[Senate Hearing 108-429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-429
COMBATING GANG VIOLENCE IN AMERICA:
EXAMINING EFFECTIVE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
__________
Serial No. J-108-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
93-250 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 4
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California..................................................... 3
Hatch, Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared
statement...................................................... 92
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 103
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 1
WITNESSES
Ashley, Grant D., Special Agent, Assistant Director, FBI Criminal
Investigative Division, Washington, D.C........................ 11
Christie, Christopher J., U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey,
Newark, New Jersey............................................. 9
Fitzgerald, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of
Illinois, Chicago, Illinois.................................... 5
Jordan, Eddie J., Jr., District Attorney, District of New
Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana................................ 21
McBride, Wesley D., President California Gang Investigators
Association, Huntington, Beach, California..................... 25
McCulloch, Robert P., President, National District Attorneys
Association, Alexandria, Virginia.............................. 23
Yang, Debra W., U.S. Attorney, Central District of California,
Los Angeles, California........................................ 7
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Christopher J. Christie to questions submitted by
Senators Chambliss and Leahy................................... 36
Responses of Patrick Fitzgerald to questions submitted by
Senators Chambliss and Leahy................................... 43
Responses of Debra W. Yang to questions submitted by Senator
Chambliss...................................................... 50
Responses of Robert P. McCulloch to a question submitted by
Senator Leahy.................................................. 55
Responses of Eddie J. Jordan to questions submitted by Senator
Leahy.......................................................... 56
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Ashley, Grant D., Special Agent, Assistant Director, FBI Criminal
Investigative Division, Washington, D.C., prepared statement... 58
Christie, Christopher J., U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey,
Newark, New Jersey, prepared statement......................... 72
Fitzgerald, Patrick, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of
Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement................ 82
Jordan, Eddie J., Jr., District Attorney, District of New
Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, prepared statement............ 93
McBride, Wesley D., President California Gang Investigators
Association, Huntington, Beach, California, prepared statement. 105
McCulloch, Robert P., President, National District Attorneys
Association, Alexandria, Virginia, prepared statement.......... 108
Yang, Debra W., U.S. Attorney, Central District of California,
Los Angeles, California, prepared statement.................... 118
COMBATING GANG VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: EXAMINING EFFECTIVE FEDERAL, STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Sessions
presiding.
Present: Senators Sessions, Feinstein, and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Sessions. Good afternoon. We're glad you are here.
It is a good looking panel out there. As a former United States
Attorney, it's the best looking panel I think I have ever seen,
three out of the four of you there.
I would like to welcome everyone to this important hearing
on the issue of the problem of gang violence in America.
Chairman Hatch very much wanted to chair this hearing but was
not able to do so today. It was just unavoidable and he asked
me to do so. I look forward to that.
The problem of gang violence is not a new one, nor is it a
problem limited only to the urban areas. Once thought to be
only a problem of our Nation's largest cities, gangs have
invaded smaller communities. I have seen that personally in
Alabama.
Gangs in America are no longer the romanticized, movie-like
characters depicted in ``West Side Story''. In reality, gangs
now resemble organized crime syndicates, who readily engage in
gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug
trafficking, and other serious crimes.
All too often we read in the headlines about gruesome and
tragic stories of rival gang members gunned down, with innocent
bystanders, adults and teenagers and children caught in the
cross fire of gangland shootings, and family members crying out
in grief as they lose loved ones to the gang wars plaguing our
communities.
Recent studies confirm that gang violence is an increasing
problem in all of our communities. Based on the latest
available national youth gang survey, it is now estimated that
there are more than 25,000 gangs and over 750,000 gang members
who are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions throughout the
United States. Current surveys now show that gang activity is
once again on the rise.
While we are all committed to fighting the global war on
terrorism, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we
devote sufficient resources to combatting this important
national problem.
I have been and remain committed to supporting Federal,
State and local task forces as a model for effective gang
enforcement. Working together, these task forces have
demonstrated they can make a difference in the communities. We
must act in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that adequate
resources are available to all of our communities to expand and
fund these critical task force operations.
I am also mindful of the fact that, to be successful in
reducing gang violence, we must address not only effective law
enforcement strategies, but we also must take steps to protect
our youth so that the next generation does not fall into the
abyss of gang life which so often includes gun violence, drug
trafficking, and other serious crimes.
The young people of our cities need to be steered away from
gang involvement. We need to ensure that there are sufficient
tools to intervene in the lives of these troubled youth.
Federal involvement is crucial to the control of gang violence
and to prevent new gang members from replacing old gang
members.
I would just add parenthetically that I had the honor to
represent Senator Hatch this morning before the National
Conference of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, which I
think is one of the most cost-effective methods that this
country has, probably the most. The National Center for
Philanthropy has rated the Boys and Girls Club number one for
youth activities and in helping youth for the ninth consecutive
year. But there are programs like that that are important, that
are receiving both local support and are receiving support from
the Federal Government.
So we must take a proactive approach to solving this
problem. We need to educate ourselves and redouble our efforts
to fight gang violence. If we really want to reduce gang
violence, we need to ensure that law enforcement has adequate
resources and legal tools, and that our communities have the
ability to implement proven intervention and prevention
strategies so that gang members who are removed from the
community are not simply replaced by the next generation of new
gang members.
So I want to take a few moments here to express my
appreciation for Senator Feinstein. She has worked with Senator
Hatch and I in the past on gang legislation, and I expect she
will be able to join us later on today.
So, without further ado, I would be delighted to hear from
our panelists. I believe there is much that we can do to deal
with this problem. I would like very much to hear from you,
your ideas and suggestions on the current situation on the
streets of America.
Senator Feinstein, it's good to see you. I just made
reference to your interest in this issue for a number of years.
I was just going to the panel, but now I would be delighted if
you would like to make some comments before we do that.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would really like to make some comments. I would like to
thank Chairman Hatch for holding this hearing, and you for
chairing it. I understand the Chairman had a small accident and
hopefully he's fine.
In 1996, Chairman Hatch was good enough to join me in my
efforts to address this problem through legislation. In that
year we introduced our first bill, in April, and we have been
trying to get at this ever since. We have introduced
legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 4th, the
5th, the 6th and the 7th. Our efforts have focused on targeting
those who recruit and use minors in gang crimes, and those who
travel in interstate commerce to further gang activity.
We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between
Federal and local officials, and to make it easier for
prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or
violent crimes on behalf of their gangs.
Now, so far we have not succeeded. We did offer an anti
gang amendment to the juvenile justice bill in the 106th
Congress. That passed 96-3. The legislation never made it to
the President's desk for other reasons. So the problem has just
gotten worse.
For example, in 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los
Angeles in that year. Half of them were gang related. Homicides
are up 11 percent over last year. And law enforcement believes
that much of this increase is due to gang activity. There are
more than 100,000 gang members and associates in Los Angeles,
and at least 200 active gangs there.
I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be and how
damaging they are to their victims. I want to just give you a
couple of examples.
In 2000, gang members tried to rob a passerby with an
assault weapon from their car. When the victim resisted, the
gang shot the victim 17 times. Only two months before that, two
rival gangs had a shootout in San Francisco's Mission District
and an innocent bystander was caught in the cross fire and shot
through both legs. I mean, I have seen stories of weapons
fired, bullets going through walls from gangs, killing children
in their beds, killing a grandmother ironing at her ironing
board. I walked around a block in Los Angeles where, in a two-
week span, about seven people had been shot dead by gangs.
The evolution of gangs is interesting. In 1980, there were
gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they're in 1,500
jurisdictions throughout the United States. In 1980, there were
about 2,000 gangs; today, there are 26,000 different gangs. In
1980, there were about 100,000 gang members; today, there are
more than 800,000 gang members in the United States.
In addition, gangs have gone from relatively disorganized
groups of street toughs to highly disciplined, hierarchical
corporations, often encompassing numerous jurisdictions. That's
where we come in.
For example, the Gangster Disciples has a chairman of the
board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for
streets, governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers and
``shorties'', the youth who staff drug selling sites and help
with drug dealers.
For 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing
more than 200 people. One-half of their arrests were for drug
offenses, and only one-third for nonlethal offenses.
In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago
based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 States. I am
delighted the Senator from Illinois has just come in. Southern
California based gangs are equally well dispersed. In 1994,
gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods or Crips, both of
whom are based in southern California, were in 180
jurisdictions in 42 States.
As a result of such dispersal, violent criminal gangs can
be found today in rural areas. Washington State law enforcement
has told us about one gang member they traced from Compton, CA
to San Francisco, then to Portland, Seattle, Billings, and
finally to Sioux Falls, SD.
The Justice Department has found that from the seventies to
the nineties, the number of small cities or towns--those with
populations of less than 10,000--with gangs increased by 15 to
39 times. This is a larger relative increase than for cities
with populations larger than 10,000.
Now, as they have increased, so have all forms of violence.
I don't want to take any more time, but I can go on with that.
What I want to do--and I think Chairman Hatch has agreed--
is make it a Federal crime to recruit as juvenile into a gang
that crosses State lines, that commits certain crimes, and
subject that to a minimum sentence of three years--the
recruitment of as juvenile to a gang. We have to stop this. The
killings just can't go on. They are wanton, they are evil.
The two Williams sisters, great tennis stars, just had
their half-sister slain in what looks like it might have some
relationship to gang activity. It goes on and on and on. So I
am hopeful that the Chairman and I will finally be able to move
this bill. Our original bill established some racketeering
statute predicates for gang crimes. I know the Chairman wants
to go in a slightly different way now, which is fine with me.
But I think we really need to get this bill moving and out.
I thank you very much for the opportunity.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. You are
knowledgeable and have been committed to that.
Senator Durbin, you have a U.S. Attorney here, and if you
have any opening comments, we would be glad to hear those.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and thank you
for presiding over this hearing, and I am particularly honored
that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of the Northern District
of Illinois is here. My colleague, Senator Peter Fitzgerald, as
they often say in the newspaper, ``no relation,'' appointed him
as U.S. Attorney. He has done a terrific job, and I was happy
to support his nomination.
I am glad that we are going to broach this topic. 25
percent of gang members nationwide are in Los Angeles, LA
County and Chicago. I am pleased that the two U.S. Attorneys
from these areas are going to tell us about their strategies to
deal with gang crime. Chicago is a great city. I am honored to
represent it and glad every moment I spend there. It is
heartbreaking when you look at the murder rate in this city,
and particularly when you see the victims, kids, innocent kids
caught in gang cross-fire, some kids mistakenly or for whatever
reason drawn in to these gang battles, and it just breaks your
heart to see it. Mayor Daley has been very responsive to this
as has State's Attorney Dick Devine and U.S. Attorney Patrick
Fitzgerald. But I think we need to do more.
