April 11, 2012

WASHINGTON--It appears that the DOJ may sue Apple and two other publishers within a week's time. The Justice Department alleges that price-fixing of ebooks for the iPad is in play, and they are already reaching settlements with several of the five publishers under investigation.

In their latest column for Forbes.com, Ayn Rand Center writers Don Watkins and Yaron Brook explain the three things everyone needs to know about the case.

According to Mr. Watkins and Dr. Brook, the threatened antitrust suit would (1) penalize a great company (2) for succeeding in the marketplace through (3) voluntary purchases by an adoring public.

The bottom line, according to the authors, is: "We're talking about free, voluntary contractual arrangements that the government has no business interfering with."

You can read the entire column here.

# # #

Don Watkins is a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a columnist at Forbes.com and his op-eds have appeared in such venues as Investor's Business Daily, Christian Science Monitor and CNBC.com.

Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a columnist at Forbes.com and his articles have been featured in major publications such as the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Investor's Business Daily. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV programs.

To interview Mr. Watkins or Dr. Brook , please contact media@aynrandcenter.org or call 202-609-7470, ext. 202.

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARC's website. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

 

 

CHICAGO - April 6, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn today granted 52 and denied 136 clemency petitions. This action marks another step in a series of clemency decisions aimed at eliminating a backlog of more than 2,500 cases that built up during the previous administration.

The 188 clemency petitions acted upon by Governor Quinn are part of dockets ranging from 2005 through 2012.  Each person granted clemency has recently undergone a criminal background check through the Illinois State Police's Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS).

Since taking office, Governor Quinn has acted on 1,923 clemency petitions. Governor Quinn has granted 718 and denied 1205 petitions. Those actions include granting 701 pardons and authorizing 16 people who had already received pardons to seek expungement of their convictions.

For additional information on the granted clemency cases, please contact Ken Tupy at the Prisoner Review Board at (217) 782-7274 or ken.tupy@illinois.gov.

 

###

DAVENPORT, IA - On April 6, 2012, Justo Lopez, Jr., age 29, of Davenport, Iowa, was

sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, announced United

States Attorney Nicholas A. Klinefeldt. United States District Judge John A. Jarvey also

sentenced Lopez to serve 5 years of supervised release following his imprisonment and pay $100

to the Crime Victims Fund. On December 9, 2010, Lopez entered a guilty plea in federal court to

conspiring to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine from January 2010 through

September 2, 2010.

In the winter of 2010, the Davenport, Iowa, Police Department, investigating cocaine

trafficking in the Davenport area, conducted several controlled buys of cocaine from Lopez.

Police then executed search warrants at Lopez' home and the home of an associate, seizing

drugs, cash, drug paraphernalia, and a drug ledger. Investigation revealed that Lopez received a

kilogram of cocaine on a weekly basis from a Chicago source. During the course of the

conspiracy, Lopez distributed at least 32 kilograms of cocaine.

This case was investigated by the Davenport Police Department and the Drug

Enforcement Administration, and was prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office,

Southern District of Iowa.

####
DAVENPORT, IA - On November 3, 2011, Jason Pendleton, age 29, of Davenport,

Iowa, was sentenced to 75 months imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, announced

United States Attorney Nicholas A. Klinefeldt. United States District Judge John A. Jarvey also

sentenced Pendleton to serve 5 years of supervised release following his imprisonment and pay

$100 to the Crime Victims Fund. On May 17, 2011, Pendleton entered a guilty plea in federal

court for violating Title 21, United States Code, Section 846, for conspiring to distribute at least

five kilograms of cocaine from September 2009 through September 25, 2010.

In the winter of 2010, the Davenport, Iowa, Police Department began investigating a

significant drug trafficking organization responsible for distributing large quantities of cocaine in

the Davenport area. As part of their investigation, police conducted several controlled buys of

cocaine from Keenyn Hickman. Police then learned that Pendleton was Hickman's source and

had been distributing cocaine to Hickman and others since 2008. Keenyn Hickman was

sentenced on November 3, 2011, to 120 months for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

This case was investigated by the Davenport, Iowa, Police Department and the Drug

Enforcement Administration, and the case was prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office

for the Southern District of Iowa.


