United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J.
Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) online
. (page 6 of 13)
Online Library → United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J → Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) → online text (page 6 of 13)
Font size
This is an overlooked shortcoming of our criminal statutes which
has allowed three offenses to create opportunities and incentives
for criminals in this country.
I have introduced three bills, with the support of members of the
committee, which I believe, with your help, will close this loophole,
provide prosecutors with additional leverage in combating crimi-
nals, and ensure that justice in our courts will not be impeded by
additional criminal activity.
Currently, tampering in a Federal court can bring a sentence
which is significantly less than that which comes with serious
crimes, such as first and second-degree murder, kidnapping, and
air piracy, and drug trafficking.
Over the years, as Federal penalties for these crimes have in-
creased, the penalties for tampering with a witness or jury have
failed to keep pace. This discrepancy has thereby created an incen-
tive for individuals standing trial to attempt to intimidate wit-
nesses and jurors or to offer a bribe.
Take, for example, the case in Newark in 1988 where 20 defend-
ants stood trial on charges of racketeering in connection with their
alleged membership in the Lucchese crime family. All 20 defend-
ants were acquitted.
However, in 1994 two of the defendants pleaded guilty to jury
tampering after codefendants in a separate case turned them in.
Instead of being able to apply a sentence equal to that of the origi-
nal crime, those two defendants benefited from the present system
and faced a maximum sentence of only 5 years for jury tampering.
What is worse than a case like this is that the most successful
tampering goes unnoticed or at least unprosecuted, leading to the
acquittal of dangerous criminals, high numbers of unsolved cases,
and a perceived failure of our justice system in this instance.
I have introduced these bills in the 104th Congress which will
help correct the current inequity in tampering sentences. H.R.
1143, 1144, and 1145 address the issues of witness retaliation and
tampering, and jury tampering, respectively. By equating the pen-
alties for these crimes with the potential sentencing for other Fed-
eral crimes, this legislation creates a disincentive for those facing
stiff sentences for egregious offenses to tamper with a jury or in-
timidate a witness.
As a former assistant DA in Montgomery County, PA — and I
know several members on the panel themselves have been former
U.S. attorneys and prosecutors — I have experienced, as you have,
firsthand the frustration faced by citizens and members of the
87
criminal justice community when cases go unsolved because intimi-
dated witnesses will not step forward. I know Chief Heineman has
seen this same kind of experience in his law enforcement career.
I also sympathize with the distinguished prosecutors such as
Montgomery County District Attorney Michael Marino from my
district and the district attorney of Philadelphia, Lynn Abraham,
who daily face these challenges posed by both jury and witness
tampering and witness retaliation. Both have endorsed my legisla-
tion as has the National District Attorneys Association and the
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association,
At the State level, penalties for jury tampering can vary State
to State from less tiian a year up to 7 years. Ms. Abraham recently
blamed witness intimidation as the chief cause of a high number
of unsolved homicides in Philadelphia, PA, which neighbors my dis-
trict. Twenty years ago Philadelphia police solved 86 percent of
homicides, but last year that number was down to 58 percent, in
large part due to the problems that I have outlined.
I am particularly hopeful that the legislation before you today
will set a standard for the States to follow and lead to greater uni-
formity nationwide for tampering penalties, increased security for
jurors and witnesses and a more eflFective system of justice for all.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with vou and members
of your subcommittee to address the challenges of our criminal jus-
tice system in a bipartisan manner and to move forward this cor-
rective legislation.
