CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, Esquire, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAIL AGENCY, Minority Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GEKAS: I very much appreciated the time you gave me to discuss the relative merits of Title II of S. 754 now being considered by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. As you will recall from that conversation I feel that it is of vital importance to the successful implementation of any pretrial services bill that careful consideration be given to the method and agency by which the implementation will occur. At the outset, let me say that my background is as a staff member of one of the first bail programs, three years in the Public Defender's Office working with the development of pretrial release procedures in the District of Columbia and finally as Director of the Bail Agency which has undergone such drastic change since its beginning in 1967. Turning then to consideration of the Bill I would offer some very general comments. I note that the Senate Bill establishes an independent Board of Trustees to supervise the daily operations of a pretrial services agency. I cannot support that method of structure enough. All too often in my capacity as the President of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies, I have seen fledging bail and diversion projects which have smothered when placed under the aegis of traditional corrections oriented agencies. I think that one of the most vital concerns which leads to the "housing" of pretrial services agencies in Probation, Corrections, or other post-conviction agencies is a recognition that the service delivery needed in the pretrial area is virtually the same required after conviction. Because of this similarity of services it is only logical to assume that the agencies which already oversee such programs are the logical choice to provide those services pretrial. I would point out however, that there is a very significant legal difference between a citizen who is only charged with a crime and is as yet unconvicted and an offender who has been convicted or pled guilty. In the latter instances the psychology of dealing with a person who has acknowledged guilt in determining the most appropriate rehabilitational program is substantially different from the considerations which must motivate the proper services delivery to troubled, charged, accused persons who may have their cases dismissed or be found not guilty of the offenses with which they are charged. While no one can deny that the services required by the anti-social behavior of a criminal are the same whether a person has merely been arrested, convicted, or sentenced and reentering the community the manner of delivery of those services is virtually different. It is my view that a good administrator of any program should have as his main concern the use of the resources of the community for both pretrial and postconviction offenders. In areas where these services exist, such as the District of Columbia, three huge layers of bureaucracy need not exist. A person in need of addiction assistance should receive the same assistance whether he be a citizen, a charged felon, a convicted misdemeanant, a sentenced prisoner, or a conditionally released correctional prisoner. I cannot overemphasize that the difference between presumption of innocence and the assumption of guilt is one which requires the daily attention of persons who are trained in preserving the necessary civil rights which have not as yet been forfeited. It is for this reason that I heartily endorse the independent nature of the agency explicit in the establishment of a Board of Trustees which cuts across the entire criminal justice system. I am also very much impressed with the Bill's reference to the confidentiality of information. Section 3154 (1) (B) recognizes the very pressing need to obtain information from defendants who may be found not guilty and still prohibit the dissemination of that information to the detriment of the fact-finding necessary for bail determination. It also recognizes the possibility that a pretrial services agency has within its potential scope the ability to develop and coordinate services and programs that will be available whether a person is convicted or not. In such cases that information obviously should be available to the social service agencies that must continue supervision or service delivery. As you are very much aware, there are bills pending in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to establish federal diversion programs in certain pilot districts. You are probably also aware that the Department of Justice is interested in supporting these kinds of programs and is encouraging United States Attorneys to implement such programs even in advance of legislation. I believe that combining a pretrial release screening service with the abilities to provide supportive services to persons released authorized in Section 3154 would be the most effective use of personnel. In conclusion may I say once again that the most effective implementation of the services spelled out in S. 754 would occur by placing those services within an independent agency. I would be happy to share with you any additional views and to provide the Committee with any additional information it should need. Yours truly, BRUCE D. BEAUDIN, Director. Mr. CONSTANTINE GEKAS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, SUPREME COURT BUILDING, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1974. Room B351C Rayburn House Office Building, DEAR MR. GEKAS: I write in response to your inquiry of September 19 concerning pretrial services furnished by the Federal Probation System. U.S. probation officers provide services to defendants awaiting trial in federal courts under the following circumstances: (1) Incident to a presentence investigation or plea bargaining investigation conducted prior to conviction; (2) In connection with an investigation to assist a U.S. attorney in determining whether the prosecution of a juvenile or other alleged offender should be diverted or deferred; (3) During deferred prosecution supervision of an offender; (4) Incident to investigation of an incarcerated offender to determine eligibility for release on bond or personal recognizance; (5) In connection with supervision of a person released on bond or personal recognizance under conditions requiring supervision by the probation officer. Presentence Investigations Prior to Conviction.—In a number of districts it is common practice for probation officers to complete presentence investigations on persons awaiting trial. This practice was the subject of a study in 1969 conducted by staff of the Georgetown Law Journal and financed by the Federal Judicial Center. I enclose a copy of the February 1970 article from the Journal which sets forth the findings of the study. This is the best description of pretrial services that are available to defendants and I commend it to you. In 1969 there were 25 districts that customarily followed this practice. The recent change in Rule 50b of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has certainly resulted in an additional number of districts adopting this practice to facilitate prompt disposition of criminal cases. Many districts also use the services of probation officers to advise the courts as to whether the ends of justice would be served by acceptance of a plea bargain. The key point is that during the course of any investigation probation officers may provide a broad range of counseling, job placement, and social services as the investigation uncovers the need. Diversion or Deferred Prosecution Investigations.-In fiscal year 1974 U.S. probation officers conducted 862 investigations to assist U.S. attorneys in determining whether the case of a juvenile or other alleged offender should be diverted for prosecution by local authorities or granted deferred prosecution with supervision by U.S. probation officers. As of the close of fiscal year 1974, there were under supervision by U.S. probation officers 1,063 persons who had been granted deferred prosecution by U.S. attorneys in lieu of trial. I enclose a copy of the February 7, 1974 testimony of William J. Campbell, Senior U.S. District Judge, in his appearance before the House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 3 on that date. Judge Campbell's testimony describes in detail the history and services provided under deferred prosecution. Bond and Own Recognizance Investigations.-There are no statistics available on the number of probation offices that conduct for the court investigations on the advisability of releasing incarcerated offenders from custody. Investigations are conducted by a large number of districts as needed. Bond and Own Recognizance Supervision. Similarly, there are no statistics available on the number of persons awaiting trial who have been released from custody on conditions requiring supervision by probation officers. This function is not now authorized by statute, but a number of districts do provide such services on request by the court. A brief survey of eight districts indicated that four do not provide such services and currently four supervise from six to 25 persons. I trust this information is useful to you. If I can be of any further assistance please call upon me. Sincerely, DONALD L. CHAMLEE, Assistant Chief of Probation. DISTRICTS WITH GRAND JURIES CONVENED 20 OR LESS DAYS IN A 6-MONTH PERIOD SUMMARY Thirty-four districts with 0 thru 10 days convened. Sixteen districts with 11 thru 20 days convened. Fifty districts with 20 or less days convened in the 6-month period from January thru June 1974. DISTRICTS WITH 2 OR LESS MONTHS OF GRAND JURY ACTIVITY FOR A 6-MO PERIOD-6-MO PERIOD JANUARY TO JUNE 1974 Sixteen districts, three of which do not have grand juries at this time. (Virgin Islands & Canal Zone have no grand jury system.) |