We lost 650 people last year as victims of homicide in
Chicago, three times the number of New York. It breaks my heart
to say that, but it is a fact, and we have to deal with it
squarely.
There is an issue here that is part of this conversation
that I hope to raise that some members do not want to talk
about and that is, where are they getting the firearms they are
using to kill other people? I think that has to be part of this
conversation, and if we do not have an honest discussion about
that, we are addressing only part of the problem. Let us be
honest enough to address it completely.
Thank you.
Senator Sessions. We are pleased to have a panel today who
can answer some of the questions raised for sure. We have two
panels. Our first panel will have three United States Attorneys
and the Assistant Director of the FBI. Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald
is a United States Attorney from the Northern District of
Illinois; Ms. Debra Yang is the United States Attorney for the
Central District of California; and Mr. Christopher Christie is
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Mr.
Grant Ashley is an Assistant Director of the FBI for the
Criminal Investigative Division. All of these witnesses have
extensive experience combating gang violence and will bring
unique perspective to the problems. So if there are no further
comments--
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, would you just allow me to
welcome Ms. Yang?
Senator Sessions. Yes, please.
Senator Feinstein. I came in here very fast and did not
realize that you were here. As you know, she is U.S. Attorney
over a huge Los Angeles office, and I just want her to know how
welcome she is. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Fitzgerald?
STATEMENT OF PATRICK FITZGERALD, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon. My name
is Pat Fitzgerald, and I am the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois. It is truly an honor to appear
before this Committee and I am very gratified that we are
having this hearing on this particular problem.
I think when you look at the problem that plagues America
these days of violence, but particularly urban violence, both
in cities as large as Chicago and in smaller urban areas, we
have to recognize that the problem of violence has three
different legs: gangs, drugs and guns, and often we do not pay
enough attention to that leg of the problem that consists of
gangs.
I will briefly talk about some statistics. Senator Durbin
already mentioned that we have a homicide rate in Chicago last
year three times the per capita rate of New York, and of those
homicides, so far this year it is estimated that 45 percent are
gang related. Last year it was estimated that 60 percent were
gang related. That is a serious problem.
The chilling statistic made real is to learn that it has
been estimated that every two weeks a Chicago Public School
student loses his life or her life to gun violence, and since
school opened several students have been shot. Yesterday a 15-
year-old was killed in Chicago as a result of that violence.
I think if we look at the statistics, Senator Feinstein
mentioned the Gangster Disciples. One chilling fact is to look
back that in 1995 during a Federal search of the Gangster
Disciples, a membership list was recovered of employees that
listed 7,000 people working for the Gangster Disciples, selling
drugs, almost half the size of the Chicago Police Department.
That puts in perspective precisely what Senator Sessions said.
This is not about West Side Story. This is an organized crime
syndicate that is very well organized and very violent.
The other chilling fact is to look at how gangs can
corrupt. Just a few weeks ago we arrested several prison
officers in an Illinois jail, one of whom was a gang member
himself, who was bringing drugs in to 9 different gang members
in jail, 6 of whom had been convicted of murder. We have
prosecuted police officers who were working with other police
officers to steal drugs from gangs and sell them. Gangs are
extensive, they are violent and they corrupt.
In looking at the problem of violence we recognize that
every time we went after the problem of guns we ended up
looking at gangs as well. We recognize that when we went after
the problem of drugs, we looked at gangs as well. We recognize
we also have to focus on gangs as gangs.
In my own office we have restructured the Narcotics Section
to become the Narcotics and Gangs Section. Half the attorneys
work with agents and police to work on national and
international cartels. The other half work on gang cases. But
we recognize they run into each other all the time because the
gangs are the source of supply for those cartels.
One thing we have done is we have recognized that this has
to be a bipartisan Federal, State and local joint effort. We
are working extremely well with the State's Attorney's Offices
in Illinois, particularly Dick Devine, the Cook County State's
Attorney. We are working well with the Federal agencies and the
local agencies to partner together. We form gang strategy teams
to make sure we share information that the FBI develops as part
of its investigations, that DEA develops, that ATF develops and
the local police, to make sure we are doing the best we can
with our resources to focus on those gangs and the leadership
of those gangs.
We are taking advantage of the Project Safe Neighborhoods'
effort against guns to go after the worst offenders in
particular districts, with special emphasis on four districts
in Chicago that seem to be the most violent. We are sitting
down jointly with State prosecutors, the Chicago Police
Department and ATF and saying, ``Who are the worst offenders
most likely to kill,'' and selecting them for Federal
prosecution as a joint decision in making sure that we send
those people away for the harsher sentences.
We also recognize that half the battle is to deter people
from joining gangs and carrying guns. So we are having parolee
forums, where we meet with parolees as they are released from
prison, 30 at a time, and present them with two stark images,
what will happen to them if we catch them breaking the law and
carrying a gun and what the alternatives are.
We recognize that the effort has to be joint. We cannot do
it alone and the State and local authorities cannot do it
alone, and it is a true partnership. It is not about seeing who
gets credit and what court the case is prosecuted in. The
mandate is to get results.
I think the most important thing we can do is to make sure
we keep up that fight on a bipartisan, Federal, State and local
effort as a joint effort, and recognize that gangs are at the
core of the problem, and send the message out that if people
participate in gangs they will get our attention and that we
will bring prosecutive efforts.
The message of hope that we can get from some examples
besides the rate of violence in Chicago is what we saw in
Joliet, another city in my district, where the FBI went after
some gang members and went after particular offenders
associated with gangs a couple of years ago. As a result of
those prosecutions, we saw the rate of shootings drop 40
percent and murders drop 50 percent. We saw that in another
city, another area in the district in Aurora. So we recognize
that there is hope, that by being smart and by focusing our
efforts correctly and working together, we can see results as
to what is an extremely vexing problem that plagues my district
but really the whole country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. I would just
add that I definitely agree that well-applied law enforcement
can make communities safer. At one point we got to the view
somehow that nothing we did made any difference, but it does
made a difference. It is done in New York and Boston, and some
Alabama areas I know about it made a difference, and I
appreciate your leadership.
U.S. Attorney Yang.
STATEMENT OF DEBRA W. YANG, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Yang. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for having us
here today, and other members of the Subcommittee.
I am Debra Yang, and I am the United States Attorney in Los
Angeles. I cover the Central District of California which
encompasses about 17 million people.
I have to say that I am extremely gratified that we are
discussing this subject today. On a personal note, as a young
girl growing up in Chinatown I was surrounded by Asian gangs
and always told to stay away from a particular group called the
Hua Ch'iao, who are still currently in existence, if not even
stronger now. And when I moved on to junior high school there
were gangs there by the name of avenues, Frogtown, Tuners, that
I also tried to stay away from, who are still in existence and
part of the focus of what we do now in my office. So it is a
longstanding problem that we definitely need to address.
I will say that violent crime and narcotics distribution by
street gangs has been a significant problem in the Central
District. As Senator Feinstein alluded to earlier, the
statistics are staggering. In Los Angeles County alone
conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000. This is
just in Los Angeles County. The number of individual gang
members in those street gangs at 150,000. In addition, there is
approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County,
Ventura and San Bernardino Counties, which are in my district.
I will say that gangs are the driving force behind the homicide
rate in my district, and that fully half of all gang members in
the District are believed to participate in violence connected
to the distribution of narcotics. Indeed, the homicide rate in
Los Angeles was probably one of the highest in the country last
year.
Los Angeles is known as what is called a source city. We
export gang members, violent gang members, across the country,
across State lines. Members and cliques of the Los Angeles-
based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into
the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New
Jersey, Mexico, El Salvador. There is a current case pending
right now in Tennessee. We have also tracked Los Angeles-based
gang members to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St.
Louis, and this only arises out of a few cases that are going
on in the office right now.
My district has focused on the investigation and
prosecutions of gangs and gang members since 1992. It
essentially arose out of the wake of the Los Angeles riots. The
intense focus has continued unabated. What we have done is we
have worked in a collaborative manner, because in order for us
to respond to the problem on a Federal level, we have to have
the intelligence that is gained on the street side through the
local law enforcement officers. As a result I have sought to
make our district a leader in targeting criminal street gangs
as criminal enterprises, and focusing on the gang leaders where
appropriate, while at the same time continuing to target gang
individuals, the so-called soldiers for Federal crimes and
criminal conspiracies where appropriate.
We use such Federal legislation such as RICO, VICAR, money
laundering statutes and the more traditional narcotics statutes
and firearms statutes to aid us in that regard. In essence we
try to focus on what I call the big Federal cases, where we can
strike to the heart of a gang and try to take out the entire
entity as opposed to just picking off individuals and not
really getting to the root of the problem.
A prime example of our long-term investigation and
prosecution strategy for organized street crimes was recently
in the case of the 18th Street Gang and against the Mexican
Mafia. This investigation spanned four years from beginning to
end and led to the convictions of more than 75 Mexican Mafia
members and 18th Street Gang leaders. The Mexican Mafia is a
hispanic street gang which is believed to have upwards of
10,000 members in California as well as in Mexico and El
Salvador. During that time it took an arsenal of resources,
both Federal and local, to put that case together. A total of
19 search warrants were executed during that time, a total of
26 defendants were ultimately charged, and all were convicted.
This case in particular marked the first time that my
district used the RICO statute against a street gang, and a
street gang is vastly different from a prison gang, much more
loosely organized, not as hierarchical, much more fluid,
because they pick up with other crews from other neighborhoods.
This was something that took a tremendous amount of resources.
We ultimately were able to get about $2 million in narcotics
proceeds which were forfeited to the Government, and most
importantly, the efforts had an extremely positive effect on
the quality of life in the MacArthur Park District of
California. For those of you who are not from California, it is
right on the Wilshire Corridor. It is in the center of
California, right next to the LA County Museum of Art, right
next to the Otis School of Design, right in the heart of
downtown. This two-mile radius has managed to sort of have a
stronghold. It is also known as the Rampart area, and we were
able to sort of clean that up and improve the quality of life
there.
I want to say that one of the other things that we have
managed to do is sort of work hand-in-hand with the FBI, ATF.
We currently have an ACES program going on where there are 60
agents who have been deployed to our jurisdiction for a period
of 6 months. DEA's Met team, where they go in and they focus on
certain areas where the homicide rate has been extremely high
and try to get to the root of the problem, and as we work in
conjunction with them, that is how we essentially try to
eradicate some of the problems that we see.
Thank you, Senators.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Yang appears as a submission
for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Very well said, and that is impressive. I
have no doubt that if you maintain that pressure in targeted
areas, you will see a reduction in rime in those areas.
