Recommendations by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General to address a rising number of threats against federal prosecutors are a step in the “right direction,” the president of an advocacy group for Assistant U.S. Attorneys told Main Justice.
Improving security for federal prosecutors is a top priority of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, president Steven Cook told Main Justice in an interview. His group has urged the Justice Department for several years to take action.
“We’re obviously pleased that the OIG is looking at this issue,” said Cook, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Tennessee. “We’re not surprised that statistics support what we know in the field.”
Improper communications and threats to federal prosecutors and federal judges more than doubled during the mid-2000’s, according to the OIG report. The number of threats against U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys increased by almost 26 percent between fiscal years 2007 and 2008 alone, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, which provides protection for federal prosecutors and judges.
Credit: Justice Department
The OIG review concluded that many threats were not reported in a timely and proper fashion. It also found that U.S. Marshals do not always provide an appropriate response to threats or always work effectively with other law enforcement groups and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which oversees the nation’s 94 federal prosecuting offices.
According to the report, the Office of Inspector General recommends that:
-U.S. Marshals “clearly explain to protectees the detrimental effect that delays or the failure to report has on the security provided.”
-U.S. Marshals “update its security handbook to emphasize both the importance of immediately reporting threats to the USMS and the consequences of delays or failures to report.”
-”EOUSA amend the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual to clearly instruct the AUSAs that all threats must be reported promptly to the District Office Security Manager. Such instruction should include an explanation of the detrimental effect that delays or the failure to report has on security provided.”
-”U.S. Marshals review trends in reporting timelines annually and provide the results of that analysis to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and EOUSA for their use in judicial conferences and attorney training seminars.”
-”U.S. Marshals implement controls to ensure that required risk assessments are completed and documented in the USMS threat database, including the assignment of risk levels, and that the protective measures provide in response to each threat also be documented in the USMS threat database.”
-”U.S. Marshals establish internal controls at USMS headquarters to ensure that the USMS threat database contains full and accurate information, including ensuring that district offices regularly enter data in the ‘FBI Notified’ and notification date fields.”
-U.S. Marshals “coordinate with the FBI to establish a memorandum of understanding to formalize the coordination of protective and criminal investigations.”
-U.S. Marshals “ensure that all districts send the required notification letters to local law enforcement agencies and that the letters contain a working number that connects directly to the local USMS duty officer.”
-”EOUSA provide, in consultation with the USMS, sufficient training to EOUSA and USAO staff assigned threat response duties.”
-U.S. Marshals “and EOUSA sign a memorandum of understanding that defines their roles and responsibilities in protecting the U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs who receive threats.”
-”EOUSA provide guidance and periodic reminders to USAOs of the requirement to submit Urgent Reports immediately when a U.S. Attorney or AUSA is threatened.”
-”EOUSA revise the Urgent Report template so that it includes a requirement to provide at least the following information: name and position of targeted employee; name and location of the person making the threat, if known; date the threat was made, or date the target was made aware of the threat; date the District Office Security Manager was informed of the threat; date the USMS and FBI were notified; and date the USAO submitted the Urgent Report to EOUSA.”
-”EOUSA establish guidance to require the District Office Security Managers to send updated information via Urgent Reports at regular intervals to inform EOUSA of the status of USAO, USMS and FBI actions to protect the threatened AUSA.”
EOUSA Deputy Director/Counsel to the Director Norman Wong said in the report that his office agreed with the recommendations.
“The safety and security of each and every employee within the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs), and within EOUSA, are of paramount importance to EOUSA and the USAOs,” Wong wrote. He added: “We believe the recommendations from this report will have a positive impact on the USAO community.”
U.S. Marshals Associate Director Robert J. Finnan II said in the report that the service concurred with almost all of the suggestions. But Finnan said it is “impractical and unnecessary” for the threat notification letters to list a working, direct number for a U.S. Marshals duty officer because the officials rotate often.
“We have made great strides over the past few years in our judicial security mission, and as the U.S. Marshals Service believes there is always room to perfect the process, we will carry out the report’s recommendations with that goal in mind,” U.S. Marshals spokesperson Jeff Carter said in a statement.
Cook said NAAUSA would also like the Justice Department to address other security matters not discussed in the redacted OIG report released today.
The group would like the government to provide federal prosecutors with home alarms and secure parking, he said. The organization is also asking DOJ to give certain prosecutors federal firearm licenses for self defense, the NAAUSA president said.
As usual, the DOJ is totally focused on the AUSAs, and perhaps even the more limited class of criminal AUSAs (depending on what EOUSA means by “prosecutors”). But a large portion of misbehavior is directed at civil AUSAs and Main Justice trial attorneys, both civil and criminal. That is because most of the criminal defendants end up in prison where they can’t carry out threats against prosecutors. But litigants unsatisfied with the outcome of civil cases are free to carry out their threats against civil AUSAs, DOJ trial attorneys, and judges. Bear in mind that the recent shooting in Las Vegas was perpetrated by a civil litigant who had lost a Social Security appeal.