We have submitted with our packet the letter of endorsement by
the National District Attorneys Association and the Pennsylvania
District Attorneys Association. At this time, I would like to enter
in the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the letter from the district
attorney of Montgomery County, PA, as well as the District Attor-
ney from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
88
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon D. Fox, a Representative in Congress From
THE State of Pennsylvania
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR OFFERING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU TODAY ABOUT IMPORTANT
ISSUES FACING THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM - JURY AND
WITNESS TAMPERING AND WITNESS RETALIATION. AN OVERLOOKED
SHORTCOMING OF OUR CRIMINAL STATUTES HAS ALLOWED THESE
THREE OFFENSES TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES AND INCENTIVES FOR
CRIMINALS IN THIS COUNTRY. I HAVE INTRODUCED THREE BILLS
WHICH I BELIEVE WILL CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE. FROViDE
PROSECUTORS WITH ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE IN COMBATTING
CRIMINALS, AND ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IN OUR COURTS MAY NOT
BE IMPEDED BY ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
CURRENTLY, TAMPERING IN A FEDERAL COURT CAN BRING A
89
MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. THIS PENALTY IS
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT WHICH COMES WITH SERIOUS
CRIMES SUCH AS FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER, KIDNAPPING,
AIR PIRACY AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. OVER THE YEARS, AS
FEDERAL PENALTIES FOR THESE CRIMES HAVE INCREASED, THE
PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS OR JURY HAVE FAILED
TO KEEP PACE. THIS DISCREPANCY HAS, THEREBY, CREATED AN
INCENTIVE FOR INDIVIDUALS STANDING TRL\L TO ATTEMPT TO
INTIMIDATE WITNESSES AND JURORS OR TO OFFER A BRIBE.
TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE IN NEWARK IN 1988 WHERE 20
DEFENDANTS STOOD TRIAL ON CHARGES OF RACKETEERING IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR ALLEGED MEMBERSHIP IN THE LUCCHESE
CRIME FAMILY. ALL20DEFENDANTS WERE ACQUITTED. HOWEVER,
IN 1994, TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS PLEADED GUILTY TO JURY
TAMPERING AFTER CO-DEFENDANTS IN A SEPARATE CASE TURNED
THEM IN. INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO APPLY A SENTENCE EQUAL
TO THAT OF THE ORIGINAL CRIME, THOSE TWO DEFENDANTS
BENEFITTED FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND FACED A MAXIMUM
SENTENCE OF ONLY FIVE YEARS FOR JURY TAMPERING. WHAT IS
WORSE THAN A CASE LIKE THIS, IS THAT THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
TAMPERING GOES UNNOTICED, OR AT LEAST UNPROSECUTED,
90
LEADING TO THE ACQUITTALS OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, HIGH
NUMBERS OF UNSOLVED CASES, AND A PERCEIVED FAILURE OF OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
I HAVE INTRODUCED THREE BILLS DURING THE 104TH
CONGRESS WHICH WILL CORRECT THE CURRENT INEQUITY IN
TAMPERING SENTENCES. H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, AND H.R. 1145
ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WITNESS RETALL\TION AND TAMPERING
AND JURY TAMPERING, RESPECTIVELY. BY EQUATING THE
PENALTIES FOR THESE CRIMES WITH THE POTENTIAL SENTENCES
FOR OTHER FEDERAL CRIMES, THIS LEGISLATION CREATES A
DISINCENTIVE FOR THOSE FACING STIFF SENTENCES FOR EGREGIOUS
OFFENSES TO TAMPER WITH A JURY OR INTIMIDATE A WITNESS.
AS A FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, I HAVE EXPERIENCED
FIRSTHAND THE FRUSTRATION FACED BY CITIZENS AND MEMBERS
OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY WHEN CASES GO UNSOLVED
BECAUSE WITNESSES WILL NOT STEP FORWARD. I ALSO
SYMPATHIZE WITH DISTINGUISHED PROSECUTORS SUCH AS DISTRICT
ATTORNEY MICHAEL MARINO FROM MY DISTRICT AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEY LYNNE ABRAHAM OF PHILADELPHIA WHO DAILY FACE
THE CHALLENGES POSED BY BOTH JURY AND WITNESS TAMPERING
91
AND WITNESS RETALIATION. BOTH HAVE ENDORSED MY
LEGISLATION AS HAS THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCL\TION.
