ther'i~dil.rcerat.ion dhe ti,'pt~~enti';faetentioh ~Uld ~u3c;eilsitat~ more 8pee;"y.di~positi6ns~th~~ inciira~~at1~n ".

:~., to, .• --, .;. "', .• '.~'"c·"·'l'. '., :l:~.r--~' , .. "'_ '::': ~',

due to"a defendant's iriiipfl,ityto meet'monetary coniUtions that ,.11" -1 ,,:,,'.(.""' - , .. ' :: .. r

I , 1.'.\

I

(I

-

f··--.....

r r

176

-3-

have been set, is' not' ciear. ' Although the prejudice, to both '" indlviduals:'would seem,to'be the same, the stigma of preventive

,dete~tion resulting fro~'thedetermination of "dangerousnessw

that must be made, may be sufficiently greater to ,require more expedi tious' action. ' " ,

The proposed revisions to subsection (e): The temporary detention of, those on pro­bationand parole. ..

H.R. 7747 proposes isiqnificant revision in sectionI323'(e).

Firat, it wouid doul;lle Cincrea.Se froinfi~~ ~ ten) the n~er of days an,arrestee for any ot:fe~se, who is on probation or parole from.any: jurisdiction, can be ,detained 'without, a hearing and ' without the government meeting.the, burdens o~ persuasion eatab­lished in section 1322 (b) for prevent~vely detaining the crfm­inally violent oX-dangerous. 8econd~ it extends this right,to detain to any ~rre~tee wh~' is on bail; or other' pretri&1co~d­itional release, for a felony offense. If the detention of arrestees released' on bail, is 'adopted by ,this cOllllllittee,.I pro-:­pose that'youincorporate this class of offender into subsection (a) and liDdt detention to, cases where the rearrest iii for vio­lent crime, rather than eXpanding subsection (e) as proposed in H.R. 7747.

The inclusion of defendants on bail in subsection ~e) i~., ill advised. That provision, is intended to allow the temporary detention. of Pl!!rsons whose l'iberty may be denied on a ~re perm­anent basis by the revocation of thei~ conditional release (~ro­batiol1 or parole). During this period of deten~ion this juril!~ diction does not proceed,on the charge gi~ing,rise to the're~ arrest. This ina~tion on the new charge; is possiblY.,justified by the e?cpscta1;,ion of acti.on',on the PriO~Col,1ditlonalrelease', but the "inactivity necessitates that the detention be only as

• . ' • ~-"'. - • ~. ~ #

long, as expeditious. action makes necessary.' Wi,t~regard to ' arrestees on pretrial release in, pending ciulesfrom otb,er juris­dictio'ns, revocation of bail and preventive' detention ~~y not be authorized. In fact, most state'jurisdiction do not recognize

I / -

1.77

-4-

prevent,ive ,dB;tention.. ~onS!'lquently ~'. the ,j:ustification for temp­orary, de~ention ~oes not exist. The only reason for holding the

peli,s,on ill SUCh: cas.es ~,iEl.t? "prote.ct the, communityfrqm the danger whic,h; .he ~ .pose .• , . _Co~8equently,.~ fairnessdi(ltate~ t;hat au:thor- , ization to d,e.tain ,immedj,~tely. proqeed under the general preventive

~ '. ~,«, " - ~ .. '.' .~ ~

dete.ntion, provis,ions,. ,

. ;, \'Regardl,ess'.ofwhether .the scepe'of subsection (e) is ex­panded to include defendants on bail, existing problems within subsection, (e) must be addressed. 'Upderthe present lan~~ge an arrestee,who is on proDa~i;on or parole may be' detained if it "appear (s)" .that the person, "zqay" pose.a ~dangern, to any p£!rson or "the community •. " "Therei;:! no explicit requirement of, a formal, hearing., I believe .that the~ailllre of ,the provisi~n 'i:c;> provide for thi~,ri~ht'fi!Ve~th'oUgl),'aninf;l;I1lal inquiry may~ in fact, be held, raises the ,possibility that,the due process rights,of in­d~~idUal!3 9oilld:))e denied.:, 'CI~arlY~ t~ e~pand.this sul)secti~n wi ~ ."th~s ,e~iElting i;nadequacY to" allow ~e denial, of liberty to persons who 'merely have been charged with a previous offense en­dang~rs !:he c~ns~i~ufiona:Lity of f:hf!! p~ovision. '