Mr. Christie.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Christie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It is an honor for me to appear today before the
Committee along with my colleagues from Chicago and Los
Angeles, and I think it shows what a national problem this is,
that you have someone here from New Jersey, someone from the
midwest in Chicago, and someone from the West Coast in Los
Angeles. This problem is now a national problem and it is
getting worse.
In May of 2002, early in my term, in response to a steadily
escalating gang problem in New Jersey, we created a violent
crime unit within the U.S. Attorney's Office, and they were to
target street gangs, violent narcotic enterprises and firearms
trafficking networks. We have 10 experienced Federal
prosecutors in my office that are assigned to this unit and are
working on fighting this new brand of organized crime.
As Debra said very well, these gangs are structured. They
are sophisticated criminal organizations. In New Jersey they
have a clear hierarchy in their decision making and in
distributing the criminal proceeds among the gang members. So
this sophistication is now allowing them to have considerably
longer life spans than gangs were maybe 20 years ago. These
gangs operate like big businesses, and albeit they are
businesses that are unrestricted by any sense of right and
wrong, but they are operating like businesses.
They typically work in the narcotic drug market and they
work to build and expand that territory and to exploit it. We
have one particular gang that I will talk about in a moment
that was bringing in proceeds of nearly a million dollars a
week in the northern part of New Jersey from heroin
trafficking. We have to though, I think, work with our local
and State partners, and one case that we worked on in
particular was regarding the Latin Kings, which is a national
gang. We were able to work with our partners in the State
Police in New Jersey and the State Attorney General's Office,
to bring down 53 members of the leadership of the Latin Kings,
from the person who was in charge of the Latin Kings in New
Jersey, on down through the leadership. This leadership in the
Latin Kings in particular is male and female, and these people
were brought down and arrested. The charges were split up
between some being prosecuted by my office, some by the State
Attorney General and some by local county prosecutors. We have
tried to use that as a model to be able to bring other large
street gangs under control in our district.
We have also used Project Safe Neighborhoods and its
emphasis on trying to get guns off the streets of our cities,
along with the FBI and the DEA and ATF and local authorities to
try to work together to get the guns off the streets. It is, as
Pat said I think, we have to talk about those issues. Those
things coalesce, the guns, drugs and the gangs. That is their
currency that they deal in. The other currency that they deal
in is something that Senator Feinstein pointed out, which is
the recruiting of juveniles. These juveniles are their
currency. This is what they deal in. They are the most
expendable to them. They are the ones most likely to be
arrested by local law enforcement authorities because they are
the soldiers on the street, and they do not include them in the
hierarchy of the gang so that they cannot give any information
to law enforcement that would harm the leaders of the gang and
the leaders of the gang see them as expendable, both in terms
of them being brought to jail or being killed on the streets.
We have a set of the Bloods in New Jersey called the Double
``ii'' set that comes this way. The Bloods began in Inglewood,
California. They take the ``I'' from Inglewood, California and
since their home is in East Orange, New Jersey, which they
refer to as Ill-Town, that is how they get the Double ``ii''
set of the Bloods. We have been working with our PSN research
partner, which in New Jersey is Rutgers University, and
identified the Double ``ii'' set of the Bloods as the most
violent gang in the State of New Jersey, and so we have begun
to focus our resources on them. We have charged now seven
members and associates of this gang with drug conspiracy and
using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. It is a very
important case for us.
One anecdote that you might find interesting. They have
weekly gang meetings, and the gang members come to those
meetings, and all of them are required to contribute $31 at
every meeting. This goes into a fund for bail money and to buy
firearms. When new members are initiated or ``coming home,'' as
they call it, to the gang, you come to this meeting and you are
beaten by gang members for 31 seconds, and sometimes for
several 31-second rounds. So why the number 31? Because the
Bloods' code of conduct has 31 rules and rule 31 is ``I will
have love for my Bloods.'' The payment of the $31 is a token of
the loyalty oath, and the 31-second beating reinforces the
discipline of the code of conduct. That is the way they enforce
their rules.
These people also traffic in guns and briefly, I think it
is important, and we have started to focus in New Jersey
because we have particularly tough gun laws, State gun laws in
New Jersey. The trafficking that is coming into New Jersey in
guns is a particular problem, and we have begun to work with
ATF to target out-of-state gun dealers who enable a pipeline of
weapons into New Jersey, to flow through gangs like the Bloods.
We have recently had a case where Federal agents intervened and
cut off the gun supply from another state and the gang had
sought to begun to supply other neighborhood gangs, getting
into that business to make money.
They work in a very organized, hierarchical way and a very
violent way. We are working in New Jersey to try to make sure
that we focus on those bigger problems and work with local law
enforcement.
I thank you for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christie appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Mr. Grant Ashley, Assistant Director of the FBI, Criminal
Investigative Division.
STATEMENT OF GRANT D. ASHLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI, CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Ashley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you
regarding this important problem, and I thank you for your
support regarding gang investigations. I also want to thank the
United States Attorneys who are partners in this very important
effort, and without them, we would not be able to do the things
that we do.
I am going to speak from a national perspective from the
investigative side, and I am currently responsible for the
criminal investigations conducted by the FBI. As a native son
of Los Angeles, I assisted in setting up the early gang
investigations in the late 80's there, and I supervised violent
crimes in Chicago for almost 6 years. I am very familiar with
the problem both from a personal as well as a national
perspective, as is my brother who is a lieutenant in the LAPD,
and my sister, who is a judge in California. Okay, I am done
with the family stuff.
On January 9th of 1992, the FBI announced the Safe Streets
Violent Crimes Initiative. This initiative was designed to
allow our local Special Agents in Charge of each FBI office to
develop long-term and proactive task forces with their partner
police agencies and other Federal agencies. They focused on
violent gangs, other crimes of violence, and the apprehension
of violent fugitives. Since 1992 these task forces have
successfully aligned FBI agents with their local law
enforcement counterparts, as well as the other Federal law
enforcement, and our prosecutive partners to combat violent
gangs. Task forces bring together all of these agencies in a
force multiplier concept, and allows the unique expertise of
each of the participating agencies to be deployed in a very
efficient manner.
This approach also yields information sharing among the
agencies. The task forces are very effective. They are
efficient, and they are economical. Where joint goals are met,
they bring together the investigative as well as the patrol and
other information, and, they leverage components of the
participants. To focus the task force efforts, the FBI
developed a national violent crime strategy. There is a
national strategy for organized drug investigations, as well as
a national gang strategy. These serve as the framework for
combating violence in America, and each of these strategies
uses a component of the Safe Streets Task Force with a
comprehensive plan.
The basic missions of the task forces, Safe Street Task
Forces, are to focus primarily upon street gang and drug-
related violence, address specific violent crime problems, and
seek the most significant violent crime fugitives through
teaming of Federal, State and local law enforcement officers
with prosecutors, to conduct long-term proactive
investigations, utilizing sophisticated techniques as
necessary.
The Violent Gang Task Forces target the violent gangs and
their associates responsible for their criminal activity.
Additionally, they place a specific emphasis on the
identification of the major violent street gangs, and the
enterprises, who pose significant threats to our society.
The FBI is identifying and targeting these gangs as high
priorities by utilizing our enterprise theory investigation.
The Major Theft and Transportation Crimes Task Forces
target violent, major theft groups that include armed
hijackings, automobile hijackings, and major jewelry rings.
The Violent Crime Task Forces address specific crime
problems, including bank robbery, armed robbery, kidnapping,
extortion, murder for hire, firearms violations, RICO, and
other violent offenses that fall within the Interstate
Transportation in Aid of Racketeering and the Hobbs Act
statutes.
The Fugitive Task Forces are responsible for locating and
apprehending the most violent Federal and State fugitives. As
part of the Safe Streets Violent Crime Initiative to reduce
violent crime by arresting felons fleeing jurisdiction, these
task forces were created to specifically apprehend these
fugitives. They utilize the Federal Unlawful Flight to Avoid
Prosecution statute.
It should by noted that the task forces focused on gangs
are applying investigative techniques and strategies which the
FBI has successfully used to target traditional organized
crime, including the development of an intelligence base,
undercover operations, and the use of various electronic
surveillance techniques. These task forces pursue the gangs
through sustained, proactive, multi-divisional, coordinated
investigations using RICO and Continuing Criminal Enterprise
statutes. In many cities, task forces are targeting individuals
or groups associated with the Bloods, Crips, Black Gangster
Disciples Nation, the MS13, Almighty Latin Kings Nation,
Jamaican Posses, and other violent gangs, along with outlaw
motorcycle and prison gangs. By applying the same methods used
in the successful war on traditional organized crime, the task
forces are developing racketeering and continue enterprise
cases to remove the leadership and hopefully the most dangerous
members of our society.
Along with gang investigations, the investigation of other
violent crimes of kidnapping, bank robberies, and drug-related
murders, as well as an intensified focus on the apprehension of
dangerous fugitives, continues to be a primary purpose for safe
streets task forces.
There are approximately 75 FBI-led Safe Street Task Forces
focused primarily upon gangs, another 50 Safe Street Task
Forces focused specifically on violent crimes and fugitives,
that I mentioned, and another 15 task forces directed at major
theft and transportation crime matters. We have these in most
of the States. The Safe Streets Task Forces employed 566
agents, 63 other Federal agents, and 899 local and State law
enforcement officies in fiscal year 2003.
The task forces will significantly support the FBI's
current Violent Cities Initiative that is intended to reduce
gang-related crimes of homicide, robbery, and aggravated
assault in targeted cities of St. Louis, Atlanta, Detroit,
Baltimore, Washington, Newark, Memphis, New Orleans, Chicago,
Kansas City, Los Angeles, and New York. Additionally, the task
forces will support the other FBI initiatives of bank robbery,
child prostitution, and violent fugitives, in other cities.
The task force concept increases the effectiveness and
productivity of limited personnel and logistical resources; it
avoids duplication of investigations and the consequent
wasteful expenditure of resources in matters of concurrent
jurisdiction, while expanding the cooperation and communication
among the Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
The task forces allow the application of sophisticated
investigative techniques normally associated with the complex
organized crime and racketeering investigations. These
techniques are frequently not available to local police
agencies.
Community outreach is another portion of the--
Senator Sessions. Mr. Ashley, if you could wrap up, if you
can.
Mr. Ashley. Can I hit funding?
Senator Sessions. Please, go ahead. It is just we are going
to be interrupted by a series of votes, and it is just going to
be difficult.
Mr. Ashley. I am sorry. All right.