AT THE STATE LEVEL, PENALTIES FOR JURY TAMPERING CAN
VARY STATE TO STATE FROM LESS THAN A YEAR UP TO SEVEN
YEARS. MS. ABRAHAM RECENTLY BLAMED WITNESS INTIMIDATION
AS A CHIEF CAUSE OF THE HIGH NUMBER OF UNSOLVED HOMICIDES
IN PHILADELPHIA, WHICH NEIGHBORS MY DISTRICT. TWENTY YEARS
AGO PHILADELPHIA POLICE SOLVED 86 PERCENT OF HOMICIDES BUT,
LAST YEAR THAT NUMBER WAS DOWN TO 58 PERCENT. I AM
PARTICULARLY HOPEFUL THAT THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU
TODAY WILL SET A STANDARD FOR THE STATES TO FOLLOW AND
LEAD TO GREATER UNIFORMITY NATIONWIDE FOR TAMPERING
PENALTIES, INCREASED SECURITY FOR JURORS AND WITNESSES, AND
A MORE EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE
CHALLENGES OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN A BIPARTISAN
MANNER AND TO SWIFTLY MOVE FORWARD THIS CORRECTIVE
LEGISLATION.
92
National District Attorneys Association
99 Canal Center Plaza • Suite 510 • Alexandria. Virginia 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-9222 Fax: (703) 836-3195
Office of the Prtsuient
June 2, 1995
The Honorable Jon D. Fox
510 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3813
Dear Congressman Fox:
The Executive Committee of the National District Attorneys Association strongly supports your
efiforts to fight jury tampering and wimcss retaliation. Our system of criminal justice is
continually under attack as criminals actively seek out citizens who serve as jurors or v^messes
and attempt to intimidate or coerce them. In a skailar vein jurors and wimesses, as well as
prosecutors and judges, arc subjected -to harassment and civil suit to discourage them from
dischargmg their sworn duties.
The foundations of the American system of criminal justice are. built upon the right of tnal by
jury and the presentation of evidence in open procestfings- The mounting attacks on jurors and
wimesses undenmne these sacrosanct rights and call to task our entire judicial system. The
legislation you have initiated sends a strong messaga lo those who would trifle Mth our criminal
justice sj'stem.
We urge the Congress to take resolute and timely action on your legislative initiatnes. We
cannot aiTord to idly watch our system of justice crumble imder the attacks of wanton criminals
those who selfishly ally themselves with their cai
has allowed three offenses to create opportunities and incentives
for criminals in this country.
I have introduced three bills, with the support of members of the
committee, which I believe, with your help, will close this loophole,
provide prosecutors with additional leverage in combating crimi-
nals, and ensure that justice in our courts will not be impeded by
additional criminal activity.
Currently, tampering in a Federal court can bring a sentence
which is significantly less than that which comes with serious
crimes, such as first and second-degree murder, kidnapping, and
air piracy, and drug trafficking.
Over the years, as Federal penalties for these crimes have in-
creased, the penalties for tampering with a witness or jury have
failed to keep pace. This discrepancy has thereby created an incen-
tive for individuals standing trial to attempt to intimidate wit-
nesses and jurors or to offer a bribe.
Take, for example, the case in Newark in 1988 where 20 defend-
ants stood trial on charges of racketeering in connection with their
alleged membership in the Lucchese crime family. All 20 defend-
ants were acquitted.
However, in 1994 two of the defendants pleaded guilty to jury
tampering after codefendants in a separate case turned them in.
Instead of being able to apply a sentence equal to that of the origi-
nal crime, those two defendants benefited from the present system
and faced a maximum sentence of only 5 years for jury tampering.
What is worse than a case like this is that the most successful
tampering goes unnoticed or at least unprosecuted, leading to the
acquittal of dangerous criminals, high numbers of unsolved cases,
and a perceived failure of our justice system in this instance.
I have introduced these bills in the 104th Congress which will
help correct the current inequity in tampering sentences. H.R.
1143, 1144, and 1145 address the issues of witness retaliation and
tampering, and jury tampering, respectively. By equating the pen-
alties for these crimes with the potential sentencing for other Fed-
eral crimes, this legislation creates a disincentive for those facing
stiff sentences for egregious offenses to tamper with a jury or in-
timidate a witness.
As a former assistant DA in Montgomery County, PA — and I
know several members on the panel themselves have been former
U.S. attorneys and prosecutors — I have experienced, as you have,
firsthand the frustration faced by citizens and members of the
87
criminal justice community when cases go unsolved because intimi-
dated witnesses will not step forward. I know Chief Heineman has
seen this same kind of experience in his law enforcement career.