"BaSic to our system of justice,is the prinCiple that one's libe:t:ty wi:U not be ,deprived without a hearing and formality. This"is true regardless, of whether the proceedings 'giving rise' to, this. 'depri vli,tion . are civil or criminal.,

~ GaQnonv.;8carp,elli',411 U.S • .718 (19!3).~ Morrissey V. Br~wer,

408 U.8.,471 (1972); and Argersinqer v; Hamlini407 U.8. 25(1972).~

In ~'and HQrrissef the issue" was revocation of probation arid parole"respectively •. 'In ~o,i:tlopinions, the Court held that,

~ due process requires that a "re~sonablyprompt" informal inquiry be afforded if one' ,i.'s to: be, detained pe~ding the more formal ad-

'i~ -judica'tion which' is r~quired for final revocation. :"'''At this init-'z.t. ~al inq~iry, ;verified facts must be presented. upon which a deter­

mination can be. made regarding the violation of the conditions of release.

Throughout t~e opinions, :the Court delineated what 'the min­imlimrequirements for due process 'are in such prel~inary hearin'gs.

These included: 1) written notice of the clainled violations,

~.==---- I ~".l

r r

It

-~l

178

-5-

(2) 'disclosure to the' 'ae'~used of evidence against himr (3) an

opportunity to be' l1eard !inp'erson and to pres'ent, wi tnesses and , .. docum~ntary evidence; '(4} the dglit"to confront and crosa-examlne '

advers~ witriesseis'7(UniJsil~the hearing officer specifically finds'"

goocicause .for not: allowing-confrontatiori)'fd5)' a.'~eutral and' .

detached hearing body which need not co.nsist, df judicial .officers' or lawyers1 {6) evidence, ,including letters, affidavits,' al'!d :other

material not.admissible in an adv:ersary criminal t~ial, and (7) a wri tten stat'ament by ,the 'factfinders relating the evi,dence relied

on and the 'reasons fox: re'vocation.! ,Morri'asey, ~. at 489. ~ Leas cannot be afforded a defendant who is, being detained in this.'

juriflqiction fn contemplationpfa revocation elsewhere.

"NO' hearing is presently provided for in subsection' (e).' Under the pr6posed revfsi~ns in 'u.R,_ ;747, section 3 (b) (1) ;

there is an explicitllearfng r~quiremelit; but only~the five (or propos~d teni day period has elapsed. in section 3;' (b) (1)

of H.R. 7747' it' ispropoaed that 'subsection (e) incorporate th~ ,

hearing gUidelines of subsection (b)' onlyaftet the "appropriate - . ~-"--.

State or Federal bfficialshave fail'ed or declined to take [the per~o.nl into custody.'. ~" and furthe~ detention under secticn 1322 is being C9I:l~idere;ci. ,Thi's, of course,' is inadequate. The depriv­

ation will dready l!.!lV!i! be~n ,s,~ffered •. , I~ subse~tiori ,(b) were, in.,. corpora ted into subsection (e) \?rior t0d;etention, ,the' due' process req~,i.ram~\'lts of Morrissey" (with the excep1;:ien of' subsection' (b)', peJ:'!llitting the UBe of .. a ,proffer by the govElrnment;which will be

discussed below), would appea~ to be met. This incorporation'

co~ld be acco.mplished.' by deleting the words "ap{)ropria te ,S~~te or Federal officials have failed or declined to t~e into custody during the 'ten-d~y p~riodprovid~d in.such.subsection" frolill the proposed revisions in se:tion 3 (b) (1)' of H,R. 7747.