Beginning in 1996, Congress provided a recurring $5 million
to the FBI. This money was under the Violent Crimes Reduction
Program. It has been sunsetted. Essentially our costs run over
$10 million a year, and with the $5 million that has been
employed to our base, we are going to run approximately $5
million shortages for the overtime that covers the police
officers that are participants on these task forces.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashley appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Very good. Well, that was a good series
of statements, and I would just like to ask a couple of quick
questions. If all of you would share in this answer, I would
appreciate it.
What are the ages of the gang members you are seeing? How
young are they and how old are they running nowadays? And has
that been a change in the last 15 or 20 years? Mr. Fitzgerald,
do you want to guess on that?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, the gang members are very young.
When you say the ones we see, the ones we prosecute are the
adults because it is very difficult in the Federal system to
prosecute juveniles, which feeds into what Senator Feinstein
said about making sure we send a message to the leadership that
they should understand that there is a penalty for employing
juveniles. Right now juveniles are an asset that they figure
they can use, they are expendable, and they won't be
prosecuted.
If the leadership understands that juveniles are a
liability and that the leadership of the gang, which is
extremely rational, will pay a price for that, it would make a
difference. But we see lots of young gang members, but we
prosecute the adults.
Senator Sessions. Ms. Yang?
Ms. Yang. I was just going to add, Senator, that you will
see that same thing with respect to using juveniles for some of
the more heinous crimes in actually all of the different racial
groups of gangs. You see it in the Asian gangs, the Hispanics,
blacks, and also in some of the Aryan Brotherhood cases.
Senator Sessions. So the leaders in the gangs, are they
sometimes 25 or 30? Or are they 19 or 20? How does it shake
out, in your best judgment? Or is it different per gang?
Ms. Yang. Generally for us, with, I guess, the core gangs
that I am talking about in Los Angeles City itself, if you are
upwards of 25, around there, between 20 and 25, you are kind of
an old guy. You are an OG, an old gangster. They are much
younger than that, probably--you know, for what we do, as Mr.
Fitzgerald said, everyone we see is 18 or older, essentially,
but they are all hovering in that younger--older teen, young
20s age. But there are many others that are part of the gangs
that we may not prosecute that we see as part of our
investigation. Gang membership sometimes begins at birth. You
are born into a gang. Many of the gangs are on their fourth or
fifth generation of family members. The entity that I mentioned
to you earlier, Frogtown, is now on their fifth generation of
gang membership.
So it starts very early. It starts in many different ways.
The young teens are asked to sort of do younger types of
crimes, running around, picking things up, and then as you get
a little into the mid-teens is when it starts to step up and
get a little bit more serious. And, of course, I am speaking in
a generalized manner, but that is essentially what we have
seen.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Christie, will you comment on that?
Mr. Christie. Yes, we will see in New Jersey, we have seen
children as young as 7 and 8 years old doing tasks for gangs,
whether that is running drugs, being couriers on the streets
for some of these violent street gangs. And I think Debra is
correct that if you get to be into your 20s, you are a very old
gang member in New Jersey. Most of the time you will see gang
members who are dying in their teens and engaged in violent
acts well before they are the age of majority, and turning
those violent acts against both younger and older people in the
community. So the ages can range as low as 7 or 8 years old
that we have seen, and as Debra said, if you get to be in your
20s, you are both fortunate that you have not been a victim of
violence, and you are a gray hair, so to speak, in the gang
world. It is a problem of--as Pat said, that is the currency.
These young people are the currency.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Ashley, have you got any thoughts to
add?
Mr. Ashley. That is exactly what we are seeing.
Senator Sessions. To what extent do people in their 20s
lead--I guess you have answered that question. There are people
in their 20s that are leaders, but by the mid-20s, they are
almost always gone and very few gang leaders would reach 30
years of age, for example. Any comment on that? I am just
curious about how it looks out there.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, I took a peek at a list of birth
dates for a number of gang dealers we have charged in the last
couple years, and if there was a bell curve, they were all born
in the 1970s, and outliers are in the 1980s and some were born
in the 1960s and one fellow from 1959 creeped in there somehow.
But I think they are mostly in their 20s, but they are still
out there. There are some that still make it into their 30s,
and they are likely to be more sophisticated and more savvy and
more insulated.
Ms. Yang. I was just going to add that aside from opting
out because you are no longer a part of this earth, they still
participate in the gangs. It may be a more sort of emeritus
type of role. I hate to use that term in this context, but in
that capacity, they still participate. There is a situation in
Los Angeles right now where there is a 42-year-old gang member.
He participates by essentially victimizing 7- and 8-year-olds,
sodomizing them, photographing that, and then using that as
blackmail, threatening to show their mothers the pictures, and
then getting them to run crimes on behalf of the gang.
Senator Sessions. All right. We are going to have a
difficult time. I am just very distressed that the votes are
the way they are. I understand that there are going to be six
votes back to back in a minute. I will talk with Senator
Feinstein and Senator Durbin, but I am not sure with that many
votes it is feasible to try to come back and forth. But I would
suggest we go as long as we can, and then we may have to recess
until we can finish.
Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I thought the testimony was very interesting, but one of
the things that cropped up--and I think only Ms. Yang mentioned
the use of RICO statutes. And if you think about it, the gang
movement today is growing robustly. It is a bigger criminal
enterprise than Mafia-type crime ever really was in the United
States, and it is growing.
Would it be helpful if there were a new gang statute with
specific gang crimes as predicates along the line of RICO but a
different statute? And the crimes would be murder, kidnapping,
sexual assault, maiming, assault with a deadly weapon, firearms
offenses, gambling, obstruction of justice, tampering with a
witness, burglary, distribution of controlled substances, use
and distribution of explosive materials, and money laundering.
Do you need a new gang statute along those lines? Or is it
possible to use RICO effectively in this area?
Ms. Yang. Senator, I am not sure that I can answer that
sort of without giving it a little bit more thought and taking
a look at that as compared to RICO and the VICAR statute. VICAR
we use a lot because we get a significant penalty when we can't
prove up the RICO case because it is a little more difficult.
But there is one thing here that follows through that has
always been problematic for us, and that is for us to prove the
interstate nexus, the interstate commerce aspect, because it is
very difficult in court for us to have to prove up how this
gang crime is related to some sort of interstate nexus. And
part of that is in the drafting of the way that some of the
statutes have done. Part of that is in the court's
interpretation of what that language means. But that has always
been very difficult for us, so in any RICO case, we end up
having to litigate the whole interstate commerce aspect, and
whether or not, you know, this gang is doing something that is
affecting interstate commerce or whether or not the particular
predicate crime really affects interstate commerce. And as you
know, under RICO we have to prove multiple-predicate crimes.
That has been the thing that has actually been the most
difficult for us in Los Angeles. So without answering your
question directly, that is something--
Senator Feinstein. So what would be your suggestion? I
mean, one of the things we know is that these gangs are
interstate, that they travel interstate, that they move
firearms interstate, they move narcotics interstate. So the
question is, I guess, how you draft a statute that deals with
that. Their spread is interstate.
Ms. Yang. Right. Perhaps using language that is a little
more open and broad so that--and I do not have any of the
language particularly before me, but oftentimes, you know,
there is particular language that says, you know, a facility of
interstate commerce, or something like that.
Senator Feinstein. Would you be willing to take a look at
our statute and see if you can make any recommendations?
Ms. Yang. Absolutely, Senator. Actually, I think--is it
Guillermo Gonzalez from your office?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Ms. Yang. I met him recently, and he asked me to take a
look at it. I did not have time because of some other things,
but I am more than happy to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Anybody else have comments on this subject of what we could
do to give you the tool that you need to prove the interstate
connections to apply the Federal law?
Mr. Christie. Senator, I think Debra summarized it really
well. Whether you are using RICO or whether a new statute was
developed along the lines that you are discussing, that is
always the biggest challenge for us as Federal prosecutors in
these gang cases, because while you are correct that there are
many different interstate aspects to what they are doing,
frequently, like within the II Set of the Bloods that I was
discussing in my testimony, they also are very local. And so,
you know, you have to be--in New Jersey, it is sometimes a bit
easier because we have a lot of travel between northern New
Jersey and New York and southern New Jersey and Philadelphia,
and so a lot of that, we have maybe a bit of an easier time.
But I think what Debra suggested in terms of the language in
any statute that tries to get at this problem, being a little
more open, a little broader for us to give us an opportunity to
get into it, whether it is RICO or whether it is a new statute
as you describe, I think that is really the key for us as
Federal prosecutors.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Fitzgerald?
Mr. Fitzgerald. And I would add one other thought.
Currently we use RICO a lot to go after gangs. We also use the
drug statutes often because most gangs are dealing drugs. When
we catch them doing drugs, we are going to charge them under
the drug laws, which are much simpler and have heavy penalties.
I think if we would look into making a statute or amend 521
to make it more useful, because prosecutors look at what do I
get and what do I have to prove out of all this, and RICO wins
or the drug laws win, we should focus on two things: one would
be to focus on those gang members who we cannot tie directly to
drug trafficking, even though we know the gangs themselves are
trafficking drugs, but tie to violence, because often the
penalties for violence are less than drugs, so focusing on
that. And, secondly, focusing on the gang leadership, because
often you cannot tie the gang leaders directly into drug
trafficking.
Those are the things we would look at because, otherwise,
where we do find drugs, we use the drug laws. And when it gets
more complicated, we use RICO.
Senator Feinstein. Would you all support the part of the
statute which I think is really new and rather consequential,
and that is, a mandatory minimum of at least 3 years to anyone
that recruits a youngster to go into one of these gangs?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Without addressing a particular penalty,
not having seen the provision, what I would suggest is if we
are going to focus on recruitment, that we not limit it to the
person who recruits someone into a gang, because a person could
be the recruiter and someone else can employ that juvenile,
someone else can manage and supervise. So whether it is
changing that statute or whether making a Sentencing Guideline
provision or an enhancement penalty, the way 924(c) is for
guns, making anyone who recruits, hires, employs, or supervises
a juvenile pay some price I think would be important.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Christie. Senator, I would really agree with Pat,
because what we want to try to do is get up into the leadership
of these gangs, and oftentimes it is very difficult for us to
get our way in and up to the top. But if that type of
recruitment statute that you were discussing was broadened to
cover the areas that Pat just enumerated, that would be an
extraordinary tool for us to be able to get at the leadership.
Let the locals handle some of the street area stuff that they
can handle. We can then use the Federal resources along with
them to get up into the leadership. That would be very helpful.
Senator Feinstein. Will you all work with us on the
drafting of that part of it so we are sure we have it right?
Mr. Fitzgerald. We would be delighted to participate.
Senator Feinstein. Okay.
Mr. Christie. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank
you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Very thoughtful.
Senator Durbin, I think we will let you finish up, and then
we have probably got to get to our vote.
