[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2744-S2745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMEMBERING ANTHONY LEWIS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Today I would like to pay tribute to
Anthony Lewis who passed away on March 25. As a reporter covering the
Supreme Court and through his books, including ``Gideon's Trumpet,''
Mr. Lewis shaped the way millions of Americans understand the role of
the judiciary in safeguarding our democracy. He was truly an iconic
figure in American journalism and he will be greatly missed.
Reading Anthony Lewis changed the way so many of us thought about
justice in this country. He brought legal decisions to life and made
clear the impact the law has on our lives. He made us aware of the
humanity behind the technical legal arguments. Nowhere did he do this
better than in ``Gideon's
[[Page S2745]]
Trumpet,'' his 1964 book about the Supreme Court decision in Gideon v.
Wainwright. That landmark case affirmed a fundamental principle of our
democratic society: that no person, regardless of economic status,
should face prosecution without the assistance of a lawyer.
I have spoken countless times over the years about the importance of
that decision. And each time, whether it was here on the floor of the
Senate, in the Judiciary Committee questioning nominees to the Supreme
Court, or in conversations with young law students, I have thought
about ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and the powerful impact that book had on me.
In fact, on the 50th anniversary of the Gideon decision, which was
just days before Mr. Lewis's death, I introduced the Gideon's Promise
Act, a bill intended to breathe new life into that seminal case and
ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all
participants. Much of what I said about the anniversary of Gideon, and
the work that remains, finds its roots in my days as a young attorney
when I read ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and was moved both by the unfairness
it revealed of a system that allowed poor people to be jailed without a
lawyer, and the powerful equalizing impact a courageous Supreme Court
can have when it is willing to stand up for those who are marginalized.
When I was a young law student, my wife and I had an opportunity to
have lunch with Justice Hugo Black shortly after he wrote the majority
decision in that case. It was a powerful experience. He recognized that
the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to counsel in a criminal case was
fundamental to a fair trial. He called it an obvious truth. And I know
from my days as a prosecutor how right he was.
Now, as we pause to remember Anthony Lewis and his contributions to
our understanding of the right to counsel and so many other fundamental
principles of American democracy, it is also fitting that we
acknowledge that the promise made in Gideon remains unfulfilled. In too
many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and
innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who have
little often find their lives placed in the hands of woefully
overburdened public defenders or underpaid court-appointed lawyers who
are inexperienced, overworked, inept, uninterested, or worse.
And now our Federal public defender system, long held out as the gold
standard of indigent defense, is being hobbled by sequestration. In New
York, the Federal Defenders Office is being forced to furlough each of
its 30 lawyers for 5\1/2\ weeks by the end of September, resulting in
delays in even the most significant terrorism cases. Chief Judge
Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York called these cuts
``devastating.'' The head of the Federal Defenders Office stated: ``On
a good day, we're stretched thin. . . . Sequestration takes us well
beyond the breaking point. You simply can't sequester the Sixth
Amendment.'' He is right.
I am hardly alone in my concern over this fundamental American right.
Last month, four leading advocates for fairness in the criminal justice
system, including former Vice President Walter Mondale, sent a letter
to President Obama urging him to create a bipartisan commission on the
fair administration of justice for the indigent accused. I applaud
their efforts and I believe Anthony Lewis would have too.
Through his reporting on the Supreme Court and our Nation's civil
rights challenges, Anthony Lewis opened the eyes of millions of
Americans to the power of law and judges to change lives. He helped
shape my thinking as a young lawyer, and I hope his work will continue
to be an inspiration for the generations to come. Our democracy will be
stronger for it.
I ask that a copy of an article dated April 8 be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Apr. 8, 2013]
Citing Cuts, Lawyers Seek Relief in Terrorism Case
(By Benjamin Weiser)
Federal public defenders who are representing a son-in-law
of Osama bin Laden on terrorism charges urged a judge on
Monday not to hold an early trial because automatic
government budget cuts were requiring furloughs of lawyers in
their office.
The request, which seemed to take the judge, Lewis A.
Kaplan, by surprise, follows requests that five or six
federal judges in Manhattan have received from public
defenders to be relieved from cases in the wake of the
automatic cuts, known as sequestration, said Loretta A.
Preska, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in
Manhattan.
``It's devastating,'' Judge Preska said late Monday. She
praised the work of the federal defenders and said their
replacement in cases with publicly paid court-appointed
lawyers would probably lead to delays and higher costs.
Judge Kaplan said in court on Monday that he was
considering holding the trial of bin Laden's son-in-law,
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith--a onetime Al Qaeda spokesman charged
with conspiring to kill Americans--in September. After the
defense requested a later date, he said: ``It's extremely
troublesome to contemplate the possibility of a case of this
nature being delayed because of sequestration. Let me say
only that--stunning.''
The judge did not set a trial date, saying he would
consider the request, but the exchange shows how the forced
budget cuts are beginning to have an effect on the
administration of justice in federal courts in New York.
About 30 trial lawyers with the federal defenders office
handle around 2,000 criminal cases a year in federal courts
in Manhattan, Brooklyn and other locations, according to
David E. Patton, who heads the office.
The forced cuts, he said, will mean each lawyer in the
office will be furloughed for five and a half weeks through
the end of September, when the fiscal year ends.
``On a good day, we're stretched thin,'' Mr. Patton said.
``Sequestration takes us well beyond the breaking point. You
simply can't sequester the Sixth Amendment.''
``Investigations have to be conducted,'' Mr. Patton added.
``Evidence must be reviewed. Law must be researched. Those
things don't just happen by themselves.''
In seeking the delay, lawyers for Mr. Abu Ghaith, who was
arraigned in March, cited the need for overseas
investigation, the translation of voluminous materials and
other issues. ``We would urge the court to find a later
date,'' one lawyer, Martin Cohen, said.
Judge Preska said that lawyers had been allowed to leave
one of the cases in which the furlough problem had been
cited; the issue is pending in the others.
Newly appointed lawyers would have to ``get up to speed''
on their cases, and because they are paid by the hour
(federal defenders are salaried), the public would probably
end up paying more, Judge Preska said. ``There's no
resolution,'' she said. ``Time is of the essence, and we're
very, very concerned.''
____________________