US attorney defends gun, drug cases
US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan vowed yesterday to continue to make gun and drug cases a top priority for his office, insisting that such prosecutions have helped reduce violence in Boston and other cities.
Sullivan lashed back at a federal judge who publicly criticized his office last week for spending too much time on low-level drug and gun cases that belonged in state court, instead of focusing on federal crimes such as public corruption and white-collar offenses that he said would have a greater impact on society.
"I can't think of a more important use of federal resources than combining state and local and our efforts to reduce gun violence," said Sullivan, crediting the US Justice Department's Project Safe Neighborhoods with removing gun-toting criminals from crime-plagued communities. Gun charges brought in federal court, rather than state court, tend to carry much longer mandatory prison terms.
"This program, virtually more than anything else we do, I know saves lives," said Sullivan. "If I have a choice between saving a life and looking at some corrupt planning board member, I would save lives."
Sullivan said the office's highest priority is terrorism, followed by corporate fraud and violent crime, including drug and gun cases, and public corruption.
Sullivan, who was appointed in the fall of 2001, said his office has prosecuted more than twice as many people on gun charges in 2002 and 2003 than in the previous two years.
According to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the US Courts, Sullivan's office brought weapons charges against 182 defendants between October 2001 and September 2003, compared to 86 defendants the prior two years.
While Sullivan was unable to say how many gun cases his office has taken on referral from Boston police, he said the federal gun prosecutions have played a role in reducing Boston's homicide rate by 35 percent last year.
During an interview with reporters last week, US District Judge Mark L. Wolf said US District Court in Boston has been flooded with gun and drug cases developed by state and local police "at the expense of important federal cases that it would take a lot of hard work to develop."
Wolf cited several drug cases that involved defendants who were drug users, or low-level members of a ring, who could not afford an attorney. He questioned whether prosecutors were following the money trail to target major drug traffickers and suppliers.
Wolf, a former federal prosecutor who served as deputy US attorney and chief of the public corruption unit from 1981 to 1985, said his comments were not directed solely at Sullivan, but reflected a national concern among the judiciary about the types of cases being brought in federal courts.
Sullivan said yesterday he viewed Wolf's remarks as a "personal" attack, which undermined the morale of prosecutors in his office.
"I think there's no question he shows a great deal of hostility and anger toward this office," said Sullivan. "When you hear a judge so openly criticize the types of cases you're bringing, knowing some [of] those cases are going to be heard in his courtroom gives me pause as to whether he has the ability to sit there and evaluate the government's position in a very objective, unbiased way."
Sullivan said Wolf's remarks were "entirely inappropriate" and wrong, then went on to cite a list of drug prosecutions brought by his office that involved major drug rings, some with international and national networks and others that terrorized city neighborhoods. He said his office seized $7.5 million in drug assets last year; and more than $9 million the year before -- both figures representing a signficant increase over the previous five years.
Wolf would not respond yesterday to Sullivan's criticism, but said his remarks were entirely proper, noting: "The code of conduct for federal judges expressly says judges may speak concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice."
He said he was speaking about the same concerns raised by a growing chorus of judges around the country, including US Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Last month, Rehnquist criticized Congress for passing the Feeney Amendment, which requires the US Sentencing Commission to keep records of judges who depart from federal sentencing guidelines to give defendants a lower sentence. He said it could intimidate individual judges who may face questioning by Congress about the performance of their judicial duties. Wolf's comments last week began with a discussion about the Feeney Amendment and how judges feel that they are being forced to mete out harsh sentences in cases that belong in state court, where defendants would likely face less severe penalties.
Yesterday, he said: "We have less and less discretion. The responsibility is falling on the prosecutors to bring cases that an informed public will believe deserve the long sentences that judges who follow the law will be required to impose."