In its Report, the House Committee ,seems to indicata that ..

it intend!;! to IllAke subsecti~~ (b) applicable to:the;initial detention determination. On page 7 of that Report the Committee states that the "substantial probability" standard for showing guilt of the most, recent charg.e (the standard established in sl,lb­section (b) (2) (C) 'must be met'before detention is, permissible under subsection (e). As previou~ly discussed, however, the

,i ___ .~ __ .~ _____ . ____ .....,---_____________ _

"

"

IJ

f··.····.·~ , ;

. ,

f r

I i

, ,

j'.) 1 I

" I

II, J 1 II,

I x' f

,

179

-6-

,language employed i.n II R 7747 d • ," '. .oel! not appea~ to accomplish this.

?odding to ,the pro.blems within subsection (e) and its' ro-posed eXpansion is' th f 't h p

. ", .. , e .ac t atH.R. 7.747 would expand the sub ... sectio;!l~c"~~Clud~ ·persons who. have been released e~' a'"felcny," charge. who lllAy pese a ltd ". . .

• ,,: , ,o' anger to. the '"gemmunity", and the fact' that the, type· nf, "dange" hi h . . .

" '"- ,. '" r. w c must be found ~o justify detention

" i,olinot,speC,i~ie~ •. I believe that the selection :of individuals for'deten~iC?nont;he basis ,of the type of charge-which has been made against them in a pending action is \Ulfair fora, nUniber of reascns. ,Fir!lt, the la):)",l.is. impreci~e because the definiti . f what constitut f 1 on 0

'"., !'Is a ,e ony'may vary from one jurisdiction. to. another Second, 0 the same cond" ' . " •

, " . . uc ... ~y be a felo?'JY in one juriSdict:iori but ," ,not in another . due 1 1 't .. <' : ' ,.':., so e y ,0. the poss!~ble Penalties which have been assigned by th~ l~gislative bodies ,(generally a crime with a Possible /?uni.-Ihment, pf'!1IOrethan, one year is cla~sified as a felony). Third,' since possible PUniShment is generally the sole

factor upon w~~ch, ,legislatures distingu.ish felonies. from ,misde-meanor til 1 ' , , ou ,s:. e ab,el ha~ np necess,ary relat,1onsh!p to the "danger _

sness of ~~ person ~ the b~sic justification for preventive detenti,?n •.. Finally, the fact thli~ a felony ch!lrge ha's been ~de does not me th t .' . - .,. ,

. " lin .. a a felony has been, committed or that, the prolJ-ecutJ.n~ officials even anticip!lte obtain:!.,n,g a felony c~nviction. :=e.pe~son IllAY not be guilty of any ~ffense:.or he may be over-

arged as a result,of th~ erro!leous'selection of charges by the arresting officer or as a result o;f,an i~tenti~nal ploy by the, prose,?ution to enco.urage {)lea negot,iatio,ns .~.This" probleJll is

compolUlded by the IUldefined. "danger" which subsect,ion ,(e}re­quires that ~e acc::used be found to pos~, to the c~~unitX" '

Witpin the sllbliection the' concept of,~dangern is ~hoU.y undefined. It ,i!3 lim:!. ted: by ,n~i ther ,thel\ature of '.the' offenses and offenders covered by. the subsection since the immediate offense 'i ii' -

9 v ng r s~ tCl the arr.est is not limited (llany offense"), n01: by the: pend.t~g ',felony' chapge,,' s:i,nce not 'all inVO:tve '"CIa ,', n In contrast ,the ff . pger.

". 0 ensee to which the gencr!ll' preventive de-tention provisions ,apply, as d~fined in subsection 1322(1\) (1) & (2) ,(dangerous crimes as defined in section 23-1'3'31 (3) and

crimes of violence as defined in'section 2'3-1331 (4», in turn

-\ ~ d ii II f I

1 ~. J

r r

..

