Robert P. McCulloch
Working For NDAA Members
The president of NDAA provides a report to the directors and officers of the association at each board meeting about how NDAA has fulfilled its mission to be the “Voice of America’s Prosecutors and to Support Their Efforts to Protect the Rights and Safety of the People.” Like many of my predecessors, I sometimes forget that I also need to keep you, our members, up to date on what we’ve been doing nationally, and even internationally, to support you.
In this message, I want to share with you what NDAA has been doing since I assumed office in July. The first four busy months are indicative of what we do as a national association on a continual basis.
In August I was privileged, along with several other officers of NDAA, to represent you at the annual meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors in Washington, D.C. It was interesting to view our profession with a worldwide perspective. The highlights of the meeting involved an award given to J. Tom Morgan of Georgia, a member of my executive committee. The award was for his prosecution of the local county sheriff for the murder of the sheriff-elect who was elected to clean up the corruption within the office. The sheriff-elect was murdered shortly after the election and before he took office. J. Tom was also on the hit list but proceeded with the case at great risk to himself. The second award was presented to our executive director, Newman Flanagan, for his lifetime of service to the profession. Both awards were well deserved and typify the dedication of the members of this organization to our pursuit of justice for crime victims.
Then in mid-September the association was invited to testify on gangs and witness intimidation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The impetus of the hearing was legislation that had been introduced to address the growing problems with gangs and provide grant funding for witness protection programs at the local level. I testified on behalf of the association, drawing upon information provided by a number of prosecutors as the basis for my statement. A copy of my testimony can be found on the NDAA Web site.
While I was in Washington for the Senate testimony, I was able to participate in a number of meetings with senior officials in the law enforcement community to solidify our standing with them and explain our position on several issues.
My first meeting was with Admiral Loy, the under secretary heading the Transportation Security Administration (since our meeting he has been nominated as the deputy secretary for the Department of Homeland Security). Our conversation centered on establishing an ongoing working relationship to deal with airport security violations. As a prosecutor with a major airport in my jurisdiction, I believe that this will be a valuable partnership to both protect our air transportation system and ensure that security violations are dealt with in a manner that guarantees justice.
I then met with the new DEA Administrator, Karen Tandy. Ms Tandy and I discussed the upcoming legislative and election cycles and the continuing efforts to legalize marijuana and other drugs under the guise of medicinal use. We agreed that DEA and NDAA would work together to counter the popular myths being spread about drug abuse. Later that same day, I participated in a meeting with John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
I was also able to have a meeting with the counsel to President Bush, Judge Alberto Gonzales, and with the White House director of intergovernmental affairs, Ruben Barrales. Our conversations centered on the president’s DNA initiative and the impact that the federal judiciary is having on the local criminal justice system. The DNA initiative has subsequently been passed by the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate. While we still have some serious concerns about certain provisions of the bill, the DNA funding aspect will be a great benefit to our members.
My last meeting of the day was with FBI Director Robert Mueller. We discussed the shifting emphasis of federal law enforcement efforts and the resulting impact on local law enforcement.
NDAA activities in Washington were not finished for the month. We were again asked to testify before Congress, this time before the Senate Crime, Corrections and Victims’ Rights Subcommittee on our perspective on elder abuse and neglect. I asked Chris Chiles, NDAA vice president and the prosecuting attorney of Cabell County, West Virginia, to represent us at this hearing. Chris, and Betsy Scheibel, the DA for the Northwestern District in Massachusetts, are the committee chairs primarily responsible for developing NDAA policy on elder abuse; thus he was well prepared to testify. His testimony can also be found on our Web site.
We were then asked to testify in early October before the House Government Reform Committee on the problems we are encountering with issues related to international extradition. District Attorney Jim Fox of San Mateo, CA, a vice president of NDAA and member of the executive committee, recently published an article about his problems in attempting to get several murder suspects back from Mexico and so he represented us at this hearing. Again, his testimony can be found on our Web site.
Also at this same time we began our NDAA radio show. It first aired on Saturday, September 6, and has been on each Saturday since. With a call-in format, it centers on discussions with guests representing the best of local prosecution. The show is hosted by John Bobo (a former assistant prosecutor from Tennessee) and is our attempt to educate the public about what you do and to counter many of the accusations and challenges presented by the media about our system of criminal justice. Broadcast locally, the radio show should expand for greater coverage as the station increases it system capabilities. You can pick up the broadcast through the link on our Web page or by accessing the station at WMET.com.
Lastly, NDAA prepared an amicus brief in support of the local Iowa prosecutors in Iowa v. Tovar, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court had granted cert. The Iowa Supreme Court had ruled that the sixth amendment prevented use of a prior conviction for enhancement purposes if the trial court at the plea on the prior conviction had not advised the pro se defendant of three things: that an attorney can be useful and that there are disadvantages in proceeding without counsel; that there are defenses which might not be known to laypersons, and the danger in waiving the assistance of counsel in deciding whether to plead guilty is the risk that a viable defense will be overlooked; and that by waiving the right to counsel, defendant loses the opportunity to obtain an independent opinion on whether, under the facts and applicable law, it is wise to plead guilty.
Because of the obvious impact this would have on all prosecutors, NDAA submitted its brief to strengthen that of the Iowa attorney general and to provide a more national perspective of the Iowa decision. Oral arguments will be held this spring.
This does not even begin to note all the accomplishments of NDAA during this period, but does highlight the most significant. This is a team effort. The prosecutors who were willing to drop everything and travel to D.C. on short notice; the DAs who researched and critiqued the DNA bill; the DAs who contributed their time and effort to the amicus brief and the other issues are typical of the level of contribution and dedication of our members. My thanks and great appreciation to all of you.
