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."