180

-7-

d~fine the dangers. to which the section is addressed. Contrary to the assertion in the .Report of the House Committee, p. 5, that this. ~ubsectio~.iB limited .. to persons "rearrested and: charged with , . . , I

any of the !l!numerated dangerous or violent crimes/"tne'subs8ction has nQ del .. in.eation - it is.open-endell.and this would, be true even. if subsection Jb) were incorporated prior to the·detention decision. .As a c.c;nse~uence, ·the.' dangerousness standard,'may be constitutionally vague. As pr!l!sently worded, the arr~stee can be ~harged with any crime and detained if.!.it appoars that 'he, may endanger the health, . . safety, morals or gene'ra~ welfare of' 'the, community inwllYs that a;re, unrelated ,to either the' present or past chuge,'or if related to €lither charge, in .no way involving violence or'pOtentia,l vio­lence. .As proposed, this provi~ion would have potential' application to a very large number .of people who' should not be detained 'in a 'free society without. the benefit of ,the-formalities of trilll and the full prot;ect.!ons of. the Bill of Ri(!Jhts;

Even with the proposed changes, subsection {el would allow' the judicial officer to detain a selected class of persons' {ar­restees'on ball f~r a ~feionyn charge) who pos~ a community danger (which is not necessarily' related to the seleqted class of offenders)

which he finds jUstifies detention, ,wl'ie'n the existence of that same danger wHlnot justify the ihcarceration.of oth~rs. Tba-t is to say, if an individual is'rearrested ?n a nondangerous or n~nviolent offense, (therefore not within ,the scope of section 132.2 (a») and. has been released on bail on a pending assault charge, the judicial officer is prohibited from detaining'the individual, 'regard~ess of any present "danger" whioh he may pose to the community,' if a mis­demeanor, rather than a felony charge were previ011sly filed against him. Sinpe . there is no 'i!;pp'arent basis fOl; the discrimination against ,the class of all~ged felony offenders'on bail, it isir­rational. Being irrational, ,it would clea,~ly violate the' right to equa~. protection of the law of that class of'~ offender. In fact, a very str,ong argument can be: made that a, much~mor'e stringent stan­dard of review (compelling state, interest) applied by the Court due to the ~nyolvement of a fundamental constitutional ·z:ig.h't :;., liberty. This provisioA pould not withst~d suc~ strict scrutiny.

I

. -

",

181

-8-

~e expansion of subseotion (e) ,to inclu?e bailed defendants ,WOUld create unanticipated results wh'en the defendant has been released, on a fEl,lony charge from. this jurisdiction. Once re­arrested,on'anY charge, ,he could. be held five days (or ten days, f

( as proposed) w.i,thput aneyidentiary hearing pending a determination of what will be done on revocation of 'bail in the pending felony charge. Sinc~ that charge .is within thie jurisdiction, however, revocation of the bail .must be cont:roll'i!d by section 1322. However, even if the person could not be p~eventiively <ietained under those provisions (because he does not"fall,~Lthin 'the class of offenders defined insac~ion 1322 (a) ~is deteitiC!n for .five (or te~')days is still allow~d •. "If thepe:l:s~m falls within sEiction 1322 (al and action is t~keli,to.:~~6ke his I:?T.l.il, an identicai hea;in~, to that ,whic~ wou~,dbe held l\() detarinine whether to prevendvely detain the person on the iWtest cha~ge would have to be held. Exactly the 94me evidence·\!o.~ld be presented. Consequently, the practical eifect of the prcsposed expansion 'could be to 'delay 'the prev~ntive·Jdetention he ailing and increase the maximum detention ~llowed from's1xty to sixty five days (or ninety to one hundred days under the propOsed expai1s:lonli).

