Pubdate: Tue, 24 Oct 2000
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society.
Contact:  One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115
Fax: (617) 450-2031
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Forum: http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/vox/p-vox.html
Author: Scott Baldauf

TEXAS D.A.S REFUSE BORDER PATROL CASES

For years, Laredo prosecutor Joe Rubio took on Border Patrol drug-smuggling 
cases as a courtesy to his federal counterparts. But more recently, as the 
Patrol doubled its staff and generated thousands of additional arrests, his 
act of benevolence has become a burden.

That's why Mr. Rubio, along with most of the district attorneys on the 
Texas-Mexico border, refuses to take any more federal cases.

Their quiet rebellion represents a red-flag warning that America's 
eight-year buildup along the US-Mexico border is showing signs of strain.

While prosecutors shrink from calling it a "boycott," their move is forcing 
a reexamination of the approach to criminal justice in the area and could 
impact America's fight against narcotics trafficking. "We want to fight the 
war on drugs, but we want to be equal partners," says Rubio, district 
attorney for Webb and Zapata counties, who stopped taking cases after years 
of asking Congress to reimburse the counties for costs. "We realized we're 
being taken advantage of here."

In recent years, Congress and the White House have outspent each other 
doubling the manpower of the US Border Patrol and increasing the staffs at 
the Drug Enforcement Agency and the US Customs Service as well. Somehow, 
adding law clerks, judges, and prosecutors to handle the increased 
caseloads didn't seem as "sexy" as adding another man in uniform. Now the 
Texas court system, from Brownsville to El Paso and beyond, is bursting at 
the seams.

"Border areas have not been paid attention to historically, and now these 
guys are overworked," says Rodolfo de la Garza, director of the Tomas 
Rivera Policy Institute at the University of Texas in Austin. "It's 
surprising that it has reached this point, but it's in line with the 
movement of states to pay for the implementation - and failure - of US 
immigration policy."

The number of federal drug busts and illegal immigration cases springing 
from the increased Border Patrol presence is staggering. The five US 
federal districts that stretch from California to the Texas Gulf Coast 
handle more than 26 percent of all criminal court filings in the United 
States. Drug prosecutions in these border courts nearly doubled between 
1994 and '98, from 2,864 to 5,414 cases, and immigration prosecutions 
quintupled, from 1,056 to 5,614.

In Texas, border district attorneys say they support the goals of drug and 
immigration prosecution, but have ceased taking federal cases as of Oct. 1, 
because of their cost. Only two prosecutors continue to accept federal 
cases. In return, they receive a portion of a $12 million federal emergency 
appropriation, passed by Congress this summer. Each of the four border 
states will divide equally the money, which is intended for court costs and 
jail construction.

Those who have joined the boycott says Texas's $3 million share of the 
federal piggybank doesn't come close to meeting the bulk of their costs. 
Federal drug cases in Webb County alone cost some $1 million a year to 
handle, says Rubio. With federal money stretched thin, the financial burden 
shifts to the citizens of South Texas, among the poorest regions in America.

"What started as a courtesy became a practice, and then almost an 
expectation, and then almost a demand," says Yolanda de Leon, district 
attorney for Cameron County in Brownsville. She and other border 
prosecutors made their pleas for assistance to Congress and to the 
Department of Justice, she says, but "Washington didn't get it. They simply 
didn't understand the reality of how things work."

"When we were doing 10 cases for them, we could fit that into our 
framework," says Ms. De Leon, who says that 20 percent of her caseload is 
federal drug busts. "But when it became 300 to 500 cases, we can't do it 
anymore. And you know what? They [the federal courts] couldn't do it either."

Jaime Esparza, district attorney in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, used to 
take 800 federal cases a year for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties. But not 
anymore. "To ask counties that are the poorest in the country to share that 
burden, it's not reasonable," says Mr. Esparza, whose office handles some 
2,100 felony cases a year, four times the national average.

"The federal government needs to have a complete budget when it considers 
fighting the drug war," Esparza adds. "It's not just one more Border Patrol 
agent. We are very short on federal judges. And if you bring a federal 
judge, you'll need probation officers, assistant US attorneys, a bailiff, 
court reporters, a translator."

To get an idea what shifting the caseload back to federal courts will do, 
it's instructive to visit the courtroom of US District Judge George Kazen 
in Laredo. Until this year, the federal judge had one of the busiest court 
dockets in America, hearing some 1,200 casesa year. Other federal judges 
used to drive to Laredo for a week at a time to help. To try to clear 
Kazen's docket, one judge, Fred Biery of San Antonio, conducted court 
sessions by close-circuit television from his office in San Antonio. 
Defendants made their pleas into a camera, while Judge Biery's face 
observed them on a TV screen.

This year, Judge Kazen got some relief. Another federal district judge now 
shares his 1,100 case backlog, and two new federal magistrates handle some 
3,000 misdemeanors, the bulk of them originating from Border Patrol drug busts.

"We were just swamped," says Judge Kazen. "The state courts were always a 
safety valve.... Without that, everyone is trying to cope the best we can."

Assigning blame for this judicial logjam is almost as difficult as solving 
it. Justice Department officials contend that the Republican-led Congress 
has routinely turned down Clinton administration nominees for federal 
courts. Congressional aides retort that it is the White House that has been 
dragging its feet and shirking  its responsibility on the border.

"We annually take on the Justice Department for not filling judgeships," 
says John Lampmann, chief of staff for Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas, 
chairman of the House committee on immigration.

"There is no doubt that we need more judgeships, and the chairman is 
proposing legislation to provide them," says Mr. Lampmann, adding that the 
end of the congressional session, along with a presidential election are 
likely to delay that judicial relief for the foreseeable future. "From a 
timing point of view, we just understand it won't be until next year."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F