April 6, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 10-0335

STATE OF IOWA vs. ANTHONY DEVON POLK

No. 11-1867

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. WILLIAM MICHAEL VILMONT
March 30, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 10-1751

STATE OF IOWA vs. CHARLES JAMES DAVID OLIVER

No. 10-1770

STATE OF IOWA vs. JEFFREY K. RAGLAND

No. 11-2062

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. BRYAN J. HUMPHREY

Des Moines, March 28, 2012 – On Thursday, April 5, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Appellate Court Judge Thomas N. Bower will take the oath of office in a public ceremony in the supreme court courtroom in the Judicial Branch Building. Judge Bower, 51, fills the vacancy on the Iowa Court of Appeals that occurred when Chief Judge Rosemary Sackett retired.

Judge Bower, Cedar Falls, was appointed to the district associate court bench in 1993 and the district court bench in 1995. He was appointed Chief Judge of the First District in 2010. He received his bachelor's degree from Illinois State University in 1984 and his law degree from Drake University in 1987. Before becoming a judge, he served as an Assistant City Attorney for the City of Ames and as an Assistant Black Hawk County Attorney. Judge Bower helped to establish the Black Hawk County Adult Drug Court program in 2006 and a mental health court program in 2009. Judge Bower is a member of the Iowa State Bar Association, Black Hawk County Bar, and the Iowa Judges Association.

Judge Bower is married and has two sons.

Media Advisory: The court will allow cameras and audio recording equipment in the courtroom subject to available space. If you wish to be present for the entire ceremony and have camera and recording equipment to install, please arrive twenty minutes in advance of the ceremony. If you wish to record only a portion of the proceedings inside the courtroom, please call Steve Davis to make arrangements. The media room will also be open for use by the media. For questions about equipment set-up, contact Jim Evans at 281-5241.

 

# # #

"Hearing on the Special Counsel's Report on the Prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens"

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on a troubling matter that warrants our attention.  In his famous speech titled The Federal Prosecutor, then-Attorney General, and later Justice Jackson said, "The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America...While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst."  These are fitting words for today's hearing as we examine the conduct of Justice Department prosecutors in an effort to understand what went wrong in the prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens.

 

The government's prosecution of Senator Stevens was arguably the highest profile case ever brought by the Justice Department's Washington, D.C.-based Public Integrity Section.  It had consequences far beyond the jury's guilty verdict and impacted the Alaska Senate election in 2008.

 

While all criminal cases should be handled with the utmost professionalism, cases of this level of importance and publicity?where elections can be swayed?should be shining examples of the best of the Justice Department.  They should have the best prosecutors and the best agents, and should be a centerpiece of the American criminal justice system.  Unfortunately, this case appears to be the opposite of the ideal.

 

According to our witness today, the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens was "permeated by the systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence which would have independently corroborated [his] defense and his testimony, and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witness."  These are shocking statements that call into question the conduct of those involved in this prosecution, and threatens to resonate further throughout the Justice Department.

 

Like so many times before, we owe much of our insight into the department's failures to a whistleblower.  FBI Agent Chad Joy came forward in January 2009 with allegations of misconduct in the investigation of Senator Stevens.  While there were indicators of failures to turn over exculpatory material before, it was Agent Joy's disclosures to the court that instigated the investigation.

 

According to media reports, Agent Joy is no longer with the FBI.  I hope it's not because he was run out of the FBI for blowing the whistle on this prosecution gone wrong.  He deserves our thanks for having the courage to speak up.

 

To its credit, the Justice Department ultimately moved to dismiss with prejudice the case against Senator Stevens.  To Judge Sullivan's credit, he did not ignore this whistleblower.  He held the prosecutors in contempt of court for the failures to turn over exculpatory evidence.  He then appointed an independent Special Counsel to investigate and prosecute criminal contempt proceedings, if appropriate, against the Justice Department lawyers involved in the case.