If the procedural'inadequacies ,of subs,ection (el are cu,red,. through the incorporatiqn of. subsection (b) prior to th'e.detent.i,on decision, and if persons released on bailor' other conditionaL pretrial release'clre not included within it,.;! do n~t support tn.e expansion of the temporary detention period from five tq ten days. Such ~ dra~tic expansion would·be appropriate only if a co~peiling' governmental !l~ed can be sQpwn. The f,airness of the ~empor!1ry detention period must be judged by balancing. the government 's' reason~ble needs against the right of "the defendant to have the government act expeditio~sly,a right which i~ defined by t'he inherent injury of his incarc,eratioll ooupled ,with the fac~s that the other jurisdiction has nqt requested that he be held, and the charge giving rise ,to the rearrest is not being pursued in this jurisdiction during the detenti9n period (as it Othe~isewoul~ ,

'be under the general preventive ~etention provisions). I do not believe that a suffioiently compelling need~sbeen'd~onstrated to justify the in,creased detentio~,period •

;;=-"""-===.=========.""""=-==--=----~----

.\

i ! , "

--r

r

:r

182

Proposed Revisions:SIlbliection 1322 (a) (2) and 1322 (e)

The problems', which. I have raised with regard t.o sUbsection '(e) and t!?,itll elqlansion ,to ,include bailed defendants could be'mini~ I

mized, if not avoided;, by incorporating thatcl!iss" of offender in;" ... :, '" -..." ,.. ' .' -" . -'

to the definition of those,'who are subject to preventive detention undersep~ion 1322 (a). Under sUbsection (a) (2) I would propose that the language be amended to read as followsl

'(2) a person charged with a crime of Violence, as defined in section 23-1331,(4" if (i) tho person has been convicted of a crime of, viO'lence wi thin the ten~",­year periOd fmmediately"prece~ing the aUe!ied crime of violence for, which he-is presently charged, or,' (ii) ,the crime of violence, was ,alle'gedly commit;,ted ~whilethe personwas,-wi~-~e.pee~-~e-afte~e~-e~ime-, ef...,yieseftee7 on bailor other, release [for any offense) or on probation, parole, orll\ll1'ldatory release pending coillpletion ofa sentence,' or' " '

Thel'e is s~stantial pUblic concern over, the' aJIIOunt of crime whichi's' being committed ',bydefendll;Ilts who have b~en released on bail in pending cases; or who have bee~ shown. leni'ency in prior cases as~eflected i,l);;their p~C)bationol:, parole status., This was the moving force behind the proposed, revisions in H.a. 7741. See, Report of House Commiite~ o~ the Districtof'columbia"pp.I:'4. Id~ not believe, 'ho~~ver, tha,t" the problem oa('''-or should be totally resolved through preventive detention. I believe 'that the~e is' ilIome iesponsibiiity for the, " system tofunetion more 8Xpedi t'iously in disposing of tile cases. All ,of the responsibility tdiould' not be placed onthed"fendants~ SOllIe of whom may be erroneously or Unfairly data'ined. Prewntive detention should be reserved for,tHose who, while'released on bail, ,c,an be shown to havecoll11l1itted acts ot'vioience, and there­fore pose 'a ,Significant threat to, the colilmunity. These are the

t:ypes'of offenses ~d offenders who outrage the public,~n~ who, thepub1.ic may have the right to demand protectfon from through pr~ventive detention pr'10r, to' convicti-on.' My pr~posal 'ltOuld achieve this result and afford each '1lidividua'l the,procedural due process'to which he is entitled. It would ignore t~!t type' of pending charge upon which an,individual bali been released on probation, parole or I,lail(subsection (a) (2) presently'requires

~--~-~~~- ---" -.-"

'~'

"

r.'---_____ , _____ ~ __ .~

183

";10-

the new "cha~ge alao to beon8';lnVOlv!p~; ,violei'ice)"thex:eby ex-, 'P~dipg the 'types of'offenders ,pres'entl1'\'IIUbject to px:eVent;l.ve ~ete~tion;; but'it ,wouldbemorerestdct!ve tharithepropOllal 1n, H.R. 7:74? (arrest for "a~y''offen.e'" and' on bal.lfor a ftfelony· cha,rge) in that ,it, W,Ould~ app'J,y only to ~~rsons who can besh b"l . "

own y :,c "eat: ~nd con,v.incipgevi~ence" to have coll11l1itted ' a crime of".violence. ' . ,

~... . 'Subsection (e) should be retained so that persons on pro­

bationor 'parole can:'betemporarily :~et'aineci without proceedipfl on the cha,rge givipg rise, totherearre'lit. The due vrocess problem'within: the lire sent language must howe ;b" I .would . , . . . ..'" ,', ver, ecorrected.

