REMARKS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DANIEL F. CONLEY: JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY GUN VIOLENCE AND YOUTH OVERSIGHT HEARING November 20, 2006 My testimony today is of two parts: first, positive news of our efforts to hold accountable those who possess and use illegal guns; and second, steps I urge you to take to give us better tools and more information to stop the flow of guns onto our streets and into the hands of individuals who have no right to possess them. Approximately 9 months ago, my office began launched Priority Prosecution sessions for gun crimes, popularly known as Gun Court. Gun Court was created to address certain deficiencies, real or perceived, in the criminal justice system's response to gun related crime. The main problems we identified and aimed to address with the Gun Court were a significant backlog of gun cases and the slow pace at which gun cases were moving through the system. Because of these factors, both the public and the criminals perceived that those who possessed illegal guns were not being held accountable. What we saw was how offenders would be arrested on gun charges and often released on little or no bail while awaiting trial. Getting a gun case to trial prior to gun court took, on average, a year or more. Residents I met and spoke with voiced incredible concern and frustration with the pace of the system. With the cooperation of the Boston Municipal Court and its Chief Justice Charles Johnson, as well as partners like the Boston Police Department, we sought to change that. On February 21, 2006, Gun Court began and in the nine months since - just 177 work days - 226 gun cases have been prosecuted and disposed. Of these cases, 136 were cases that had been sitting in the system since 2005, 2004 or even further back. I'm giving to the committee a written break-down of the Gun Court's accomplishments, so I will briefly summarize them here. Exempting those cases that were indicted for prosecution in superior or federal court, or those cases that were not prosecuted because prosecutorial ethics required it, there were 172 remaining cases. My office secured convictions in 137 of these cases, for a conviction rate of 80%, while 18 cases resulted in not-guilty verdicts. More than half of the cases - 92 to be exact - were convictions that carried minimum mandatory sentences of a year to 18 months. The remaining 52 cases where we secured convictions were for gun offenses that did not carry minimum mandatory sentences, or for other crimes of violence or narcotics offenses committed in relation to the gun offenses. For these 52 cases the defendants are either on probation or serving some form of jail time. Perhaps even more impressive than the successful clearance of the backlog and the strong conviction rate is the speed with which cases are now being handled. When we began Gun Court our goal was to reduce the time from arraignment to disposition by half, or about 180 days. Of the cases we originally transferred from Dorchester and Roxbury to Gun Court, those cases had already spent an average time of 202 days awaiting trial. After they came to gun court they were resolved in an average of 45 days. Even more striking; cases initiated after February 21st, 2006 spent an average of just 88 days in Dorchester and Roxbury and only 26 days in Gun Court. What this means is that we have far surpassed our goal and are now successfully bringing cases to resolution in a total average time of just over 100 days, without sacrificing the quality of justice. I apologize for throwing so many numbers at the Committee, but the long and short is that Gun Court has met and exceeded each goal and objective we established at the outset. Cases are moving even more rapidly than we had hoped; they are being prosecuted skillfully and ethically; and the entire backlog of cases is gone. Gun cases originating in the state's two busiest courts - Dorchester and Roxbury - are now current. This is an enormous accomplishment and all credit goes to our team of prosecutors, police and the court for making this happen. Despite this success, however, police continue to pull incredible numbers of weapons off the streets of our cities - this is true nationally and here in Boston. For too long, whenever common sense improvements to our gun laws are proposed we hear the same refrain from powerful special interest groups like the National Rifle Association: you don't need new laws, you need to enforce the existing ones. Well, as Gun Court demonstrates, that is exactly what we're doing, and yet the flood of weapons into the hands of people who have no business possessing them goes unabated. Without question, we need the Federal government to work with us. As it now stands, too many of the regulations that surround agencies like the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are aimed not at helping ATF and their partners keep guns out of the hands of criminals but protecting manufacturers from any possibility of being sued by states and cities. As a consequence however, law enforcement agencies like mine are routinely denied information that would allow us to trace weapons used in crimes back to their source and determine whether the gun was stolen or sold or dumped by unscrupulous individuals and dealers. As it now stands, ATF can only share very limited gun trace data information with police and prosecutors if it is part of a specific criminal investigation and only within our own jurisdiction. I see two things that need to happen here. First, these federal restrictions - known as the Tiahrt Amendment - are contained in ATF's appropriation language. However, there is a bill now pending before Congress, H.R. 5005, that would codify this language into law. It's important that this not happen - particularly in the waning days of the current Congress. Second, the Tiahrt Amendment must be removed or modified so that the important work of law enforcement can proceed. At the same time, it's time for common sense to prevail on guns. I respect the Second Amendment, but it doesn't mean that society should not impose modest regulations on gun ownership and transactions, carefully tailored to finding and stopping violent criminals. With every other right comes responsibility and the rights afforded us under the Second Amendment are no different. In time for the new Legislative session, I hope to work with all of you to file with you a comprehensive legislative agenda on guns. This agenda will include a significant number of pieces - some large, others requiring only technical corrections in our laws, and I'll highlight a number of these ideas now. First, Massachusetts needs to create its own Gun Registry - accessible to law enforcement only. This would not only provide useful and important information when specific crimes are committed, but would also help protect our police officers. Today, everyone who possesses a firearm must have a license to do so, but there's no requirement that these same people register the weapon. As a result, police and other law enforcement officials are forced to take unnecessary risks when approaching a home, for example on a domestic violence call, or dealing with an individual at a traffic stop because they have no way of