 

Mr. Schuelke's report was recently released, on March 15, and Attorney General Holder has publicly stated the report has "disturbing" findings.  I think that is an understatement.  Reading through this report is like reading though a case study in poor management.  The case was riddled with problems right from the start when the Department of Justice sought an expedited trial date.  This decision, which is not fully explained and something I want to know more about, helped put the case on a collision course with failure.

 

Why would the department ask for an expedited trial date when the review for Brady material had just started and was far from complete?  From the report details, the Brady disclosure problems appear to stem from an expedited timeline, inadequate staffing, a lack of a defined chain of command for making decisions, and poor supervision.

 

Two major disclosure problems were not revealed until after the conclusion of the trial - exculpatory information from one of the prosecution's witnesses and the withholding of impeachment material of the prosecution's star witness, Bill Allen.  The impeachment evidence is particularly troubling because it involves the witness's effort to cover up a relationship with a 15-year-old prostitute.  It also raises questions because the Justice Department later advised state and local prosecutors not to pursue child sexual exploitation charges against Allen, and then dropped any federal charges.  This has led to a second investigation at the Department's Office of Professional responsibility as to why prosecution was declined.

 

In addition to the failures to disclose exculpatory material, the case also suffered from a series of questionable decisions from the management at Main Justice.  For example, prosecutors claim that conflicting involvement between the Public Integrity Section and leadership of the Criminal Division created an unclear chain of command.  They also claim that conflicts in personalities developed as a result of staffing decisions, decided by senior leadership in D.C.

 

Despite these supervisory failures, there is no recommendation in the report related to the management of the case.  I am particularly interested in this aspect because management failures such as this are sanctionable conduct by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

 

It will be interesting to see how this report compares to the final product issued by the Office of Professional Responsibility.  The report should include some review of the management of this case in addition to the disclosure failures.  The Attorney General should ensure that a full, unredacted version of that Office of Professional Responsibility report is provided to Congress.

 

At an oversight hearing in November, 2011, when Senator Hatch asked for a copy of the final Office of Professional Responsibility report, Attorney General Holder stated, "That is up to the people at OPR...what I have indicated was that I want to share as much of that as we possibly can, given the very public nature of that matter, and the very public decision that I made to dismiss the case."

 

Despite the Attorney General's purported desire to make this information public, his statement that it is "up to the people at OPR", leads me to believe we aren't likely to ever see that report.

 

The Justice Department has routinely blocked the release of Office of Professional Responsibility investigations, citing privacy laws and employee rights of the attorneys and agents guilty of misconduct.  The Attorney General ultimately oversees the Office of Professional Responsibility and if he truly wants that information made public, he should order it released upon the conclusion of the investigation.

 

In the event he doesn't, the Privacy Act has an exemption for Congress, and Mr. Chairman, even under the department's tortured reading of the plain text of that statute, you should be able to obtain that Office of Professional Responsibility report in an unredacted form.  I will be happy to work with you on this issue.

 

A lot went wrong in the prosecution of Senator Stevens, and despite this strongly worded report we are discussing here today, it seems nobody has been held accountable at the Justice Department.  A criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial, regardless of who he is, is fundamental to the American criminal justice system.  Yet, when those rights were intentionally violated by attorneys at the Justice Department, it seems no one was held accountable.  I find this fact even more disturbing than the findings in this report and we have an obligation to hold the Justice Department accountable for what went wrong here and prevent it from happening again in the future.

 

Thank you.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

 

This morning, Senator Grassley attended an hour of the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the 2010 health care reform law.  After listening to the arguments, Senator Grassley commented on the proceedings and how allowing cameras in the courtroom would allow millions of people to see one of the most historic cases heard by the court in the last 60 years.  Grassley is leading the effort to permit cameras in federal courtrooms, including the Supreme Court.  He was the first member of Congress to ask Chief Justice John Roberts to allow cameras in the Supreme Court during the health care reform proceedings so, "Every American (can) have the opportunity to see and hear this landmark case as it plays out, not just the select few allowed in the courtroom...Video coverage would help with the public's understanding of the controversial law, as well as the American judicial system."

 

Grassley's comments today are available at several places.

