U.S. ATTORNEY DEFENDS GUN, DRUG CASES

US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan vowed yesterday to continue
to make gun and drug cases a top priority for his office, insisting
that such prosecutions have helped reduce violence in Boston and other
cities.

Sullivan lashed back at a federal judge who publicly criticized his
office last week for spending too much time on low-level drug and gun
cases that belonged in state court, instead of focusing on federal
crimes such as public corruption and white-collar offenses that he
said would have a greater impact on society. "I can't think of a more
important use of federal resources than combining state and local and
our efforts to reduce gun violence," said Sullivan, crediting the US
Justice Department's Project Safe Neighborhoods with removing
gun-toting criminals from crime-plagued communities. Gun charges
brought in federal court, rather than state court, tend to carry much
longer mandatory prison terms. "This program, virtually more than
anything else we do, I know saves lives," said Sullivan. "If I have a
choice between saving a life and looking at some corrupt planning
board member, I would save lives."

Sullivan said the office's highest priority is terrorism, followed by
corporate fraud and violent crime, including drug and gun cases, and
public corruption.

Sullivan, who was appointed in the fall of 2001, said his office has
prosecuted more than twice as many people on gun charges in 2002 and
2003 than in the previous two years.

According to statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the
US Courts, Sullivan's office brought weapons charges against 182
defendants between October 2001 and September 2003, compared to 86
defendants the prior two years. While Sullivan was unable to say how
many gun cases his office has taken on referral from Boston police, he
said the federal gun prosecutions have played a role in reducing
Boston's homicide rate by 35 percent last year. During an interview
with reporters last week, US District Judge Mark L. Wolf said US
District Court in Boston has been flooded with gun and drug cases
developed by state and local police "at the expense of important
federal cases that it would take a lot of hard work to develop."

Wolf cited several drug cases that involved defendants who were drug
users, or low-level members of a ring, who could not afford an attorney.

He questioned whether prosecutors were following the money trail to
target major drug traffickers and suppliers.

Wolf, a former federal prosecutor who served as deputy US attorney and
chief of the public corruption unit from 1981 to 1985, said his
comments were not directed solely at Sullivan, but reflected a
national concern among the judiciary about the types of cases being
brought in federal courts. Sullivan said yesterday he viewed Wolf's
remarks as a "personal" attack, which undermined the morale of
prosecutors in his office. "I think there's no question he shows a
great deal of hostility and anger toward this office," said Sullivan.
"When you hear a judge so openly criticize the types of cases you're
bringing, knowing some [of] those cases are going to be heard in his
courtroom gives me pause as to whether he has the ability to sit there
and evaluate the government's position in a very objective, unbiased
way." Sullivan said Wolf's remarks were "entirely inappropriate" and
wrong, then went on to cite a list of drug prosecutions brought by his
office that involved major drug rings, some with international and
national networks and others that terrorized city neighborhoods. He
said his office seized $7.5 million in drug assets last year; and more
than $9 million the year before -- both figures representing a
signficant increase over the previous five years. Wolf would not
respond yesterday to Sullivan's criticism, but said his remarks were
entirely proper, noting: "The code of conduct for federal judges
expressly says judges may speak concerning the law, the legal system,
and the administration of justice."

He said he was speaking about the same concerns raised by a growing
chorus of judges around the country, including US Supreme Court Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Last month, Rehnquist criticized Congress for passing the Feeney
Amendment, which requires the US Sentencing Commission to keep records
of judges who depart from federal sentencing guidelines to give
defendants a lower sentence.

He said it could intimidate individual judges who may face questioning
by Congress about the performance of their judicial duties.

Wolf's comments last week began with a discussion about the Feeney
Amendment and how judges feel that they are being forced to mete out
harsh sentences in cases that belong in state court, where defendants
would likely face less severe penalties. Yesterday, he said: "We have
less and less discretion. The responsibility is falling on the
prosecutors to bring cases that an informed public will believe
deserve the long sentences that judges who follow the law will be
required to impose."