Other bills which, we believe, deserve the careful consideration of this subcommittee are S. 974, S. 975, and S. 976 introduced on February 7, 1969, by the honorable Senator Joseph Tydings. The first of these measures, S. 974, would elevate the organized crime and racketeering section of the Department of Justice to division level by creating the position of Assistant Attorney General for Organized Crime, S. 975, which would compel testimony in certain cases, and S. 976, which would provide increased sentences in certain cases where a felony is committed as part of a continuing criminal activity in concert with one or more other persons are also, in the association's view, deserving of this subcommittee's careful consideration. Mr. Chairman, this concludes the association's presentation with regard to legislative matters within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Before concluding my statement, however, I would like to address myself to one additional point, which we believe to be of exceptional importance in determining the success or failure of our war against organized crime. In large measure, the success of such a war depends upon the ability, training, and experience of those who undertake it. Accordingly, this association has been and continues to be vitally interested in upgrading the quality of the Federal investigator. One way we believe this can be done is by obtaining recognition of the Federal investigator as a professional within the structure of the U.S. Civil Service. Accordingly, we are now cooperating with the Civil Service Commission in an attempt to develop uniform standards for the hiring, training, supervision, and professional recognition of the investigators employed by the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government. In granting professional status and recognition to the Federal investigator, we would be paying a welldeserved tribute to the men and women who have dedicated their lives to this area of public service. By so doing we would also encourage the recruitment of the highly qualified individuals needed to enter this challenging occupation. Once again, on behalf of the Association of Federal Investigators, I would like to thank this distinguished subcommittee for permitting me to appear to testify today. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions, counsel ? Mr. BLAKEY. No. Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your support of this legislation and your comments regarding other measures now pending before this committee, some of which will be considered along with S. 30. Some of them may very well be added to this bill as additional items. Thank you very much. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.) MEASURES RELATING TO ORGANIZED CRIME WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1969 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator McClellan (presiding). Also present: G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel; Russell M. Coombs, Thomas M. Gunn, Emon A. Mahony, James C. Wood, assistant counsels, and Mrs. Mabel A. Downey, clerk. Senator MCCLELLAN. The subcommittee will come to order. Congressman Poff, we welcome you this morning, and we appreciate your interest, your cooperation, and your assistance in giving us your comments and recommendations on the pending legislation. I note that you have with you two associates. Would you identify them, please? Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, may I express my personal appreciation for the invitation which makes it possible for me to appear. Those knowledgeable in the field of criminal justice and law enforcement regard this subcommittee as one of the most important units in the process, and I think it would be altogether appropriate for me to pay proper tribute to the chairman and the members of this subcommittee. Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, you are very kind, and we appreciate it. Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman on my right is Prof. Robert Dixon, Jr., of George Washington University Law Center. Professor Dixon is a constitutional law scholar and teacher. He has written extensively on the subject of witness immunity and, most recently, has served as special consultant to the Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws. On my left is Mr. Richard A. Green, who is the Deputy Director of that Commission. He worked carefully and closely with Professor Dixon in the preparation of the report on immunity. Mr. Green is a former assistant U.S. attorney, a former defense lawyer and is now, and has been for a number of years, director of the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice. In his work at the Commission, he has superintended the staff effort under the guidance of the distinguished Director of that Commission, Louis B. Schwartz, who was unable to be here today and who has asked me to note his absence and to extend his apology to the distinguished subcommittee. Senator MCCLELLAN. I have a wire from Mr. Schwartz, and it will be printed in the record at this point. (The telegram referred to follows:) Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, PHILADELPHIA, PA., March 25, 1969. Regret continuing weakness from viral infection prevents my attending hearing on immunity bill. Fortunately Green and Dixon, our experts, will be on hand. LOUIS B. SCHWARTZ. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. POFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT G. DIXON, JR., GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER AND SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS; AND RICHARD A. GREEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REFORM OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS Mr. POFF. