The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA) is an organization representing career federal prosecutors. I was a member at one time, although my membership has lapsed. It led the opposition of hundreds of prosecutors to the Smarter Sentencing Act, which failed in the last Congress (but has been re-introduced now). Its opposition was cited by then Ranking Member, now Chairman, Chuck Grassley, in his statement in opposition to the Act after it got out of Committee. It then never made it to the floor, despite then-Majority Leader Harry Reid's promise that he would bring it up -- and that was before Sen. Reid lost the fight with his exercise bike.
NAAUSA last week elected Steve Cook as its President. I have never met Mr. Cook, but I have occasionally exchanged emails with him. I believe he is an outstanding leader for NAAUSA, and that he will do even more to strengthen its role in fighting the dumbing down of federal sentencing.
The text of part of the relevant part NAAUSA's press release announcing Mr. Cook's election follows the break.
Mr. Cook has been a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Tennessee for 28 years. He worked in the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force for six years, in the General Crimes Section handling white collar crime, fraud, and public corruption cases for 10 years, and as the chief of the Narcotics and Violent Crime Section for five years. He currently serves as the chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
Before coming to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Cook clerked for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Prior to that he worked as a police officer for seven years. Mr. Cook earned his J.D. from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1984 graduating in the top 10% of his class. While in law school he was a member of The Tennessee Law Review. Upon graduation he was inducted into The Order of the Coif. He received his undergraduate degree from East Tennessee State University with a Bachelor of Science, cum laude.Mr. Cook, in a statement, said that "NAAUSA's first priority is eliminating the large pay gap between new and mid-career AUSAs and their DOJ trial attorney counterparts, improving security for AUSAs and their families, and assuring AUSAs have the necessary tools to perform their responsibilities."
In that regard he said that he would work to educate citizens about the benefits of resolute and fair law enforcement. He noted that NAAUSA will continue its efforts to fight scaling back sentences for dangerous felons, whether engaged in firearms trafficking, child pornography or illicit drugs. He observed that crime in the United States has fallen dramatically in the past generation, in significant part because, with more serious sentencing, criminals have been incarcerated in greater numbers and for longer terms.
Congratulations and best wishes to Steve Cook.
Bill, do you think I might have better luck getting information about the so-called open revolt of "hundreds of prosecutors to the Smarter Sentencing Act" from Mr. Cook than I got from his predecessor? As I have noted before, I have long suspected/feared that the survey that was the basis for your claims of wide-spread opposition was focused on the JSVA, not the SSA. I would like that suspicion confirmed or debunked by the actual evidence, but I continue to fail with my repeated attempts to get more information from NAAUSA.
Doug --
After having written more times than I can remember that prosecutors are hell-bent to keep severe mandatory minimums in order to preserve their power to coerce guilty pleas, you now say that you suspect they really don't oppose the weakening of MM's after all. Far out!
I'll note just three things. First, I have run out of patience with the sneering, and false, view that prosecutors oppose the SSA for venal reasons, rather than because they think it's bad policy and will hurt the country.
Second, I long ago suggested that, if you want to take the temperature of real, live AUSA's about the SSA, you can easily do so by just visiting your local USAO right there in Columbus (and/or Cleveland). But you have declined to do that, even though it would take less than two hours. Instead you want to hector me to find out for you what you can find out for yourself.
Third, if in fact you "suspect" that career prosecutors don't oppose specifically the SSA -- which I very much doubt -- you are entitled to your suspicions. Perhaps you can write to NAAUSA and directly accuse it of lying.
Go for it.
UPDATE: It should be really easy for you to get a deluxe tour of the Columbus USAO, since it's headed by Carter Stewart, the husband of your colleague, Prof. Michelle Alexander. Or you can ask either of them what the feeling of career AUSA's is about the SSA.
Bill, at issue is your representation that hundreds of AUSAs are openly in revolt concerning AG Holder's support of the SSA. I want to see support for this claim, which I still cannot get, though you here repeat this assertion. That is all I seek --- not to attack you or others for their views, but rather to just understand the facts that serve as the basis for claims.
For the record, I have spoken frequently in recent years to Carter Stewart and with other current and former federal prosecutors throught Ohio and other jurisdictions. Indeed, I was on a panel with Mr. Cook last month at a sentencing symposium. Some of these conversations have reinforced my belief that many prosecutors generally oppose the JSVA more than the SSA. And I have never doubted that various views here are all based in good faith disagreements about sound sentencing policy, but I am just trying to actually find out what these views actually are. And recent sentencing statistics cited by AG Holder suggest that perhaps a growing number of federal prosecutors do not view severe mandatory minimum sentencing provisions as essential to fair and effective outcomes.
I am not accusing anyone of lying. I just wish to see the foundation for your representations, especially because it is difficult to appreciate the force of your assertions without seeing the underlying evidence. I cannot help but feel that your sharp reaction to my inquiry suggests there could more to the NAAUSA story than I have been able to access despite repeated requests.
