U.S. judiciary facing rise in death

 

by Robert Anglen - Jul. 9, 2009 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

A prison informer gave up details of a planned hit in April:
A drug dealer wanted a federal prosecutor dead. The prosecutor had put him away;
now he was willing to pay someone to kill her.

The informer came forward on a Monday afternoon.

On Tuesday morning, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anne Mosher in
Tucson was alerted to the threat on her life. The next day, Mosher was under the
protective guard of a team of deputy U.S. marshals who would cover her every
move for the next 10 days while another team investigated the
threat

Federal judges and prosecutors across the country, including
in Arizona, are confronting a growing number of threats against their lives. The
U.S. Marshals Service, which provides security for federal court personnel,
reports that the number of threats nationwide against such officials, jurors and
witnesses has more than doubled in the past six years, from 592 to nearly 1,300.

In Arizona, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said deputies who
once investigated a handful of threats, typically hurled by defendants at a
judge during sentencing, are now fielding three to four threats a week.

The threats come via e-mail, text message and telephone. They
are posted in the blogosphere and sometimes fed by polemic radio talk-show
hosts. In response, some federal judges have taken to arming themselves with
handguns. Others are tapping into federal funds to install or upgrade
home-security systems.

The need to investigate and assess the threats led to the
creation this year of a special unit of four full-time deputy marshals in
Arizona who monitor "inappropriate communications."

Marshals also have stepped up preventive measures, giving
personal-security lessons to federal court staffers and their families, training
them in evasive maneuvers and evaluating home-alarm systems.

The increase in threats is being fueled partly by the
Internet. A person who would never write a threatening letter to a judge does
not have qualms about posting the same anonymous message online, Gonzales
said.

Other factors are the country's worsening economic condition,
reflected in bankruptcy cases, where desperate people lash out in frustration at
judges who adjudicate their financial losses.

Gonzales also said the court system is seeing increasingly
violent defendants in cases related to immigration, terrorism, drugs and hate
crimes.

"A lot of times, you find threats are made by guys covered
with Cheeto dust and still living in their mother's basement," he said. "We
still have to neutralize all of those threats."

Threats change lives

Mosher said the threat on her life hit her like a brick. She
spent the next 10 days learning to live a completely different lifestyle.

"I've been doing this for this office for 20 years, and I
have never had a death threat," the 50-year-old prosecutor said. "It is very
disturbing. . . . You realize you are a victim. I do feel vulnerable."

Deputy marshals accompanied her when she went to work, the
grocery store, and to lunch and dinner appointments. They drove her car,
prepared to use defensive-driving techniques if attacked.

Deputy marshals went with her on hospital visits to her
ailing mother. Upon arriving at her home each night, they would go through every
room of her house, looking under beds and in closets, before she was allowed to
be alone.

Outside her house, Pima County sheriff's deputies, working
with the marshals, ran extra patrols. They were intentionally visible, sending a
signal.

"Basically, I had two people with me 24 hours a day," she
said. "They really impressed me with the training they had."

Mosher said marshals upgraded her home-security system. They
taught her to be aware of her surroundings. Every day, they would brief her
about their investigation.

Ultimately, they learned the informer was trying to use
jailhouse chatter to cut his own deal on a sentence. The drug dealer was a big
talker but had no intention of carrying out the threat.

Gonzales said that most threats fizzle into nothing and that
almost none leads to prosecutions.

"The vast majority of these things are just individuals
expressing their opinions," he said. "It's one thing to (make a threat). You
also have to have the means to do it."

Security for court staff

Security concerns intensified in 2005 after a man who was
angry over the dismissal of his civil-malpractice case murdered the husband and
mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago.

On any given day now, the U.S. Marshals Service is running 20
protective details of judges and court staff across the country. Deputies are
shared with other jurisdictions to ease the manpower burden.

The Marshals Service this year opened a national
threat-assessment center at its headquarters in Arlington, Va., with links to
FBI, CIA and other law-enforcement databases. The center fields hotline calls
from court personnel, assesses the threat and can gather intelligence about the
person who made the threat.

Some federal court employees are linked to the system via a
panic button that alerts marshals at the center to their location and links them
to local emergency dispatchers.

Besides working details, marshals also evaluate the personal
security of judges, court staff and their families and coach them on safety
techniques. That could include observation training, advice on proper
landscaping around a house and how to react to a potential threat.

Gonzales said marshals also evaluate security at federal
courthouses across the country. Specific security measures are different in each
jurisdiction. Gonzales said the reason cameras and audio recorders aren't
allowed in Arizona's federal courts is to prevent potential bad guys from
identifying court staff, witnesses and jurors.

Gonzales said deputies work on identifying high-profile cases
that will generate controversy and outrage before they begin.

In February, when U.S. District Judge John Roll presided over
a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an
Arizona rancher, the Marshals Service was anticipating the fallout.

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, Gonzales said
talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making
threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls.
Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information
about Roll online.

"They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,' "
Gonzales said.

Roll, who is the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he
and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

"It was unnerving and invasive. . . . By its nature it has to
be," Roll said, adding that they were encouraged to live their lives as normally
as possible. "It was handled very professionally by the Marshals Service."

At the end of the month, Roll said four key men had been
identified as threat makers.

The Marshals Service left to him the decision to press
charges but recommended against it. Roll said he had no qualms about following
their advice.

The recommendation was based on the intent of those making
the threats.

"I have a very strong belief that there is nothing wrong with
criticizing a judicial decision," he said. "But when it comes to threats, that
is an entirely different matter."