UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16613 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE INDEPENDENCE MALL PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106 CHAMBERS OF CHIEF JUDGE PETRESE B. TUCKER (267) 299-7610 Fax (267) 299-5072 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 5, 2016 Honorable Kathleen Cardone United States District Court Albert Armendariz, Sr. United States Courthouse 525 Magoffin Avenue, Room 561 El Paso, TX 79901 RE: Presentation to the judicial Conference of the United States Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Criminal justice Act Program Your Honor: Enclosed herewith please find the submission on behalf of the judges of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thank you for the invitation to make a presentation before the committee. I look forward to meeting you on Monday, April 11, 2016. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me or Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of court. We look forward to your visit. Kind personal regards. Sincerely, Petrese B. Tucker Chief Judge PBT/slr Encl. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER, CHIEF JUDGE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUBMISSION TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER, CHIEF JUDGE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DISCUSSION AND ATTACHMENTS The responsibility for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of representation has historically rested in the federal judiciary. Before the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act in 1964, however, there was no authority to compensate appointed counsel for their services or litigation expenses, and federal judges depended on the professional obligation of lawyers to provide pro bono publico representation to defendants unable to retain counsel. In 1964, Robert F. Kennedy, then serving as the Attorney General of the United States was a strong and influential supporter of the right to adequate legal defense for all Americans. The Criminal Justice Act of 1964 is considered one of the most important pieces of legislation to come out of Kennedy’s tenure as Attorney General. The CJA was enacted to establish a comprehensive system for appointing and compensating lawyers to represent defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings and for authorizing reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and payment of expert and investigative services necessary for an adequate defense. While it provided for some compensation for appointed counsel (CJA panel attorneys), it did so at rates substantially below that which they would receive from their privately-retained clients. In 1970, the CJA was amended to authorize districts to establish federal defender organizations as counterparts to federal prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys Offices and an institutional resource for providing defense counsel in those districts (or combinations of adjacent districts) where at least 200 persons annually require appointment of counsel. The Committee to Review the Criminal Justice Act Program is now charged with conducting its first comprehensive and impartial review of the CJA program in over 23 years. Judge Edward C. Prado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, who chaired the previous study of the CJA, issuing the seminal “Prado Report,” has been appointed chair emeritus of the current Committee. The Committee has been tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of current policies and governance structures and their impact on the appointment and compensation of counsel, quality of legal representation, program administration, and adequacy of funding. Attached are several statistical charts which testify to the Eastern District’s status as one of the largest federal district courts in the nation’s judiciary, with an equally large and diverse caseload. These attachments include a Judicial Caseload Profile for the year ending September 30, 2015, showing total civil and criminal filings and terminations; total filings per judgeship; weighted filings per judgeship; civil filings per judgeship; criminal felony filings per judgeship; and supervised release hearings per judgeship. Also attached are the indictment numbers for the last five years, as provided by the Eastern District’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, including the number of indictments for white collar crimes; violent/narcotic crimes; immigration violations; and, child pornography and human trafficking violations. In a modern federal trial court in a large metropolitan area, civil and criminal caseloads impact each other so closely that they may be thought of as two sides of the same coin, and on both sides, the Eastern District carries a heavy and complex burden. During the four-year period ending September 30, 2014, a total number of 1,294 trials took place in our court (681 civil and 613 criminal), making us one of the busiest trial courts in the federal system. More than 25% of the court’s civil caseload is comprised of personal injury litigation, including MDL litigation, in which jurisdiction is based on diversity; the court also handles a large number of non-criminal civil rights cases. During Fiscal Year 2015, our court had 123 percent more civil cases filed than the Circuit average, and 233 percent more civil cases filed than the system-wide average. Over the recent course of the court’s history, we have handled over sixty Multidistrict Litigation cases, involving over 200,000 plaintiffs. These cases involved such topics as asbestos-related personal injury litigation; the orthopedic bone screw litigation; the “Fen-phen” diet drug litigation; breast implant litigation; and litigation arising from repetitive concussions suffered by professional football players. (Attached is an informative Widener University law review article written by Judge Eduardo C. Robreno on the MDL 875 asbestos litigation cases.) These cases have stretched the court’s judicial resources; but with hard work by our judges and magistrate judges, supported by the Office of the Clerk of Court, Probation Office and Pretrial Services Office, the court was able to carry this heavy burden. During fiscal year 2015, the Eastern District’s United States Attorney’s Office filed criminal matters against 695 defendants, representing 71% more filings then the Circuit average. During the same fiscal year, the Eastern District had a greater number of filings than the Circuit average in eleven of twelve defined criminal categories, and in the remaining category, filings equaled the Circuit average. Compared with the Circuit average, the Eastern District had more than twice the number of criminal fraud cases, more than twice the number of cases involving sex offenses and more than twice the number of forgery and counterfeiting cases. During the five-year period ending December 31, 2015, grand juries in the Eastern District issued 3,386 indictments, the overwhelming majority of which involved such highly complex areas as white-collar crimes (1,365 indictments issued) and cases involving narcotics or violent enterprises (1,621 indictments issued). In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, court-appointed counsel play an important role in death penalty cases and the crimes that lead to the imposition of such a penalty. In the recent past, the government sought death penalties for Kaboni Savage, Maurice Phillips and Linda Weston. The government dropped its death penalty charge for Weston when she agreed to a guilty plea, and in the matter of Tyrone Tidwell, the government sought death but then reduced the requested sentence to life imprisonment. In a complex case in which the lead defendant was Carlos Llera-Plaza, et al., 98-cr-362, two defendants pled guilty mid- trial and got life sentences; a third defendant pled guilty to life imprisonment after a mistrial was declared. In U.S. v. Jamain Williams, et al., 01-cr-512, two defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment after the jury was hung in the death penalty phase; the request for a death penalty for a third defendant, the government withdrew its request for the death penalty after the verdict, due to his mental condition. During the five-year period ending December 31, 2015, the government secured 1,365 convictions in cases involving so-called “White-Collar” crimes; 1,621 convictions for violent crimes involving narcotics, and 333 immigration convictions. As the most recent federal budget sequestration demonstrated, the continuing and unimpeded operation of our Federal Public Defenders Office is dependent on adequate and uninterrupted funding. Thus, the Committee’s review will cover such areas as the appointment, compensation, and management of panel attorneys and investigators, experts, and other service providers; the adequacy of compensation for legal services provided under the CJA, including maximum amounts of compensation and parity of resources in relation to the prosecution; and, the adequacy and fairness of the billing, voucher review, and approval processes relating to compensation for legal and expert services provided under the CJA. Attached is the Committee’s more detailed Scope of CJA Review, which includes other issues consistent with Judge Prado’s 1993 review. As Judge Prado concluded