[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF FREDERICA A. MASSIAH-JACKSON, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE U.S. 
        DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the nomination.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments on the 
nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson to the Federal District 
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

  Recent resistance to her nomination has moved beyond individual 
opponents to wide-spread, bipartisan opposition. We've heard about 
opposition from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.
  Additional opposition comes from a Philadelphia lodge of the 
Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, 
National Legislative Program. The F.O.P. has written letters to the 
Senate and the President voicing their concerns over the safety and 
welfare of the Philadelphia police force if Judge Massiah-Jackson is 
confirmed. They fear her established record of being extremely lenient 
on criminals and her insensitivity to victims of crime will ``pose a 
direct threat'' against police. Also, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, which represents more than 4,000 police unions 
and associations and over 220,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 
opposes the confirmation of Judge Massiah-Jackson.
  If this isn't a strong indication of the problems this nominee's 
confirmation would cause, I don't know what is.
  The Northampton County District Attorney has also written a letter to 
the Senate detailing twelve separate instances illustrating the 
improper conduct of Judge Massiah-Jackson. The facts on which the 
letter is based were compiled from internal memorandums, court 
transcripts and other documents from the office of the Philadelphia 
District Attorney's Office. The most egregious example disclosed by the 
letter was a 1988 acquittal of a man charged with possession of two and 
a half pounds of cocaine. The acquittal was the second by Judge 
Massiah-Jackson of alleged drug dealers arrested by the same police 
officers. In open court she told these arresting officers, who were 
working undercover, to turn around and told the drug dealers and other 
spectators to ``take a good look at the undercover officers and watch 
yourselves.'' The incident was reported in a Philadelphia newspaper 
and, as has been mentioned, the Judiciary Committee has also received 
the signed statements of Detective Sergeant Daniel Rodriguez and 
Detective Terrance Jones, the officers involved. This conduct not only 
significantly reduced the crime fighting effectiveness of the officers, 
but more importantly, they believed it put their lives in serious 
peril. This is not the type of conduct expected from a Judge, nor can 
it be tolerated.
  In addition to this letter, the members of the Judiciary Committee 
also received a letter from Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne 
Abraham, who stands in opposition to this nomination. The opinion of 
Mrs. Abraham, who by the way is a Democrat, is particularly relevant 
since she campaigned with and served on the bench at the same time as 
Judge Massiah-Jackson. Mrs. Abraham concludes that, ``the nominee's 
record presents multiple instances of a deeply ingrained and pervasive 
bias against prosecutors and law enforcement officers and, by 
extension, an insensitivity to victims of crime. Moreover, the 
nominee's judicial demeanor and courtroom conduct, in my judgment, 
undermines respect for the rule of law and, instead, tends to bring the 
law into disrepute.'' She further notes that, ``this nominee's judicial 
service is replete with instances of demonstrated leniency towards 
criminals, an adversarial attitude towards police, and disrespect and a 
hostile attitude towards prosecutors unmatched by any other present or 
former jurist with whom I am familiar.''
  These are not the biased opinions of racist or sexist opponents, as 
some have irresponsibly charged. They are the informed opinions of 
respected district attorneys and law enforcement officers with personal 
knowledge of the nominee. In fact, District Attorney Abraham has 
publicly said she ``firmly believes the next appointee to the U.S. 
District Court here should be an African-American woman. But that 
appointee should be one of the many eminently well-qualified African-
American women lawyers in the area, and not Massiah-Jackson.''
  Despite these fact-based opinions, supporters of the nominee have 
repeatedly insisted that she should not be judged on a few cases, and 
that her overall record can be characterized as fair to law enforcement 
and crime victims. They also point out that sentencing statistics show 
she is right in line with other judges. I must say these arguments are 
misleading, as demonstrated by the statistics provided to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  In reality, Judge Massiah-Jackson deviated from state sentencing 
guidelines, in favor of criminals, more than twice as often as other 
judges according to statistics compiled by the Pennsylvania Commission 
on Sentencing. From 1985 till 1991, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced 
below the Pennsylvania guidelines 27.5 percent of the time. Other 
Pennsylvania judges sentenced below the guidelines in only 12.2 percent 
of the cases. This record cannot be characterized as fair to victims or 
law enforcement, and is not in line with other judges. We've also heard 
the argument that district attorneys regularly disagree with judges. 
Well, Mr. President, in the seventeen years I've been voting on 
judicial nominees, I don't ever recall such local, public opposition as 
we've seen in this case. This is truly unprecedented.
  We in the Senate can no longer overlook and excuse a record that is 
clearly against the interests of law enforcement personnel and victims 
of crime, or professional conduct which is below the dignity of a 
judge. No person, of any race or any gender, should be able to serve on 
the federal bench if she or he demonstrates a bias against police and 
prosecutors, is soft on crime and shows a lack of proper judicial 
temperament. For these reasons, I will oppose the confirmation of this 
nominee and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from North Dakota.

                          ____________________