, "pX:$?~.se that. the procedures, which ar~ required for dete~tion under section 1322 (b)' , (c) be'incorporated by ref­erence'into sUbsect;i.oQ, (e). AJ:thO~gh .this has been proposed in section 3 ,(b) (1) of H .. a. ,7747-, -thela!l9tiage is inadequate' since, it,relltriCts th.e incorporation (as ~isc::ussed 'above),

On p~ge 5 of ,the Bill,.Iwouldpropose' that' you 'delete, from, the "words "~hoappropriate State. • • "iii line 18 ~ -'the' remainder of the'proposed revision,thro'lgh line 21. 'As

, aJ1Ie,nd'ed~bY:lliy proposal and H~R. 7747, section 23-1322 '(b) 'Wcitildread in part, as fol;lows:

(b) No person described in' subsection' (a) "of this Section, [and no person described in subsection (e) of, this section]' shall be ordered d tid iCial officer __ e a ne unl~~s the,jud-

The deletlqn of the ~a8t clause of the pro~aed revision in H.R; 7747 would inco~rat~ s~section (b) intQ subs~ction (e) pdor,tothe initial B.t.~ge ofdetent~on, rather than at

the, end o~ the. five day J~r proPOsed ten, day) periodwhen'the appropri~te, state, or Federal,officials haVe failed or dec'lined to take .. the !lerson into custody.'

Subsection 1322 (b) (2) (~) . , _

Regardless of the act~~n taken on the proposed revisions "in

'I,.

I ---::~J

h I'j II " If g

f ,

r r

fi I

, '.

184

~ll-

H.R. 7747, ,~'eX;S1:i~qprob,l.~ within" the seiction 1322. ,(b) must . be,ad~.e~sed. "Th,i~ is. ,the' ,m~thod by which the government·:I;& permitte~ to .at-1-~Y' it. b~rdtm of ,pers\14sion - a proffer- a, mere' offer thatc~rtain fact; • .are. true, and 'can ~.proveh. "

In B1un:t'v. U.8.,322A.'24579 (1974), the D~c:'~ourt of Appeals 'held that. adefen4arit: isnot.f!ntitli!d to confront' the witnesses against him in the hearings ~ersectioni322 of the"

D.C. Code. , Noting that. du~. p.;ooe,ss is,a flexible 'conep~" Morrissey v. Brewer, 408, U.S.' 471. (1972)" the' .Court hel.d that alll8reproffer of evidence wa. ·sufficien1:.!, Th,e ,Court relied . upon ~"authority of two Supreme. Court d,eciBions in reaching this, conc::lus~on. Richardson v. Perales, ,4.02 U.S .. 389! (1971), Willi_·v. Zuck~t, 371 U.S. 531 (1963). I woul" sU.blllit thll.t,these. dec.isions do' not support the con~lusion o~ the Qourt, of Appeal. and that the. ,const~tutionality of ~e prac;ice is highly questionable.

Inboth,Peraleiland zlickert., the interests which wer.e at stake were property interests, ,In Perales the issue was the denial of aocial security be~efits, a~din Zuckert the ,issue ~as the dismissa1.of.ago~~rnmant emp~Qyee. The preventive ,detent;iu~ hearings must:bf! die~inguished by .thefact tIla,t a liber.ty interest is at stake - an interest which hiB.torically has ,called for,gre.a,ter procedural prot;ection due to the greater injury resulting from an unfair result.. £!. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 D.S. 471 (1972); Gagnon v.Sc~rpelli, 411 U.S. F8 (1973) ,Ats;ersinger' v,, H~lin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972).'