knowing whether that individual has one gun, or two, or twenty. Certainly, we need a national gun registry, but even without a Federal counterpart, Massachusetts should require not only that gun owners register, but that they report all guns that they own. I also think it makes good sense for state and local law enforcement to try to open up lines of communication and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies in other states, and this is, again, in recognition of the restrictions that presently surround information sharing from ATF. As it presently stands, Federal law requires that a firearm purchase comply with the laws of the state of sale and the state of the buyers' residence. Accordingly, residents who are not legally allowed to possess guns here in Massachusetts should not be able to cross state lines to purchase guns in other states. But we have no enforcement mechanism. Whether it's at the level of local law enforcement or a mechanism established between the states, Massachusetts can and should seek information from other states disclosing whether Massachusetts residents purchased firearms out of state. We could then check to see whether someone who was not allowed to possess a gun in Massachusetts purchased a gun in another state. In keeping with this, and to close the enforcement circle, it would be wise to create state criminal penalties for those who try to circumvent our gun laws by buying guns out of state. While Massachusetts is already one of the leading states in the nation with the comprehensive nature of our gun laws, there remains room for improvement. In addition to the creation of a statewide gun registry and information sharing between the states, there are a number of other ideas that would require relatively simple legislative fixes that I think are worth consideration and would go a long way toward further strengthening our laws. First, from my standpoint as District Attorney, I would like to see the legal loophole closed surrounding Ch. 269, Sect 10(h). It makes no sense that someone caught illegally possessing a firearm outside their home or place of work is subject to Ch. 269 10(a), which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 18 months, but someone found to illegally possess a gun in their home or work falls under 269/10(h) which carries no minimum mandatory sentence. Of the 172 cases prosecuted in the gun court, nearly ten percent fell under 269/10(h). The disparity here was, I believe, originally envisioned to prevent the government from unfairly prosecuting hunters whose FID cards had lapsed. Well, of the thousands of illegal gun possession cases I've witnessed in my 15 years as a prosecutor, I haven't seen one such case. It's time to close that loophole and fix that law. Another loophole to be corrected: presently anyone who commits a violent crime or a drug trafficking offense is prohibited by law from ever legally possessing a gun. However, someone who violates a serious gun law is only barred from possessing a gun for five years from the end of his or her sentence. Someone who has already demonstrated a willingness to violate gun laws should never be allowed to legally own a gun again. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the way our bail statute is presently written feeds into a perception of offenders going through a revolving door system of justice at best, or simply being given too many opportunities to stay on the streets and commit more acts of violence. Our bail statute presently specifies drug dealing as a factor that should be considered when setting bail. I think it makes good sense to add possession of a firearm as a factor so that prosecutors have the tools to argue that someone's illegal possession of a firearm makes them a risk, justifying higher bail. Thanks to you, the honorable members of our Legislature, Massachusetts has made tremendous headway this year in its efforts to prevent crime, protect citizens, and hold lawbreakers accountable. Both individually and in concert, the House and Senate have been tremendously receptive to our concerns, with the result that 2006 has been a watershed year for public safety legislation. We have seen a comprehensive anti-crime bill passed, targeting gangs and protecting witnesses; we have seen the statute of limitations on sex crimes against children extended by more than a decade; and we even saw our budgets improved. I know I speak for the state's district attorneys when I say that we are immensely grateful for the tools and resources you've made available to us. I urge you, however, not to set aside gun violence as a problem that has already been addressed. It remains a crucial issue that continues to face the Commonwealth, and it plagues the very neighborhoods and citizens who are most vulnerable to its effects. GUN COURT: GETTING RESULTS Between February 21, 2006 and November 9, 2006 the following results have been achieved in Suffolk County's Priority Prosecution Sessions, also known as Gun Court. Since Gun Court began, 226 cases have been disposed in just 177 work days. The backlog of cases that existed in Dorchester and Roxbury is eliminated. Cases disposed by year: 2006: 90 2005: 116 2004 or prior: 20 Of those 226 disposed cases: 25: Indicted to Superior or Federal Court 29: Nolle prossequi for the following reasons 3: Firearm was defective or inoperable 9: Multiple co-defendants arrested for one firearm; a co-defendant took responsibility for the firearm and no independent probable cause existed to prosecute remaining defendants 15: Police lacked probable cause to arrest 1: Defendant was being indicted on same charge in conjunction with pending drug charges 1: Because victim testified untruthfully under oath, the Commonwealth was unable to meet its burden of proof Of the 172 cases eligible for prosecution, 83.5% of defendants prosecuted since Gun Court began are serving sentences ranging from committed time to probation. 92 defendants were convicted under Ch. 269 10a and are serving minimum mandatory sentences of 1 year, 18 months, or more. 23 defendants were convicted under Ch. 269 10h (non-minimum mandatory) and are serving sentences ranging from probation to committed jail time. 29 defendants were convicted for violation of other criminal laws, including violent and narcotics offenses and are serving sentences ranging from probation to committed time. (Note: this incorporates some cases that were partially nolle prossed but where conviction was secured on one or more charges) 18 defendants were found not guilty following a bench or jury trial 5 motions to suppress were allowed where appeal was not appropriate Since Gun Court began, the goal of reducing by half (180 days) the time it takes to move a case from arraignment to disposition has been exceeded. Cases are now being prosecuted and disposed in an average of just 114 days. For those cases initiated prior to Gun Court, they spent an average of 202 days in Roxbury or Dorchester District Court. After transferring to Gun Court, these cases were resolved in an average of 45 days. Cases initiated after Gun Court began spent an average of average of 88 days in Roxbury or Dorchester District Court and only 26 days in Gun Court, for an average total of 114 days from arraignment to disposition.