Senator Durbin. I will try to take less than the 5 minutes,
and I just want to ask one question. Pat Fitzgerald talked
about gangs, drugs, guns. I want to focus on guns for just a
minute.
I took a look at some of the statistics on prosecutions for
gun trafficking, which I think has to be an important part of
this conversation, and I was concerned with what I learned. The
period from October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2002, a 3-year
period of time, in New York State, 105 prosecutions for gun
trafficking; in Illinois, 16; in the States of Indiana and
Mississippi, 5 and 3. And the reason I raise those States is
that Indiana and Mississippi are the source States for more
crime guns in Illinois than any other States because of their
lax gun laws and because of the proximity of Indiana.
Can you explain to me why as the murder rate goes up and
the gang activity goes up, the prosecutions for gun trafficking
are so low?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I cannot explain the statistical numbers. I
can tell you we are focused on the gun trafficking. I was
acutely aware and surprised to learn that Mississippi was the
third largest source of supply State for illegal guns in
Chicago. I can tell you we found that in Mississippi there is
an area called Little Chicago where they have gangs that mirror
the Chicago gangs that were the source of supply.
I can tell you we prosecuted the gun shop in Mississippi
that was illegally supplying guns to the gangs last year in
Chicago and took the owner of the gun shop before a Chicago
jury, convicted him, and had him sentenced.
I can also tell you that we sat down with our researcher,
with ATF, with the Chicago Police Department, and we are
focused specifically on where the guns are coming from, making
sure they are traced, and seeing where they came from. And as a
result, an ATF agent and one or two detectives from the Chicago
Police Department were detailed to Mississippi. So the Chicago
Police Department was actually recognizing the problem and sent
manpower down there to figure out what we can do.
So we are alert to the issue. We do recognize that we have
got to go after sources of supply gun trafficking, and when we
can find it and we look for it, we do prosecute, as we did with
that gun shop owner from Mississippi convicted in Chicago last
year.
Senator Durbin. I would like to follow through, because we
are out of time, with written questions and I will get into the
proposal by the administration for the destruction of NCIC's
records of firearm purchases. And I have a GAO report that
suggests that that is going to make it more difficult for you
to do your job, if you do not have the time to check the
backgrounds of these guns, to run them and to see if there has
been any violation. And I would like to figure out how that
plays into all of our conversation about ending gang violence,
too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
The gun matters are important. I challenged the Attorney
General and the FBI Director to prosecute guns, I believe, more
aggressively than they have in the past when they were
confirmed, and I recall that Attorney General Ashcroft said
that there was, I believe, a 35-percent increase in guns
prosecutions.
Give me a quick yes or no on this. Are you receiving
support for increased gun prosecutions in your office? And are
you providing the leadership to increase gun prosecutions in
your district? Do you have a thoughtful plan to do that? I will
ask each of you three United States Attorneys that.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes to both questions, and I can tell you I
sit down once a month with a researcher at ATF, DEA, Chicago
Police Department, and detectives and focus precisely on the
issue of guns and people who possess them, and also send the
message that we want to go after traffickers, for example, in
that case in which we prosecuted the Mississippi gun owner in
Chicago. It is clear to me that we have to choke off the source
of supply of illegal guns.
Senator Sessions. Great prosecution, that is exactly what
needs to be done, in my view.
Ms. Yang?
Ms. Yang. Yes, sir. The answer is yes and yes again. One of
the things that we are doing through the Project Safe
Neighborhoods Program is that we sit down with LAPD Chief
Bratton, we sit down with the sheriffs, all the locals, ATF,
DEA, the FBI, and we sort of figure out what we can do with the
gang cases.
In our particular district, we have a brand-new Ballistics
Tracing Center that ATF has put up where essentially each
bullet that is shot, we can determine which gun it is traced
to, and that allows us to sort of get some history on the gun
and how it is moving from one individual to another or one gang
or where it is going to try to get to that.
Senator Sessions. Good.
Mr. Christie. Senator, yes to both questions. In New
Jersey, what I decided to do in our district was to set up the
separate violent crime unit to focus just on guns and gangs. We
have ten experienced Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are providing
the leadership in the district through Project Safe
Neighborhoods to coordinate the State and local efforts. When I
got there, I think the efforts were kind of diffuse and not
very coordinated.
Senator Sessions. Have the numbers gone up since the time
you have been there? Do you know?
Mr. Christie. The numbers have gone up, and just as
importantly, a State like New Jersey where there are very, very
tough gun laws in the State, on the State level, we are really
trying to focus now on gun trafficking because we are receiver
State. And so our new focus has been in that area more on
trafficking than it has been on anything else because of the
fact that our State gun laws are so tough, we are receiver
State.
Senator Sessions. I believe that is wise to trace each gun,
if you see a common source, and I think it is worth the highest
effort, and I think ATF and FBI and anyone else should be
willing to follow those cases to whatever State they lead to
and carry on those investigations. That is the advantage of
Federal law enforcement. And I am telling you, I have been
frustrated that people want to pass new laws burdening law-
abiding people, but we have not been enforcing aggressively
enough the existing laws, which have got some real teeth to
them, actually. I heard an ad that is absolutely true. Five
years without parole if you use a gun in a crime in America
today, and I hope that message gets out. I think it is.
This is the deal. We have got to go vote. If any of you on
this panel cannot come back or you have flights and you have a
hurricane that is worrying you, go ahead and take your flight.
Senator Feinstein and others may want to ask you some further
questions. Otherwise, we will go to the second panel when we
get back. Please do not disrupt your schedule to stay until
after this vote. It may be 30 minutes or more--it probably will
be--before we get back.
[Recess 3:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.]
Senator Sessions. All right. Good to be back. I stayed up
so late, I got down to the subway, and the subway would not
work, and I was the last vote to be cast. I almost missed that
vote. But we apparently are not having as many as we expected,
and I do not think we will have another vote now, although that
was not absolutely clear when I left. So I think we will have
time to go forward and have a good discussion.
Senator Feinstein needs to get back to California, and she
needed to get out tonight before the storm, so I do not expect
her to be able to be back with us this afternoon.
I thought the first panel was good. We had a panel of
experts who do the work that is important to us in making the
kinds of decisions we need to make to improve law enforcement,
particularly with regard to gangs. This second panel is also
very extraordinary and valuable to us.
Eddie Jordan is the elected district attorney in New
Orleans, Louisiana. He brings a unique perspective to this
hearing, having served as United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and prior to his election as
district attorney. So we have another U.S. Attorney in the
bunch.
Robert McCulloch is the elected district attorney for St.
Louis County, Missouri. He is also the president of the
National District Attorneys Association. He has a long and
distinguished career. I look forward to hearing his testimony.
It is good to see you.
Wes McBride is the president of the California Gang
Investigators Association and the former president of the
National Gang Investigators Association. He brings 35 years of
law enforcement experience to this problem.
We have got a time limit, but we may, because of matters
that are ongoing, not have other Senators that come here. What
you say will be recorded and it will be part of the record, and
it will be a factor as we evaluate what to do about improving
our effectiveness against gangs.
So if you would each share with us your comments on this
subject, I guess in the order I introduced you, and I will have
some questions after that. If we can stay within our time
limit, then we might have a little time for some exchange.
Mr. Jordan?
STATEMENTS OF EDDIE J. JORDAN, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DISTRICT
OF NEW ORLEANS, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Mr. Jordan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Eddie
Jordan, and I would like to thank the Senate Judiciary
Committee for providing me with an opportunity to address you
on the issue of ``Combating Gang Violence in America: Examining
Effective Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement
Strategies.''
In 1994, then-President Bill Clinton named me the U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Under my
leadership, the office successfully prosecuted hundreds of
violent offenders, corrupt police officer, and most notably,
powerful Louisiana political and business figures, including
former Governor Edwin Edwards. Subsequently, I retired from my
position as U.S. Attorney in 2001 and returned to private
practice. On November 5th, I was elected District Attorney of
New Orleans.
Unfortunately, gang violence is increasing and it is
evidenced in the number of homicides in New Orleans. Law
enforcement officials routinely encounter problems whereby
witnesses are being intimidated or killed because they come
forward to testify in certain violent crime cases. In 2001,
there were 212 homicides in New Orleans, and in 2002, that
number increased to 257. If current trends continue, the
projected number of homicides for this year will exceed last
year's number. So far this year, we have had 204 murders.
According to Tara C. Kowalski, witness intimidation has
increased dramatically in recent years. In fact, the first half
of 2001 saw a 50-percent increase in witness intimidation.
Witness intimidation occurs when defendants or others acting on
defendants' behalf make threats or otherwise act to dissuade
victims or eyewitnesses from testifying. Witness intimidation
directly harms the witnesses involved; moreover, it adversely
affects society as a whole because, without witnesses'
testimony, prosecutors are powerless in prosecuting criminal
offenses.
In New Orleans, two witnesses who turned down offers by my
office for assistance and relocation were murdered. In March
2003, a potential witness was killed near the eve of trial
after refusing relocation on two occasions. While there was
insufficient evidence to prove the death was a retaliatory
killing, the timing of the killing raised suspicion of a
possible link. Also, in May 2003, another potential witness who
rejected assistance was killed, along with her companion,
shortly after testifies before a State grand jury. Many victims
and witnesses are reluctant to relocate because my office is
not adequately funded. My office is doing all it can with
limited resources. Adequate Government financing would allow us
to better assist victims and witnesses and make the alternative
of relocation more appealing.
The following are some of the more notable gang trends
identified by the National Alliance of Gang investigators in
their assessment:
Gangs are migrating from larger cities to smaller
communities, a move fueled in large part by an increase in gang
involvement in drug trafficking;
Most gangs have members who are involved in drug
trafficking to some extent, ranging from street-level sales to
wholesale distribution. However, the level of drug trafficking
by gang members varies regionally;
Numerous law enforcement agencies report that some gangs
involved in wholesale drug distribution have connections to
major international drug-trafficking organizations;
While the overall violent crime rate has dropped
nationwide, many smaller communities have experienced
increases, sometimes double-digit increases, due to gang
violence;
Gangs, for the most part, are unsophisticated with little
or no hierarchical organizational structures; however, some are
becoming much more organized and sophisticated.
Before I end, I just wanted to indicate that my office has
no funds budgeted or allocated for victim and witness
assistance. Our Victim/Witness Services Division was created in
1998. The Victim/Witness Services staff provides full services
to adult victims of certain State crimes, including, but not
limited to, domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
But despite inadequate funding, the Victim/Witness Services
staff provides assistance to witnesses of violent crimes who
are in danger as a result of their willingness to testify in
court.
I would also indicate that in the year 2002, the entire
division serviced approximately 600 clients. From January 2003
to July 2003, the seven-person staff made a total of 1,498
advocacy contacts on behalf of victims of domestic violence and
permanently relocated a total of 53 witnesses.