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am here today in my capacity as Vice Chairman of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, a Commission established by the Congress in November of 1966 to undertake a study of the Federal criminal laws and to recommend improvements. My purpose today is to present to you the Commission's recommendations regarding reform of the Federal witness immunity laws, the subject of an interim report of the Commission sent to the President and the Congress on March 17, 1969, and a matter presently being considered by this Commission. The Chairman of the Commission, former Governor Pat Brown, as I have indicated, is out of the country at the moment and has asked me to note his regret that he could not also be here for this purpose. He asked me to extend his apologies to the chairman. First, if I may, I would like to take note of the nature of our project. The Commission consists of 12 members: three persons appointed by the President, three Federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice, three Senators appointed by the President of the Senate, and three members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker. I feel privileged to be representing such a group, Mr. Chairman, a group which includes three distinguished members of this subcommittee its chairman, yourself, and Senators Ervin and Hruska: two of my colleagues from the House, Congressman Don Edwards of California and Congressman Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, Judge George Edwards of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Thomas MacBride of the northern district of California, Judge Leon Higginbotham of the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and two distinguished lawyers in private life, in addition to Governor Brown, Donald Scott Thomas of Austin, Tex., and Theodore Voorhees of Philadelphia. We also have an Advisory Committee of 15 selected experts, ranging from the police commissioner of a major city to scholars of constitutional law. The Chairman of the Advisory Committee is retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark. Our principal task at the moment is the drafting of a new substantive criminal code: defining and grading offenses, defining defenses, and setting forth a comprehensive sentencing structure. When we are finished, we expect to present to the Congress for its consideration, for the first time in its history, I might add parenthetically, an integrated, systematic, and unified criminal code. It will contain, for example, uniform definitions of culpability and other such explicit statements on matters heretofore left to haphazard determinations by the courts. It will also contain substantial improvements regarding problems relating to the invocation of Federal jurisdiction in criminal matters. Initial study and drafting are done for us by a staff of lawyers, directed by Prof. Louis B. Schwartz, augmented from time to time by special consultants hired on a contract basis, of which Professor Dixon is a conspicuous example. The drafts are discussed and refined at joint meetings of the Commission and the Advisory Committee, with the advice of representatives of the major Federal law enforcemnt offices. Since our proposed code will be unified, integrated, and systematic, one reform cannot usually be presented without presentation of others. We are therefore planning-perhaps late this spring-to publish a tentative staff study draft of a nearly complete code and circulate it for scholarly criticism. We were prompted to move ahead with our recommendations on immunity, however as we said in our interim report Not only because the need is manifest but also because it can be met by provisions which are independent of the other reforms upon which we have been working. I would also like to note, Mr. Chairman, that, as you know, our immunity recommendations deal largely with procedural aspects of the matter, while our major work so far has dealt with the substantive criminal laws. We gave this matter priority, however, partly because we were asked to undertake reform in this area both by the Judicial Conference of the United States and by the Department of Justice and partly because, under existing immunity laws, a grant of immunity constitutes a total defense to prosecution. One of our principal reform objectives has been to articulate for the first time by statute, within the general provisions of the criminal code, the various defenses available to the accused in criminal prosecution. As it turned out, however, we came to the conclusion that the grant of immunity to be exchanged for the privilege against self-incrimination-as is also recognized in title II of S. 30, now pending before this committeeneed not and should not be a defense as such but only a ground for suppressing the use-that is the key word "use"-of evidence, similar to the exclusionary rule which is now applied to evidence assembled in violation of various constitutional rights. Our proposed immunity reform can therefore be accomplished by laws which need not be included within our substantive law reform. I believe that I do not need to dwell upon the desirability-indeed, the necessity-of giving to the Federal Government the power to overcome, by constitutional means, the privilege of the individual to withhold essential information on the ground of his possible self-incrimination. There seems to be no more eloquent support for the need for 30-902-69-19 |