I also sympathize with the distinguished prosecutors such as
Montgomery County District Attorney Michael Marino from my
district and the district attorney of Philadelphia, Lynn Abraham,
who daily face these challenges posed by both jury and witness
tampering and witness retaliation. Both have endorsed my legisla-
tion as has the National District Attorneys Association and the
Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association,
At the State level, penalties for jury tampering can vary State
to State from less tiian a year up to 7 years. Ms. Abraham recently
blamed witness intimidation as the chief cause of a high number
of unsolved homicides in Philadelphia, PA, which neighbors my dis-
trict. Twenty years ago Philadelphia police solved 86 percent of
homicides, but last year that number was down to 58 percent, in
large part due to the problems that I have outlined.
I am particularly hopeful that the legislation before you today
will set a standard for the States to follow and lead to greater uni-
formity nationwide for tampering penalties, increased security for
jurors and witnesses and a more eflFective system of justice for all.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with vou and members
of your subcommittee to address the challenges of our criminal jus-
tice system in a bipartisan manner and to move forward this cor-
rective legislation.
We have submitted with our packet the letter of endorsement by
the National District Attorneys Association and the Pennsylvania
District Attorneys Association. At this time, I would like to enter
in the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the letter from the district
attorney of Montgomery County, PA, as well as the District Attor-
ney from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
88
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon D. Fox, a Representative in Congress From
THE State of Pennsylvania
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR OFFERING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU TODAY ABOUT IMPORTANT
ISSUES FACING THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM - JURY AND
WITNESS TAMPERING AND WITNESS RETALIATION. AN OVERLOOKED
SHORTCOMING OF OUR CRIMINAL STATUTES HAS ALLOWED THESE
THREE OFFENSES TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES AND INCENTIVES FOR
CRIMINALS IN THIS COUNTRY. I HAVE INTRODUCED THREE BILLS
WHICH I BELIEVE WILL CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE. FROViDE
PROSECUTORS WITH ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE IN COMBATTING
CRIMINALS, AND ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IN OUR COURTS MAY NOT
BE IMPEDED BY ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
CURRENTLY, TAMPERING IN A FEDERAL COURT CAN BRING A
89
MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. THIS PENALTY IS
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT WHICH COMES WITH SERIOUS
CRIMES SUCH AS FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER, KIDNAPPING,
AIR PIRACY AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. OVER THE YEARS, AS
FEDERAL PENALTIES FOR THESE CRIMES HAVE INCREASED, THE
PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS OR JURY HAVE FAILED
TO KEEP PACE. THIS DISCREPANCY HAS, THEREBY, CREATED AN
INCENTIVE FOR INDIVIDUALS STANDING TRL\L TO ATTEMPT TO
INTIMIDATE WITNESSES AND JURORS OR TO OFFER A BRIBE.
TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE IN NEWARK IN 1988 WHERE 20
DEFENDANTS STOOD TRIAL ON CHARGES OF RACKETEERING IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR ALLEGED MEMBERSHIP IN THE LUCCHESE
CRIME FAMILY. ALL20DEFENDANTS WERE ACQUITTED. HOWEVER,
IN 1994, TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS PLEADED GUILTY TO JURY
TAMPERING AFTER CO-DEFENDANTS IN A SEPARATE CASE TURNED
THEM IN. INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO APPLY A SENTENCE EQUAL
TO THAT OF THE ORIGINAL CRIME, THOSE TWO DEFENDANTS
BENEFITTED FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND FACED A MAXIMUM
SENTENCE OF ONLY FIVE YEARS FOR JURY TAMPERING. WHAT IS
WORSE THAN A CASE LIKE THIS, IS THAT THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
TAMPERING GOES UNNOTICED, OR AT LEAST UNPROSECUTED,
90
LEADING TO THE ACQUITTALS OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS, HIGH
NUMBERS OF UNSOLVED CASES, AND A PERCEIVED FAILURE OF OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
I HAVE INTRODUCED THREE BILLS DURING THE 104TH
CONGRESS WHICH WILL CORRECT THE CURRENT INEQUITY IN
TAMPERING SENTENCES. H.R. 1143, H.R. 1144, AND H.R. 1145
ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF WITNESS RETALL\TION AND TAMPERING
AND JURY TAMPERING, RESPECTIVELY. BY EQUATING THE
PENALTIES FOR THESE CRIMES WITH THE POTENTIAL SENTENCES
FOR OTHER FEDERAL CRIMES, THIS LEGISLATION CREATES A
DISINCENTIVE FOR THOSE FACING STIFF SENTENCES FOR EGREGIOUS
OFFENSES TO TAMPER WITH A JURY OR INTIMIDATE A WITNESS.