But the costs involved here are substantial. The average
cost to temporarily house a family of four in New Orleans is
$365 per week, $100 per week for food, and $50 per week for
personal items. The costs are substantially more for permanent
relocation of witnesses.
So I believe a coordinated approach is necessary to combat
the gang violence and witness intimidation problems that we are
facing. Perhaps the creation of a multi-jurisdictional task
force should be utilized to address gang violence and witness
assistance issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jordan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. You make some very
valuable points.
Mr. McCulloch?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. MCCULLOCH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. McCulloch. Senator, my name is Bob McCulloch. I am the
elected prosecutor in St. Louis County in Missouri and the
president of the National District Attorneys Association. Of
course, both of those entities would like to thank you and this
Committee for taking the time and giving us the opportunity to
present our views on the issue that is before us, not just gang
violence but, as Mr. Jordan eloquently pointed out, the problem
that is very much associated with that, and that in the area of
witness intimidation. I have provided earlier some written
remarks that I would like to ask be made part of the permanent
record.
Senator Sessions. They will be made a part of the record.
Mr. McCulloch. Thank you.
In order to place a lot of this in context, let me talk
about St. Louis County. St. Louis County surrounds but does not
include the city of St. Louis. It is a county of about a
million people. We have about 91 or 92 municipalities within
that and about 65 police departments. In my office--
Senator Sessions. Sixty-five police departments?
Mr. McCulloch. Yes. I have to repeat that several times
myself.
Senator Sessions. We have a lot around Birmingham, but not
65.
Mr. McCulloch. Sixty-five, and some are in municipalities
about the size of this room, which is part of the problem, and
I will address that a little bit.
In my office, I supervise about 100 people, about half of
whom--53 total are prosecutors. We handle and prosecute to
completion 6,000, to 6,500 felony cases a year. Now, not all
those are gang related, but just to give you a perspective of
the amount of work that we do, much of it is related. The City
of St. Louis has a similar size office. It is a smaller
jurisdiction in terms of population, but a similar size office
with a similar size staff and a similar caseload.
My family--I have a very long and, I think, terrific law
enforcement background. I have been a prosecutor for about 20
years. Many other members of my family have been in law
enforcement--my father, uncle, cousins, brothers, both as
police officers and prosecutors, for well over a hundred years
if you add all those up. And I say that only partially to brag
about my family but, more importantly, to point out that even
with that background, we were part of the massive middle
America that thought gangs are a problem on the East Coast and
on the West Coast, particularly in Southern California. If they
did make their way to our neighborhood. They might make it to
Chicago, and we have heard about how they have made it to
Chicago. And I heard my city mentioned in there several times,
my area mentioned in there. But to point out that this is a
problem that is pervasive in America.
In checking with prosecutors across the country, we find
that gangs have emigrated across the country. Primarily from
Southern California, and through the Chicago area to
everywhere. Our gangs have even migrated from our area to some
of the smaller communities, and that brings me back a little
bit to the police departments. These gangs are like water. They
will follow the path of least resistance, and that leads them
to many of these smaller communities.
In my neighborhood, especially, where some of these
communities once were very cozy bedroom communities, they are
now infested because they do not have the ability, they do not
have the resources to staff and adequately train and develop a
police department. And following that path of least resistance,
we have a number of these municipalities where the gang problem
is a remarkably serious situation.
In one small area, we had five murders in a period of about
14 months. Everyone who was killed and everyone who did the
killing was between the ages of 17 and 22. And it literally
involved in some cases walking across the street to sell some
drugs because you were on the other guy's turf at that point.
That was the first murder. The second one, of course, would be
in retaliation for that. The third one we may not know or they
may not remember what it was about, but it all related and
stemmed from that.
While drug trafficking is still the primary function of the
gangs in our neighborhood, they have expanded out somewhat. And
along with their expansion comes the violence, and that is
where the witness intimidation problems come into our office.
We have a case pending now to illustrate that, and it is
typical. I will try and get through this quickly before my time
runs out, but to show that it is unfortunately typical of the
problem we see in many, many other communities.
We found a body of a young man who had been shot to death,
found him on the side of the road. Running his background
check, we found that he was involved peripherally in the drug
trade. At least we had some indications of that. Three years
went by and then we developed information through a snitch that
this one particular individual was the one who killed him.
Following up on that, we were able to develop a good, solid
case on that guy. We now have him in custody on the murder of
that particular case.
What happened was the snitch came forward because the guy
who did the killing had been released from jail. He had been
released from jail because we already had him in jail on a
different murder. And when he made bail in that case, our
witness, our star witness, our only witness, eyewitness to that
murder, was murdered himself. And that forced the other person
to come forward and give us some information.
We now have a similar situation. Although he is in jail,
his cohorts are not all in jail, and that intimidation goes
across the board. Similar to across the country, our problem is
in the funding. We are able to put our witness in this case up
for a couple days in a motel, a week maybe, maybe send her on a
bus ride to a distant relative's house. But eventually that
runs out, and they are going to come back in. And there is just
no mechanism or funding for a permanent solution to that
situation, and that has been the biggest difficulty that we
have.
I apologize for taking up more time. We do appreciate the
efforts of this Committee and the Congress and the Senate in
going into that, and not only applaud and support both as a
prosecutor in St. Louis and the National District Attorneys
Association, the funding, the adequate funding to provide for
the protection for these people who are brave enough or for
whatever reason come forward in these cases.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCulloch appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Well said.
Our investigator, Mr. McBride.
STATEMENT OF WESLEY D. MCBRIDE, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA GANG
INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Mr. McBride. Thank you, Senator. I would like to thank the
Committee for inviting my testimony. My name is Wes McBride. I
served 35 years with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department obtaining the rank of sergeant when I retired in
2002. I retired as the intelligence sergeant for the Sheriff's
Department's gang unit. Twenty-eight years of that time I spent
in the gang unit.
I am currently the president of the California Gang
Investigators Association which puts on the largest law
enforcement gang training in the Nation in partnership with the
ATF. I am also the past president of the National Alliance of
Gang Investigators.
In the nearly three decades that I served in the gang unit,
I made an extensive study of gangs, and I must tell you that I
have watched gangs grow in number and sophistication over these
years. In Los Angeles County, we have hundreds of persons slain
every year by gang members. I have watched this number grow
from less than 200 a year to over 807 in our record year of
1995. Now, that is just gang-related homicides. A phenomenon
that I have observed over this period is that while there have
been occasional declines in statistics over the years, these
respites are only temporary and slowly climb again. The
declines never seem to set or establish a new record low;
however, the climb almost always sets a new record for a high.
We already had some testimony earlier that there are 20,000
gangs in the Nation, but we have 1,100 of those in Los Angeles.
Of the 700,000 gang members nationally, we have 100,000 in Los
Angeles. These gangs started migrating across the country in
the 1980s and established their presence in nearly every State
in the Union. They freely cross State lines--
Senator Sessions. Including Alabama.
Mr. McBride. Including Alabama, particularly Alabama, in
the Deep South. They go there a lot. In fact, I interviewed a
gang member once, and he talked about traveling the triangle.
The triangle to him was L.A. to St. Louis to Houston and all
points in between.
Senator Sessions. And as I recall, we had some connections
in St. Louis of gang members.
Mr. McBride. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. And Chicago.
Mr. McBride. Yes, sir, and particularly the airport in St.
Louis. And they travel nationally. They bring their inane gang
violence with them. The L.A. gangs solve their problems with
violence. You kill the problem, then it is not a problem
anymore. They have no other problem-solving technique, and they
bring that technique with them as they travel around the
Nation.
They will infect a community when they come into it with
the disease of gangs, and it is a disease. It is always fatal.
People die when the gangs arrive. This malignancy of gang
presence kills a community just as surely as their bullets kill
people. Gangs so intimidate the citizens of communities that
they are afraid to testify, which goes to the point that was
just brought up. They intimidate witnesses as a matter of
course. It is not uncommon for them to injure or kill
prospective witnesses. It is not uncommon for gangs to attack
police officers who come into conflict with them. Many officers
have lost their lives in the gang wars. However, gangs have
been known to kill police officer solely because they were
witnesses against them also, beyond the fact that they are
interfering with their commerce.
The most important weapon in the arsenal of gangs is fear.
Gangs are the master predators of the urban landscape. Their
ability to instill fear into the community knows no bounds.
They will kill indiscriminately to make their point, and this
fear percolates through the community and so underlies all
aspects of the gang's activity that it becomes part of the
atmosphere. After a time, physical threats are not needed. The
threats are unspoken but part of the community culture.
To counter these threats, strong witness protection
programs must be put into place.
Law enforcement responses to gangs have been effective to a
degree in various cities around the country. The underlying
problem with current law enforcement approaches is that they
tend to be crisis driven, short-lived in too many cases. There
has never been a national coordinated effort to attack gangs.
There have been effective and deserving programs, but they seem
isolated to particular locales with little communication
outside the affected areas.
I will tell you that the threat of gangs is more realistic
to the people of this country than any threat of external
terrorism can possibly make. While many may argue the term
``urban terrorism'' when speaking of street gangs, gangs
generate community fear and disillusionment within the
communities of local government due to the perceived power of
the gangs. When I encounter people in my travels and lectures,
they express their fear of gangs.
Since the tragic events of 9/11, many gang units have been
reassigned to investigate external terrorism threats active
within our borders. These investigations are vital; however,
they should be done in addition to, not instead of.
One of the disturbing issues that regularly comes to our
association is the dismemberment of gang units across the
Nation and the reclassification of what gangs are and gang
members are in an effort to defuse the gang problem. Ignoring
gangs is like ignoring cancer. You ignore it, it will come
back, and it will kill you. Denial is the greatest ally that
the gangs have, and it gives them room to formulate and take
over their communities.
There has been no Federal leadership in the world of gang
enforcement. Gang enforcement still tends to be done by pockets
of investigators with little or no communication between these
isolated pockets.
Prosecution of street gang members based on current RICO
statutes are too time-consuming and labor-intensive for local
gang prosecution. Establishment of RICO requirements can take
months to years. As an example, in L.A., I mentioned over
100,000 gang members, thousands and thousands of criminal
cases. One study out of USC states that 10 to 15 people are
shot for every one that dies. That is a lot of cases. It would
overwhelm Federal prosecution. There is an undeterminable
amount of narcotic and gang-related crime. A few years ago, one
of the RICO prosecutions that we did took 4 years from
beginning to end, took 39 people to jail. Of course, they were
gone forever once they were convicted of a Federal crime. But
it was out of a gang of 1,000 people. There wasn't a ripple.