Video:  Click here to download the HD version of Grassley's comments. A SD version of the comments will be available today between 2:45 and 3 pm Central Time at the following coordinates:

AMC 1

Transponder 23 Horizontal

Downlink 4160

Audio - C-band analog

Audio: Comment is available on Senator Grassley's website at the following link:

Grassley Supreme Court Proceedings

Here is additional information about Grassley's efforts to permit cameras in federal courtrooms.

 

Q&A on Cameras in the Courtroom 

with U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

Q:        Who is able to witness arguments made in a case before the Supreme Court?

A:        The Supreme Court case to consider the constitutionality of the health care law enacted in 2010 has brought public access to court proceedings front and center.  While arguments are made for and against the sweeping health care law that requires citizens to obtain health insurance and puts unprecedented demands on states to provide Medicaid coverage, the justices, the lawyers, a few reporters, and 250 people have the opportunity to see them.  Some people with these seats may stay for the entire argument.  Others must leave the courtroom and give their seats to the next in line after three to five minutes.  In response to requests from me and others, the Supreme Court is making audio recordings of arguments available on its website later the same day.

 

Q:        What about anyone else being able to see the arguments?

A:        I've been working to give America a front-row seat to Supreme Court cases, as well as the proceedings in the nation's federal courts.  I've sponsored legislation for more than a decade to grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras in federal courtrooms.  That sunshine legislation has been passed many times by the Senate Judiciary Committee and with bipartisan support.  I've also introduced legislation for broadcast coverage of the Supreme Court, and the Judiciary Committee has voted to pass such a reform.

 

Short of enacting legislation, this year I appealed to the Supreme Court to allow broadcast coverage of the health care case.  Every citizen is impacted by this law, and it affects one-sixth of the nation's economy.  The first time I appealed for broadcast coverage of oral arguments before the Supreme Court was in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore case regarding the presidential election.  Audio was released immediately following the arguments.  Since then, the Court occasionally releases the audio of oral arguments the day it hears significant cases.  However, in most cases the Supreme Court now releases the audio recording of arguments at the end of each week.

 

In addition, a three-year experiment now is under way allowing camera coverage in 14 federal district courts across the country, including the Southern District of Iowa, in civil proceedings.  This program was adopted by the Judicial Conference, the policy-making entity for the federal courts, because of congressional interest.

 

These are steps in the right direction, but more can be done and should be done, so I will continue to work for passage of both pieces of legislation and complete access to the proceedings of the Supreme Court and federal courts.

 

Q:        What's the basis for your effort to allow broadcast coverage?

A:        Allowing cameras in the federal courtroom is consistent with the intent of America's founders that trials be held in front of as many people as choose to attend.  The First Amendment requires court proceedings to be open to the public and, by extension, news media.  As the Supreme Court articulated in 1947, in Craig v. Harney, "A trial is a public event."  And, "What transpires in the courtroom is public property ... ."  Beyond First Amendment implications, enactment of my legislation also would assist courts in complying with the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of public trials in criminal cases.

 

Public access to the proceedings of the courts reflects the democratic values of government transparency, due process, integrity of court proceedings, and civic education.  The best way to make sure government is accountable to the people is to establish transparency.

 

Most every state allows broadcast coverage of state courts.  In Iowa, it's been the case for more than 30 years.  In fact, for the Iowa Supreme Court, expanded media coverage includes not only traditional broadcast but also live and archived streams of all oral arguments.  The Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington last December about the success and value of this accessibility.  He said that "cameras expose the courts to what they are - a proud institution of justice."

 

Monday, March 26, 2012

Monday, March 26, 2012

 

Cantwell, Grassley Lead Bipartisan Senate Coalition Urging

Investment in Key Program to Fight Crime

Byrne JAG program provides critical assistance for local law enforcement fight

against gangs and meth but could face even larger budget cuts

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Last Friday, U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) led a bipartisan coalition of 42 senators in support of continued investment in a crucial tool for law enforcement in the fight against crime. The coalition, in a letter penned to Senate Appropriators, opposed any additional cuts to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which helps states and communities across the country reduce crime, prevent juvenile delinquency, and reduce recidivism.