AS A FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, I HAVE EXPERIENCED
FIRSTHAND THE FRUSTRATION FACED BY CITIZENS AND MEMBERS
OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY WHEN CASES GO UNSOLVED
BECAUSE WITNESSES WILL NOT STEP FORWARD. I ALSO
SYMPATHIZE WITH DISTINGUISHED PROSECUTORS SUCH AS DISTRICT
ATTORNEY MICHAEL MARINO FROM MY DISTRICT AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEY LYNNE ABRAHAM OF PHILADELPHIA WHO DAILY FACE
THE CHALLENGES POSED BY BOTH JURY AND WITNESS TAMPERING
91
AND WITNESS RETALIATION. BOTH HAVE ENDORSED MY
LEGISLATION AS HAS THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCL\TION.
AT THE STATE LEVEL, PENALTIES FOR JURY TAMPERING CAN
VARY STATE TO STATE FROM LESS THAN A YEAR UP TO SEVEN
YEARS. MS. ABRAHAM RECENTLY BLAMED WITNESS INTIMIDATION
AS A CHIEF CAUSE OF THE HIGH NUMBER OF UNSOLVED HOMICIDES
IN PHILADELPHIA, WHICH NEIGHBORS MY DISTRICT. TWENTY YEARS
AGO PHILADELPHIA POLICE SOLVED 86 PERCENT OF HOMICIDES BUT,
LAST YEAR THAT NUMBER WAS DOWN TO 58 PERCENT. I AM
PARTICULARLY HOPEFUL THAT THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU
TODAY WILL SET A STANDARD FOR THE STATES TO FOLLOW AND
LEAD TO GREATER UNIFORMITY NATIONWIDE FOR TAMPERING
PENALTIES, INCREASED SECURITY FOR JURORS AND WITNESSES, AND
A MORE EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR ALL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE
CHALLENGES OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN A BIPARTISAN
MANNER AND TO SWIFTLY MOVE FORWARD THIS CORRECTIVE
LEGISLATION.
92
National District Attorneys Association
99 Canal Center Plaza • Suite 510 • Alexandria. Virginia 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-9222 Fax: (703) 836-3195
Office of the Prtsuient
June 2, 1995
The Honorable Jon D. Fox
510 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3813
Dear Congressman Fox:
The Executive Committee of the National District Attorneys Association strongly supports your
efiforts to fight jury tampering and wimcss retaliation. Our system of criminal justice is
continually under attack as criminals actively seek out citizens who serve as jurors or v^messes
and attempt to intimidate or coerce them. In a skailar vein jurors and wimesses, as well as
prosecutors and judges, arc subjected -to harassment and civil suit to discourage them from
dischargmg their sworn duties.
The foundations of the American system of criminal justice are. built upon the right of tnal by
jury and the presentation of evidence in open procestfings- The mounting attacks on jurors and
wimesses undenmne these sacrosanct rights and call to task our entire judicial system. The
legislation you have initiated sends a strong messaga lo those who would trifle Mth our criminal
justice sj'stem.
We urge the Congress to take resolute and timely action on your legislative initiatnes. We
cannot aiTord to idly watch our system of justice crumble imder the attacks of wanton criminals
those who selfishly ally themselves with their cai
Online Library → United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J → Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) → online text (page 6 of 13)
Using the text of ebook Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) by United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J active link like:
read the ebook Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R.
read the ebook Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R.