There wasn't a ripple within the gang. It did nothing to lower
gang violence.
In concluding, I would like to just say that to effectively
combat the rising gangs, there must be a multifaceted approach
to prosecutions, and I will just list four: effective witness
protection; establishment of a National Gang intelligence
Center, similar to the National Drug Intelligence Center;
funding of law enforcement training on street gangs; and
legislation that eases and streamlines the burden of proving
RICO cases.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McBride appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Sessions. Very good. Important comments each of you
have made. I hardly know where to begin.
I think first I would like to ask you about the status of
the gang situation in your areas, at the least the two of you,
and then, Mr. McBride, if you have any comments.
I have been convinced today and for some time that we have
a major national gang problem in America. It seems to me,
however, that in certain communities, gangs go up and then they
go down. At least in some of our communities in Alabama, I do
not think the problem is as bad as it was in the 1980s.
What is your opinion of the overall status in your
communities? Is it worse today than it was 10, 15 years ago?
And what do we--let me just ask that first. How do you rate the
circumstances today? I guess we will start with Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Senator, during my tenure as U.S. Attorney, my
office prosecuted at least two very high-profile drug gangs,
the Seventh Ward Soldiers and the Richard Pena Organization.
These violent drug organizations were responsible for multiple
murders in the city of New Orleans.
During my brief tenure so far as district attorney, I have
not seen any dramatic change in the kinds of gangs that we have
in the city. I believe that they are still neighborhood-based
organizations, individuals who are loosely associated with each
other, and they engage in crimes of convenience, often focused
around drug activity.
Senator Sessions. How about you, Mr. McCulloch?
Mr. McCulloch. Senator, we have a very similar situation.
We have identified about 4,000 gang members in our county. Our
county has a million people. Most of them are concentrated in a
relatively small geographic area. They affiliate themselves
with a total of about 180, 182 separately identifiable gangs.
Most of them have some sort of loose affiliation with many of
the gangs that you have heard about before from Los Angeles,
from Chicago.
While the number of crimes generally across the country,
and certainly in our community, violent crime has decreased,
the number of crimes that we can absolutely attribute to gang
activity have also decreased. What we tend to see is that the
violent crimes and the violent criminals we deal with tend to
be much more violent than they ever were in the past.
A very good point made by Mr. McBride is that we focus, we
tend to focus on the number of people killed. There are many,
many, many more people who are maimed by these people than are
actually killed by them. And in the old days, you know, if you
ganked a drug dealer, they would beat you senseless. But now
they are going to come back and shoot you and everybody around
you, and that is the difference that we see. While there may be
fewer crimes, they are much more violent, much more dangerous.
Senator Sessions. So you have a more dangerous group of
gang members. You would not say they are larger today than 10
or 15 years ago in number.
Mr. McCulloch. I would say the number has not changed
drastically.
Senator Sessions. Mr. McBride, you are the president of the
California Association of Gang Investigators. How would you
describe that?
Mr. McBride. I would say that our gang population is
static. It is at saturation points now. There was talk earlier
about the age range of gang members. Our gang members range
from 9 years old to in their 50s. The median age of an active
gang member is the late teens, early 20s. And as we apply
pressure and the gang problem grows and we put more pressure to
it, it goes down for a while, as I said, and then it comes back
up. We are on an upswing now. Our gang murders had dropped in
to the 300s. Last year, there were 650. They are starting to
climb again.
I checked just before I came to testify. The Sheriff's
Department's records indicate we are up 34 percent over last
year on just gang homicides. So the rise is starting again, and
as I check with my counterparts across the Nation, that is what
they are telling me. It is starting to rise once again.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Jordan, all of you mentioned witness
intimidation.
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
Senator Sessions. That is a very real problem. I found as a
Federal prosecutor that we could put people in the witness
protection program if you needed it, and you could arrest
people and deny them bail, give them a prompt trial under the
Speedy Trial Act, and they could be gone from the community,
and you could get witnesses to testify against them. But if the
courts are crowded, you have to wait a year to get a trial, and
people have to be released on bail, and they are back in the
community. I know that makes it more difficult.
How would you characterize the circumstances that make it
difficult for your witnesses, increases fear on them? And are
you suggesting that targeted Federal resources that would help
you protect key witnesses in very important prosecutions would
be a good way for the Federal Government to assist in gang
prosecutions?
Mr. Jordan. Certainly, Senator, I think that you have
certainly hit the nail on the head when you say that a
coordinated effort with Federal law enforcement authorities
would go a long way toward helping us address the problem of
witness intimidation at the local level. We have had severe
problems with getting witnesses to come forward when our
resources are as limited as they are, and, of course, it makes
it difficult for us to make a relocation offer appealing to a
citizen. And that is what we need. We need those kinds of
resources, but we need to be able to sit down with Federal law
enforcement authorities and strategize about what can be done
to protect this family that is facing danger with the prospect
of one of the members coming forward to testify in a court
hearing or a trial.
Senator Sessions. Well, the classic witness protection is
very, very expensive.
Mr. McCulloch, in the joint Federal-State task forces, I
know you participated in that.
Mr. McCulloch. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. Is there some midway? And I know the
Federal Government will pay for overtime for local police
officers and some things of that nature on the part of a task
force. Could you have some money set aside for witness
protection, maybe less than the Cadillac Mafia deal, but is
there something we could do?
Mr. McCulloch. I think your statement there, I do not think
anybody could have put it any better than that, some
strategically placed Federal funding for that very purpose put
in the hands of the local prosecutors, the local authorities
for that specific purpose.
The situation that we have--the two most dangerous times we
have found across the board on these cases are immediately
after the crime is committed--during that investigation, when
the witnesses are most vulnerable, the emotions are running so
high--and then just before the trial when the witness himself
is at the greatest risk. And if there is adequate funding to
perhaps--you know, just those. We can generally, in very rare
circumstances, I should say, in very extreme circumstances, get
our witnesses out for those two time periods. But we have found
now that the intimidation takes various forms. There is the
classic intimidation of killing the witness, but there are
other times when it is as subtle as driving by the house. We
had an arson case. A guy drove by the house of our star witness
on the arson case, stood outside the house, and just struck
matches while our witness sat on her porch, blew the match out,
threw it down, strike another one. It is that sort of
intimidation, and, frankly, it did scare her, should have
scared her. We had to get her out. But I think that strategic
placement of local funds.
Better than 98, I want to say, percent of the criminal, the
violent criminal cases in this country are prosecuted at my
level and Mr. Jordan's level. And that is where that funding, I
think, needs to be. It has to be there in order to enable us to
protect those witnesses.
Senator Sessions. Just a yes or no, if you know. The task
force monies, when one is set up, Federal and State, and
Federal will bring in some monies to support that task force,
are there monies available for witness protection, or do you
know?
Mr. McCulloch. I am not 100 percent positive on that.
Senator Sessions. But it could use up all the money pretty
quick because it can be expensive.
Mr. McCulloch. It can go very fast, particularly if it is
paying overtime to the officers to protect them, yes. And that
may be a limited amount available for that, but I think most of
the overtime money goes into the investigation itself as
opposed to into the protection.
Senator Sessions. Mr. McBride, I know we talked about in
California Asian gangs and all. What connection, if any, or
what factor, if any, is it that the gang members may be illegal
aliens or citizens? Is that a factor at all?
Mr. McBride. It is a minor factor. There is a very large
immigrant gang, the Mara Salvatrucha, the El Salvadoreans that
have traveled across this country. They were a problem that
started in the Rampart area of Los Angeles City, spread through
Central America, back up the eastern coast of the United
States, almost all illegal aliens there.
But I would say that no more than 20 percent of our gang
members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens. Our problem is
Americans killing Americans.
Senator Sessions. What about the circumstance with known
violent juveniles? A small number of juveniles in my experience
can be very dangerous, and officers have told me they will kill
you quicker than an older criminal will kill you, with less
remorse. But I remember the story in New York, when we worked
on the juvenile crime bill, of a teenager convicted--or
charged, and convicted, I believe, in juvenile court of a very
serious crime. It was unknown that that person had also been
charged and convicted in New Jersey for a similar crime. They
were let out on bail and they killed somebody the next day.
The point is that under the juvenile laws, juvenile violent
criminal records do not go into NCIC and maybe even the
probation officer and the judge do not know that this gang
person arrested in Alabama may have had a serious crime of
violence in Los Angeles or St. Louis.
Don't you think that with regard to juvenile cases, at
least cases involving serious violence, should be available in
the NCIC or crime history so that police officers and probation
officers and judges would know that? Is that a weakness in our
system?
Mr. McCulloch. It is a weakness in our system, absolutely,
and it falls right in with the fact that juveniles are defined
differently across the country. At the Federal level, you heard
that if you are--I believe it is 18. In Missouri, if you are
17, you are an adult, and there really is no age limit at which
you can be treated as an adult, depending upon the type of
crime.
I think most States have now recognized that those records
are very important and they have loosened up some, but not
enough to do a whole lot of good. I still have difficulty
getting juvenile records in my own jurisdiction.
Senator Sessions. In your own jurisdiction.
Mr. McBride?
Mr. McBride. Yes, sir, that is a real problem. One State I
saw, they could not even keep juvenile records in the same file
cabinet as adult records.
Senator Sessions. I think that is basically the law.
Mr. McBride. But the problem is there is no national gang
database either. If there were a database of gang members
nationally, prosecutors could look up the gang member, maybe
not his criminal record, if it was still protected by law,
being a juvenile, but the fact that he is a gang member would
come to his attention and he could call the investigators in
these other States and locales. But that does not exist. A
truly working system does not exist.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Jordan, do you think that we could do
better in that?
Mr. Jordan. Yes, Senator. I think that local prosecutors
throughout the country could benefit from additional
information, particularly background information about violent
individuals. Having that kind of criminal history would put us
in a much better position to make wiser decisions about
charging decisions and what kinds of charges--
Senator Sessions. Whether to charge as an adult or a
juvenile, for example.
Mr. Jordan. That is right. That is exactly right.
Senator Sessions. So the weird situation is if you are 17
in a lot of States and you commit assault with intent to murder
and are charged as a juvenile, it is a secret proceeding. It is
not put in NCIC. They could move to the next State and commit
another crime, and the judge could release them on bail. They
could be tried as a juvenile again because nobody knew they had
this history of violence.
We tried to fix that, and there were a lot of objections
which I could not fathom why. The juvenile records are
extraordinarily protected, but when there is violence involved
in it, I think we have got to protect the public over the--and
they should count themselves lucky they were not tried as an
adult.