Bail hearings ~ght pe cited as authori~y for the us~ of a proffer at hearings under ,aect,ion l322,~ Historically, c9nditions of pretrial release have .. been established in hearings, wherf7 this informal procedure h.as been employed. <0 " TIla t practice, - howe;ver, . cannot .b~·· con~trued as historicai precedent, and therefore. author! ty, for the appr()p~iate Procedui:~ :In ~l?r~venUVe,~e~ritton 'l(eb.rt!'J~IJ;' , The two:praceedings are qualitatively different. The bail hearing particularly under the liberal release I?roviBionB'ofsection 1321, is based on the assumpt~on of release - the pr~ issue, ~e,ing the '~pp~opriate;c6~diti~n., I~'cont:raat, the'p~event-ive'detention hearing is litigating the very right to freedom that.was before

assumed. Consequently, the preventive detentbifn hearing is more

j. fl __ ~ __ "_"_",,,.,, __ . ___ ",

"

/' '

----7:-:\ f

1\ ,185

"'~.~'t;j ,';' l' "~ '., <."f:.';.

",analogo!;s' to acriminalproc~edil1'gwhth'e culpability aiidli~rty ~',arethe,p:rihoipte~"bilues' ~" The most 8imi~ar si f:uattonad4~elised 'tby-the' Supr~ 'Court was the. pllrcSie'rt;!vocat'ion inVolved i~ "MOrrissey ~:.'Brewer,' (08, 'U.S.'471 (1972): For ~~:temPorary,_

deprivation of liberty involved in theinitial,informal decision

/.. ~?.;,;,e¥q~e· ~Which' WOUld, late~' be:fo+lqweq .'~y' tQrina1 'adjUdication). "verified fac~s" w~fEt require~ •. 'Tliis,h,!, been ii).t;erpreted to , require the presentation of ",!tllesses since the Court specifically held that t~e right 'of cdnfrontation'must be aff~~de~hmie~s the

'hearing officel:':find's 9~dA.u~e f~.r h~t affording it. No ,less should.reaS,OnablY, be, afforded defendants' who, are adj~di~~~~d a. danger,. to s.ooi~r~:·~der ~e 'prev~nti~edete~tion'prov;siO~:,"

'Iprol,'Ose·that.the'wOrds "inforination presented 'by p;':offer ,. or otherwise', "j,n' sUbsection: i322 ' (b) '( 2) (Cl be d'el~ted' ~nd' the

'. '~,,' .' ~~ 'f • i,.' , ." '. "; ", _) ~ :. . : . ,'" _ , _ ... : ' .'

~rds, verified',f~cts' pr~sentea~ ~e,inserted. That, sUbsection , . would read,inp~~t'~ aSfoUow'~; , , . ." . .",.

. " .:;,'-' '.

(C) 'tl1at·, except with respect "'to Ii person described" " " ,in para(fZ'aph: (3) ,of;sUbsection. (a) of .. this section,"on

,the ,.~a.s 1S of "'ftfe_aUe~-pl!eeeftt!eli~el"-pl!effel!-e~_etu;el!_ wiee [verified' factI! presented] to the judicia,lofficer

',,,, there i.s a sUbstantial probabili.ty"that the 'person" ;, 'c'?!1lDIitted, ·the offense 'for which he ispreserit before the judicial office~: and • ,. •

.>A~thOU9hthi~ .r~vision wo~ld:not insUre the dconstitutionality of the 'procedure, it Would 'bring the. process closer to the'

'most analogoussituati~n' ~adres~ed brtheS~pr~e court;.' "

"

tI r! V.

f I

I r

",

t.

r Ii'"

IJ

o

(,'

/

',.

;

r

, I

/

l t

I

1 [

f'

I I ; I I