Doug --
Neither of us is a member of NAAUSA, so each of us is in the same position to obtain information belonging to that organization. If you want to write it to obtain data concerning the inquiry specifically about the SSA, feel free. Should you choose to, you may also say that former member and now-law professor Bill Otis supports disclosure of the questions and answers concerning the SSA.
As to your current stance, I would note two things, starting with this (emphasis added): "I have spoken frequently in recent years to Carter Stewart and with other current and former federal prosecutors throught Ohio and other jurisdictions. Indeed, I was on a panel with Mr. Cook last month at a sentencing symposium. Some of these conversations have reinforced my belief that many prosecutors generally oppose the JSVA MORE THAN THE SSA."
Well sure, they oppose the dreadful proposal MORE THAN the merely really bad one. But that is not the question. The question is whether, as I maintain and you question, hundreds of AUSA's oppose the SSA.
They do.
But if you disbelieve me and want the quick answer for yourself, say from Mr. Stewart, who was an AUSA before he became the USA, you could ask him tomorrow. He might not know the answer nationwide, but he'd have a very good guess, and he'd be very likely to know what his own criminal AUSA's think.
So why don't you do that?
Again, the question is not, "Do career assistants oppose the JSVA more than they oppose the SSA?" The question is, "Do career assistants oppose the SSA?"
I think his answer will be very much like this: "My guess is that, nationwide, most oppose it, but I know for sure than most in my office oppose it."
Second, I'll point to the fact that you say this, which again elides the issue: "And recent sentencing statistics cited by AG Holder suggest that perhaps a growing number of federal prosecutors do not view severe mandatory minimum sentencing provisions as essential to fair and effective outcomes."
But that is not the specific question. The phrase "a growing number" could truthfully mean that "100 AUSA'S used to support the SSA, but now it's up to 200." But even if that were true, which I doubt, it would do nothing to rebut the proposition that hundreds of AUSA'S oppose the SSA.
There are now more than 5000 AUSA's in the country. If even ten percent of them oppose the SSA, that would verify my statement that "hundreds" oppose it. And you can have my affidavit that far, far more than ten percent oppose the SSA. I'm quite sure it's a fat majority -- something you can confirm with Mr. Stewart (or, as I suggested, by touring his office and asking the career people there).
In other words, the answer is at your fingertips as much or more as mine. I don't even know who the US Attorney in my district is any more, and still less am I buddies with him. (I do know a few Assistants, every one of whom is opposed to the SSA).
I'll be eager to hear about the results of your inquiry to Mr. Stewart and/or your tour of his office and your conversations with the Assistants there.
Bill, I think I have said before and I will be happy to say again (and again and again) that I do not dispute that many (surely hundreds, perhaps thousands) of AUSAs oppose the SSA. I am not questioning this fact or your representation (or others' claims to this effect). That said, I would like to see a fair survey of AUSAs right now concerning their views on just the SSA to see if a strong majority is opposed the SSA.
My concern in this discourse about NAAUSA has long been about how you, Bill, represented the results of the online survey that NAAUSA conducted in fall 2013 that was the basis for your assertion (linked by you above) that "Hundreds of career lawyers broke into open revolt against the Attorney General." You seemed, as indicated in your Jan 2014 posts, that this "open revolt" should "be a Page One story." I do not control "Page One," but I do run a blog that is widely read by many folks interested in sentencing debates, and I have repeatedly stated in that space that I wish to fully report on what that NAAUSA survey asked and what the responses showed as of fall 2013.
Helpfully, I see NAAUSA has updated its website and I now see this page discussing its recent work on these issues: http://www.naausa.org/2013/index.php/naausa-initiatives/sentencing-reform. Unfortunately, still seemingly unavailable is more information about the survey that is now described on that page as "foundation of NAAUSA's support for the preservation of the mandatory minimum sentencing framework."
Please understand, Bill, that my goal here is transparency, a value that I think you and I see is especially important in these important public policy discussions. I have long sought to know more about your impact on Senator Grassley's views and statements because he often seems to parrot points that you first make here. And in this setting and others, I am also always eager to see if your important representations are fully supported by the facts (such as your recent assertion that VIOLENT crime is up in California as a result of the passage of Prop 47).
I hope you understand my goals and motives, and I especially hope you do not take offense about my inquiries. Especially since you and a few others have given up commentting on my blog, I have few settings other than here to explore and understand views of smart folks like you who hold a different perspective on these important pubic policy matters.
I think what is getting lost in this debate is the primary purpose of professional associations is to advocate for the pecuniary interests of their members. Whether, Those interests are good policy or not, is another story.
In my primary area of law, bankruptcy I could rattle off a list of changes that'd benefit me (and others). I believe most of them are also good policy, but I am also quite biased.
I am not saying the NAUSA is opposing sentencing reform for pecuniary reasons in full or in part, I have no idea. My point is professional associations advocate for their members first and any position they hold should be viewed at least initially through that lens.