Now, I was thoroughly impressed with and supported Alabama
departments, both in Birmingham and Mobile, who modeled
programs on the Boston initiative in which--if you are familiar
with that, they had a dramatic reduction in murders by
teenagers in Boston with very intensive supervision, very
serious law enforcement, and counseling and a lot of other
things. But I think the key to it was probation officers went
out at night to their homes on a regular basis to see if Billy
was at home and in bed like he was supposed to be. And if he
wasn't, they did something. And so there was credibility in the
system. It took some money, but then the crime rate just began
to plummet.
Do you think our system is so overwhelmed--if you would
give me just briefly your thoughts on it. Are we so overwhelmed
we cannot reach that? Or do you think that would work if we had
the resources to do it throughout America?
Mr. Jordan. I know, Senator, in Louisiana we have had a
problem with supervised probation of young people, of adults,
for that matter, and there are far too few resources put in
that area. And if we could actually have individuals who are
monitored very closely by the system during the time before
trial and certainly after they have been sentenced, that would
help a lot.
I think that it could even take the form of electronic
monitoring as well, and I know there have been a number of
proposals to that effect. But our State is very poor, and we
are having a hard time dealing with that particular challenge.
But I think that, again, this is an area where the Federal
Government could play a very important role in helping us to
solve this problem.
Senator Sessions. The way they did it in Boston is
probation officers were understandably uneasy going out at 9
and 10 o'clock at night, so they reached an accord with the
police department that a police officer would go with the
probation officer and they would actually go out to homes,
which requires a commitment from the department and some
resources.
I believe in Alabama they changed some people's hours of
work, from 3 o'clock in the afternoon to 10 o'clock at night,
probation officers, so they could do that.
Would either one of you like to comment on that?
Mr. McBride. I would comment on that we did that in 1979,
my own unit, the Operation Safe Street on a grant with
probation officers, and they rode with us. We did the exact
same thing in 1979 and early 1980, and it absolutely works.
Absolutely works. We decreased gang crime. We had to give them
numbers, and we told them we would do it by 15 percent, would
be our goal. Well, we reduced gang crime in every case 50
percent in the areas we did that at. It was labor-intensive,
but it worked like a champ.
Probation officers rode with our deputy sheriffs, and we
did home checks. We did everything. We would see them in
violation as we drove down the street, had a probation officer
with us, and we took the kid in custody. And it absolutely
worked. The problem was funding ran out, probation did not have
any money, and it stopped.
Senator Sessions. And you have to have a place to put them,
a judge and a DA that understands the program, and everybody
has got to be on the same sheet of paper. But it reduced
murders dramatically where that has occurred.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. McCulloch. Senator, I think it works in all areas. We
have seen in the use of drug courts, effective use of drug
courts with the intense supervision that is placed upon them
with reporting every week. Once a week they are in front of a
judge, and if there is a slight violation, there is an
immediate consequence for it. And that really drops our
recidivism rate for the people that have gone through that
court down to next to nothing. At least in the short term it
has. We need to obviously study it over a lengthy period of
time, but that has worked across the country in other areas.
One of our problems is, again, back with the juveniles in
that so many of them are juveniles. We do not have enough
juvenile officers to supervise anybody right now, much less
this intense supervision. And it all comes down to funding for
it.
Senator Sessions. I am very dubious about a lot of these
ideas that say pay me now, pay me later. Sometimes they just--
you know, this, that, and the other. But this deal is
important, and I believe the numbers and the experience shows
that if you carefully monitor through drug courts, which I
think are excellent programs for the very reasons you
mentioned, it makes a difference.
A New York Times reporter, Fox Butterfield, said that in
Chicago they spent 3 minutes a case on a juvenile case. It is
just a revolving door. No attention is paid. No supervision is
paid. Unless they go to jail, they are out essentially
unsupervised. A judge has a bad choice then.
In our juvenile crime bill that we passed in the Senate and
ended up in a conglomeration over gun issues, it failed over
that issue alone, and it was terrible, in my view. We tried to
emphasize that if you have a judge and a court system that has
got some jail capacity and sufficient probation officers to
monitor the kids--because they get arrested early. By the time
they commit a murder, they have been arrested two or three
times, normally. And then you would see a drop-off in crime,
and it ends up saving money, I think. It also saves some young
people's futures.
Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. Jordan. In Louisiana, Senator, the options with respect
to juveniles, the options are largely unsupervised probation
and detention, and those are unacceptable options. I think you
have to have a number of other alternatives there, particularly
supervised, some kind of supervised monitoring of young people
who have run afoul of the law. And until there are more
alternatives, I think that we are going to continue to see a
high recidivist rate. And I know that the State is now in the
process of considering a change to the juvenile code or the
juvenile regime in such a way that there will be more
alternatives to the current options that we have today.
Senator Sessions. There is a limit to what the Federal
Government should do, in my view. I was a United States
Attorney for 12 years, and I know it is virtually impossible to
prosecute a juvenile in Federal court. Maybe that is what
people wanted. I would, frankly, say that I thought it was--and
we had it in the legislation to give the U.S. Attorneys a
little more discretion, Mr. Jordan, as to whether you are
indicting a group of gang members, and maybe you want to charge
some juveniles in that group, too. But we failed in getting
that passed.
You are experienced prosecutors and investigators. What can
the Federal Government do overall that would help the most?
Mr. McCulloch. I hate to sound like a broken record, but as
you said, the bulk of the cases, whether they are juvenile,
adult--
Senator Sessions. Well, 99.999 percent of juvenile cases
are tried in State courts.
Mr. McCulloch. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. There will not be one of 5,000 tried in
Federal courts, juvenile cases.
Mr. McCulloch. Absolutely. And without those resources to
be there, you know, that is what we are stuck with. We can
prosecute. We can bring all the juveniles, we can bring all the
adults we want into a courtroom, and if we want to keep them on
probation, we have got to have the ability to monitor them. We
have to have the ability to keep tabs on them, to keep track of
them so that we are not prosecuting them down the line for some
more serious crime.
I will make a blanket statement, and I usually do not do
that, but I will guarantee nobody, no 18-year-old starts off
walking down the street and shooting somebody dead. That is not
the first crime committed by that person.
Senator Sessions. You are exactly right.
Mr. McCulloch. And if we can intervene at a much earlier
time at a point in that, and the problem is there is just no
funding there. In all honesty, by the time the funding does
make its way to us, it has been siphoned off into other many
worthwhile programs, but some that it could be much better
spent in this regard. As a prosecutor, my goal and the goal of
most prosecutors, all prosecutors, is to prevent those crimes.
I would much rather prevent it than prosecute it later, and we
have to get in at a much, much earlier age and in a much
earlier stage in the proceedings in order to have any chance of
doing that.
Senator Sessions. Well, it is clear to me that you should
intervene early in the kids who are most at risk. If you had to
develop a cohort of kids most at risk, it clearly would be kids
who have already been arrested, who are being arrested at 14,
15. You can be sure they are heading for big trouble if
something does not happen. And the judge has control over those
kids. The court system has them. If a child is misbehaving a
little in school, who has got the power to do anything there?
But if they have committed a crime and they are before that
judge, he can order the family to be involved in counseling.
In my home town of Mobile, Judge Butler, my law school
classmate, ran that program for many years. They have broken
the back of juvenile crime. He expanded the supervision. He
expanded jail capacity. He said, ``I couldn't lock kids up for
violation of court orders and probation because they had no
place to put them. They gave us some additional space,'' and he
said, ``The amazing thing was we don't need it now.'' He said,
``Crime has dropped 40 percent among juveniles.'' He is shocked
at the dramatic decrease. But every youngster that gets
involved with the court system is given attention. Now they
have enough time to give them attention.
It is not just sweetness and light. They are told things
they have to do, and if they do not do them, the system falls
through.
Well, we could talk about this forever, but I know one
thing. With regard to juvenile crime, it is State and local.
That is where the rubber meets the road. If we are going to
fight juvenile crime, we need to strengthen the local systems.
It would be stupid, poor management, and very bad philosophy
for the United States Federal Government to try to take over
the prosecution of juvenile crime. We do not have juvenile
centers. We do not have juvenile probation officers. We do not
have juvenile prosecutors. You have all of those things. We do
not have juvenile judges. And if we can figure out a way to
assist the States and encourage them to follow intensive
supervision, lock people up who are violent and dangerous,
those who you take a chance on, monitor them closely, I think
that would be helpful. We need to look at this witness
intimidation, and we will be looking to see and make sure that
the monies can be available to be used maybe in these joint
operations, at least, to protect witnesses.
Do any of you have anything else to share before we
adjourn?
Mr. Jordan. Senator, I would just say that I do not think
Louisiana is unique in the sense that we have a problem with
providing the kind of supervision that is required in order to
make certain that people do not become recidivist. I think this
is a national problem, and that is the way, I think, to ensure
that you have people who are held accountable, because everyone
cannot be locked up. But there are a number of people who
should be very carefully supervised during the time that they
are out on the streets so that we can make sure that they are
not getting into trouble again and not getting other people
into trouble as well.
So I think that the Federal Government really has an
interest in helping local law enforcement authorities to deal
with this problem. The U.S. Attorney should not be prosecuting
juveniles, but certainly local prosecutors and local law
enforcement authorities need a lot more resources if they are
to effectively address this problem.
Senator Sessions. Well said. I think there is a principle
that the Federal Government does not need to become an
essential funder of State criminal justice systems. But our
national centers should be the center for research and
assistance to local people. We can set up some grant programs
to help energize new systems for States and help them make
decisions, to leap forward and change the way they do business.
And I certainly support that.
I also was impressed, Mr. Jordan, with Mr. Connick's ideas
about drug testing in schools. I do not know how far he got
there in Louisiana with that for school kids. But this country
eliminated drugs in the military through drug testing, and I
believe we could make dramatic progress in that, and we would
identify early kids that are heading for trouble. Mom and Daddy
would know that maybe some of their misbehavior was tied to
drug use.
Mr. Jordan. I think that drug testing has to be part of a
comprehensive program. Testing alone would not be sufficient to
deter young people from getting involved with drugs.
Senator Sessions. Well, I have a little different view of
it. I do not think you need to arrest them, charge them, or
even necessarily kick them out of school. But I think if a
school says no drugs in our school and a child tests positive
for drugs and Mother and Daddy are called and there is a little
conference here, and if they need to go to counseling and be
put on even more strict testing, I think the drug courts have
shown that kind of monitoring does--can change behavior.
But, anyway, we could talk about that one forever. It is
just one of my insights that I have had, and Mr. Connick came
and saw me one time, and he was a big promoter of it.
Thank you so much for your excellent testimony. I value it
greatly. It will be a part of the record. And I know that this
Committee will move forward to try to do what we can to deal
with the problem of gangs shortly.
Thank you. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Other related material being retained in Committee files.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3250.089