Carol A. DiBattiste was named director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys in 1994. She was previously principal deputy general counsel for the Department of the Navy, and from 1992-93, director of the Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
A: In a way, my office is similar to the combined roles of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Judicial Conference. We provide the administrative and budget support to operate the 94 United States attorneys' offices, provide extensive legal training to assistant United States attorneys and support staff, and support the operation of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee (AGAC), which is a select group of United States attorneys, who represent the U.S. attorneys on policy to the Department and the Attorney General.
Coordination is accomplished primarily through the United States Attorneys' Manual, our compendium of regulations and policies, various publications such as the United States Attorneys' Bulletin and a daily electronic newsletter on significant cases called OVERNITE, as well as other daily electronic mail and memoranda. Between my staff and I, we are also in telephone contact with almost every district several times a week, relaying or gathering information. Finally, the AGAC meets monthly with the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General to discuss policy issues and has more than 20 subcommittees and working groups, which include many of the other U.S. attorneys.
A: On a national level, I think we are finding new ways to cooperate and work together. Last year, I was asked to appear with the Judiciary's representatives when they testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on their budget. The chair of the subcommittee urged that we work together on issues from video teleconferencing to courthouse space utilization. We have pledged to do that. Recently, for example, my staff has been working with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Administrative Office, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission on a common statement explaining the differences in our statistical records and reconciling these differences.
On the local level, when our evaluation teams visit each district, as they do every two to three years, the evaluators contact and interview judges and magistrate judges, asking for their views and experiences in dealing with the United States attorney's office. Generally, those interviews have shown a very good working relationship between our offices and the courts.
A: The views of United States attorneys vary on this question. Here are four perspectives of United States attorneys from large, medium and small districts:
"The so-called 'federalization' of state crimes has been driven by our nationwide violent crime crisis. . . Thoughtful legislation has enhanced penalties for drug-related violence and has generally provided federal law enforcement, and particularly prosecutors, with tools necessary to compliment the efforts of state and local police and prosecutors."
Zachary W. Carter (E.D. N.Y.)
"Federalization without sufficient resources is counterproductive. . . Because [the resources of local governments] are strained and unevenly applied, the federal government has become increasingly the court of last resort for addressing these problems. While the federal govern-ment's involvement in these areas may be debatable, all should agree that it is illogical to assume the federal government is going to do a better job with less resources."
Veronica F. Coleman (W.D. Tenn.)
"The federalization of traditionally state crimes has created more options for prosecutors and law enforcement and has forced us to work more closely with the state and local law enforcement authorities. We have to work together to decide in which court the prosecution should proceed. However, while I as a prosecutor like having these added options, there is an increased burden upon the federal law enforcement agencies that have to investigate the new federalized crimes."
Redding Pitt (M.D. Ala.)
"Although federalization has increased the workload of federal prosecutors and investigators, targeting major violent criminals in federal court has had a measurable impact, particularly on recidivists. Federal interest has to be carefully weighed by the prosecutors in individual cases."
Katrina C. Pflaumer (W.D. Wash.)
A: United States attorneys, as the chief law enforcement officers in their districts, have always been involved in crime control efforts. They must work closely with federal, state, and local law enforcement investigative agencies to assess and address the crime problem in each of their districts, whether it is youth or gang violence, church burnings, drug trafficking, or another crime problem.
The United States attorneys are presently involved in several crime control initiatives. In March 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno and Vice President Gore announced the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (AVCI). The AVCI calls for U.S. attorneys to forge partnerships with state and local law enforcement and develop strategies to address the problem of violent crime. In May 1996, the Attorney General announced the Youth Crime Initiative, another facet in the AVCI, aimed at preventing, investigating, and prosecuting crime committed by juveniles.
Most recently, in response to the dramatic increase in the number of fires at houses of worship, the Attorney General established a national task force to coordinate the investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for the destruction of these houses of worship. Representatives of the United States attorneys are on this task force. In addition, the Attorney General has asked United States attorneys to form local task forces.
A: The sentencing guidelines have enabled federal prosecutors to have a clearer picture of how certain conduct will be punished by the court. Before the guidelines became effective in 1987, there was much more uncertainty about what sentence would be imposed. The expected sentence may be one factor among many that United States attorneys consider when deciding which cases to dedicate limited resources to investigating and prosecuting.
The guidelines have created a whole new area of practice for prosecutors. Before the guidelines, prosecutors were much less involved in the sentencing of a defendant, and there were many fewer appeals of sentencing issues. Now, prosecutors must be sure they are using the correct version of the guidelines, which is not always a simple task in view of all the amendments to the guidelines, and they must be cognizant about the retroactivity of guideline amendments. They also must be knowledgeable on the law interpreting the guidelines, and be prepared to spend considerable time in sentencing hearings and on appellate work related to sentencing issues. While it is very important work, it does reduce the amount of time to investigate and prosecute other cases.
A: The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act certainly makes it more difficult for prisoners to file multiple frivolous complaints in federal district court. The act requires that the prisoners pursue an administrative claim before a complaint can be filed in district court. Further, prisoners will be responsible for filing fees and subject to sanctions for frequent and frivolous claims. These provisions should slow to some extent the amount of prisoner litigation being filed in federal district court. Just how great an impact this will have on filings remains to be seen.
A: The habeas corpus amendments will have the greatest impact on challenging state convictions. With regard to federal matters, the amendments serve to prevent prisoner petitions from being filed years after the defendant is convicted. The amendments provide that prisoners must file any petitions challenging convictions or conditions of confinement within one year after all regular appeals are exhausted. While there should be only a modest effect on the number of filings, they will come in a more concentrated time frame. Any rise in the number of cases filed within a given year to meet the deadline will be more than offset by the reduction in the total caseload as a result of the one-year time limit.
A: Just as the courts have done, the U.S. attorneys have had to sharpen their management skills and look for innovative ways to do things. We have also had to focus our priorities. We have continued our longstanding commitments to battle drugs and violent crime most recently through Attorney General Reno's AVCI. We have tried to concentrate our efforts on the more complex problems of going after distribution organizations and violent gangs. Large fraud cases remain of concern in such areas as telemarketing and health care. But new challenges continually occur, such as the recent church arsons, and we are challenged to enforce interstate efforts to protect spouses from violence. More challenges loom in the future when we look at the demographics of rising serious violence among our juveniles.
We were concerned during last year's appropriation crises that civil be given proper funding to avoid any slowdown, but I do not believe there is any effort to favor criminal work at the expense of our civil efforts. Defense of the public treasury and enforcement of programs and administrative efforts is vital to the country. We have experienced positive growth in our collections area and our affirmative civil enforcement efforts. We are also looking to relieve the burden on the courts through cooperating in developing, such areas as alternate dispute resolution.