 

"As you well know, Byrne JAG is a cornerstone crime-fighting program that supports the federal government's crucial role in spurring innovation across the criminal justice system, as well as testing and replicating evidence-based practices nationwide," wrote the Senators in a letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. "Given the significant financial constraints the federal government has faced in recent years, funding for Byrne JAG has been reduced by nearly one-third over the past two fiscal years. Therefore, we ask that the Byrne JAG program be protected against further cuts in the Fiscal Year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill."

 

Byrne JAG funds have been used to keep vital law enforcement programs alive that go after criminal gangs and facilitate drug treatment during a time when budgets for law enforcement officials and prosecutors across the nation have been cut. These funds can be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems. Investments in the program have been reduced by over one-third the past two fiscal years.

 

Even with lower funding levels, the program has played a major role in reducing crime. Nationally, from October 2008 through September 2011, recipients of Byrne JAG grants:

 

·         Disrupted over 5,000 drug trafficking organizations

·         Arrested 7,739 gang members on felony charges

·         And from July 2010 to July 2011 seized 2.3 million pounds of drugs

 

The Byrne JAG program is a partnership among federal, state, and local governments that tailors federal law enforcement grants to the needs of different communities. It supports a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and improve the criminal justice system that include : law enforcement programs; prosecution and court programs; prevention and education programs; corrections and community corrections programs; drug treatment programs; and planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.

 

The procedure for allocating Byrne JAG grants is based on a formula of population and violent crime statistics, in combination with a minimum allocation to ensure that each state and territory receives an appropriate share of funding. Sixty percent of Byrne JAG funds are allocated to states which then provide it to innovative programs in local communities. The remaining 40 percent is provided directly to communities via a state-wide competitive grant process.

 

The letter to Senate Appropriators was signed by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Udall (D-NM), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), John Kerry (D-MA), Max Baucus (D-MT),  Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), James Inhofe (R-OK), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jon Tester (D-MT), Scott Brown (R-MA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Joe Manchin (D-WV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mark Begich (D-AK), David Vitter (R-LA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jack Reed (D-RI), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

 

The complete text of the letter sent Friday follows.

 

March 23, 2012

 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

Chairwoman

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Senate Committee on Appropriations

142 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Senate Committee on Appropriations

125 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

 

Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison:

 

Thank you for your continued leadership in providing substantial federal support for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program over the years.  As you well know, Byrne JAG is a cornerstone crime-fighting program that supports the federal government's crucial role in spurring innovation across the criminal justice system, as well as testing and replicating evidence-based practices nationwide.

 

Given the significant financial constraints the federal government has faced in recent years, funding for Byrne JAG has been reduced by nearly one-third over the past two fiscal years.  These cuts will have a direct and serious impact in our states as successful public safety initiatives and cross-jurisdictional collaborations are forced to close or be scaled back.   Therefore, we ask that the Byrne JAG program be protected against further cuts in the Fiscal Year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.

 

One of the keys to the Byrne JAG program's continuing success is its flexibility: federal dollars can be used in a wide variety of capacities at the local level in the way most appropriate to address local community needs across the criminal justice spectrum, and allows localities to balance resources and react to urgent challenges or changing circumstances.

 

Byrne JAG funds are used for law enforcement, prosecution and courts, prevention, drug treatment and enforcement, gang prevention, planning, evaluation, training, technology, and crime and victim witness programs.  Guided by statewide strategic planning, Byrne JAG funds are able to test and measure innovative methods for reducing crime, preventing juvenile delinquency, and reducing recidivism, while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars.

 

Sixty percent of Byrne JAG funds are provided to the states to pass through for innovative programming in local communities.  The remaining forty percent is provided to local communities directly.  In Fiscal Year 2011, over 1,300 local jurisdictions across the country were awarded direct grants, and many more were awarded funds passed through by the state criminal justice planning agencies.

 

As you move forward in deliberations over Fiscal Year 2013 appropriations, we ask that you continue Congress' commitment to the Byrne JAG Program.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

###

 


Pages