[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 60 (Monday, May 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4251-S4252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF PAUL CASSELL

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will speak in morning business but really 
on the subject of our 6 o'clock vote, the nomination of Paul Cassell to 
be judge for the district court serving the State of Utah.
  I am not from Utah, obviously. And you might ask, what is an Arizona 
Senator doing speaking on behalf of a nominee from another State? The 
answer to that question is, I have gotten to know Paul Cassell, and I 
am a very big fan of Paul Cassell. I think he will do a superb job on 
the bench. I just want to take a couple minutes of my colleagues' time 
to explain why.
  It is not often we have the opportunity, as Senators, to vote for a 
nominee, who we really have gotten to know in our work in the Senate, 
to serve as a district judge in another State. But Paul Cassell has 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and has worked many 
hours with Senator Feinstein and myself and some other Senators in 
helping to craft the victims' rights constitutional amendment.

[[Page S4252]]

  You can have a view either for or against that amendment, but 
Professor Laurence Tribe from Harvard and Professor Paul Cassell from 
the University of Utah are the two legal professors, constitutional 
scholars, who have helped us most. They may represent different points 
on the political spectrum perhaps, but in terms of their legal 
scholarship and their ability to work together in helping us to craft 
this amendment, they have performed a magnificent service.
  Again, whatever one thinks of the particular amendment, you cannot 
deny that these two professors have contributed significantly to the 
work of the Senate and, therefore, to the American people as a result 
of their work.
  Let me just tell you a little bit about Professor Cassell first and 
then talk about his work on behalf of victims of crime. As I say, that 
is one of the primary reasons I am so supportive of him.
  As I said, he is a member of the facility at the University of Utah 
College of Law where he teaches criminal procedure and evidence and 
some other courses as well.
  He has published over 25 Law Review articles, as well as major op-eds 
and various periodicals.
  Before entering academia, Professor Cassell served as an assistant 
U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia and as Associate 
Deputy Attorney General at our Department of Justice.
  He clerked for then-Judge Antonin Scalia in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit and then for Chief Justice Warren Burger of the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  Those of us familiar with these facts know if you are able to clerk 
for both a member of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and then for the 
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, you are a law student graduate 
with something on the ball. Certainly, Professor Cassell fits that 
category.
  He received his J.D. in 1984 from Stanford University, where he was 
Order of the Coif and president of the Stanford Law Review.
  So his academic credentials and his postacademic career have been 
outstanding.
  He tried a number of cases when he was assistant U.S. attorney. As a 
matter of fact, he prosecuted 17 felony jury trials, and some of them 
were very famous cases. I will let others talk about those cases. But 
one of the most interesting things to me that Professor Cassell did--
purely without pay; as a volunteer--was to represent the victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing case.

  You may ask, why did the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing case 
need representation? You can imagine, having as many victims as there 
were in that case--people who were either injured in the bombing or the 
families of people who were killed, all wanting to be involved or 
participate in some way in that case, including even just the ability 
to be in the courtroom--it was a major battle.
  As a matter of fact, the judge in that case--not once but twice--
ruled that the families of the victims did not have a right to be in 
the courtroom during the trial. This was not because there were so many 
people that they could not all fit into the courtroom, although that 
was another issue, but the reason the court ruled that way was that the 
defense had argued it would be prejudicial to the defense, to the 
defendants, if the victims or their families were actually in the 
courtroom during the trial. Never mind that a judge always has the 
ability to say: Everybody will be motionless, will show no emotion, 
will behave themselves; and if they do not, then I will toss them out 
of the courtroom. That was not good enough in this case.
  We in Congress passed a law saying: You have to let the people who 
were victims of the Oklahoma City bombing case sit in the courtroom. 
The case went back to the judge, and again the judge said no. One of 
the reasons he said no had to do with the reason for the victims' 
rights constitutional amendment, which I will not go into now, but 
basically he said the defendants' rights are in the U.S. Constitution, 
and the mere statute of Congress cannot override that. So these victims 
are going to have to have special rights. They are going to have to be 
in the Constitution. That is another argument, as I said.
  But Paul Cassell, out of the goodness of his heart, represented all 
the victims in that case. I think the victims I have talked to would 
tell you, to a person, they were extraordinarily indebted to Paul 
Cassell for his service to them in that case.
  There is much more I could say about this individual. Paul Cassell is 
a decent person who believes very strongly in the rights of both 
defendants and victims in the courtroom. He has served as a prosecutor 
for the United States of America and, therefore, has represented our 
Government in many cases against some truly bad felons. He has 
experience on the criminal side and on the civil side and has 
experience as a law professor, teaching not only constitutional law but 
evidence. That makes him uniquely qualified to go from where he is now 
to the bench.
  It is not often that we find people who have this wide array of 
experience willing to serve on the Federal district court. It is much 
too easy in today's world for lawyers to make good money in the 
practice of law. But it is obvious that Paul Cassell has never been 
interested in just making money. He has wanted to serve, first, the 
people of the United States of America as an assistant U.S. attorney 
and then through his professorship to serve victims of crime and others 
on a purely pro bono basis.
  We have a unique person who not only is extraordinarily well 
qualified from his academic experience and the breadth of his practice 
experience but who also has demonstrated a desire to serve the people. 
For a person as young to have that kind of commitment and to be willing 
to go on the Federal district court is unique and certainly should 
cause us to vote for his confirmation.
  I know him personally. We couldn't do better than to confirm Paul 
Cassell to serve on the Federal district court in the State of Utah. I 
commend my colleagues to support his confirmation when we vote in a 
little over an hour.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________