Judges Seek To Oust Chief Of Marshals

Many have long been frustrated by what they perceive as the service's stepchild status within the Justice Department. They are warning about a lack of a sophisticated security plan in the wake of the Chicago killings and the fatal shootings in March of a judge, courtroom reporter and sheriff's deputy by a prisoner in Georgia.

At the same time, career marshals in local courthouses are complaining more loudly to their judges that Reyna's management and staff cuts have left courtrooms vulnerable. A string of audits from 2003 to this year also raised concerns among judges; among other things, they found that the Marshals Service was failing to adequately keep track of its money and track the threats made on judges.

The cuts in Washington were the largest for any court in the country. They came as the courthouse was handling the trial of a gang accused of robbing banks with assault weapons, and the indictments of members of a Colombian terrorist group on charges of drug conspiracy and kidnapping.

"We've had very high-profile cases, where our local marshal has repeatedly requested additional people that he feels are necessary to be safe, and has been rejected by headquarters," Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan said. "That's caused me, as a chief judge, great concern. If the Washington office doesn't give us enough people to cover the situation, we're left exposed."

In Brooklyn, the federal court's chief judge wrote a letter to the attorney general in March complaining about Reyna's decision to shift 33 percent of front-line deputy marshals in his court -- 15 out of 45 -- to protect judges in a nearby court, reportedly Manhattan.

"Such a situation is dangerous and untenable," Judge Edward R. Korman wrote.

Against this backdrop, the executive committee of the Judicial Conference had its first meeting with Gonzales in mid-March, not long after he became attorney general. The committee's first request was that he urge President Bush to put a career marshal in charge of the Marshals Service. Reyna, formerly chief of the 130-person police force in Brownsville, Tex., became director of the marshals service in October 2001, and some judges raised questions about his experience.

The U.S. Marshals Service has a staff of 4,200; of those, 3,300 are deputy marshals. Its budget has risen from $592 million in 2001 to $733 million in 2004, according to the Justice Department's most recent figures.

Ralph Mecham, a member of the conference and director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said Reyna inherited a long-standing problem of meager resources devoted to his agency and to judicial security in particular. The agency historically has focused on the higher-profile task of tracking fugitives and has put less priority on protecting judges, Mecham said. Like a good, loyal bureaucrat, Mecham said, Reyna has not pressed his administration to give him more to do his job properly, despite the judges' rising ire.

"Reyna is a decent human being, but he hasn't been able to show leadership for us," Mecham said. "To lay all of this at Reyna's feet is unfair . . . but he hasn't done anything to make it any better."

The day after meeting with the judges, Gonzales announced that the Justice Department will review judicial security measures.

"Those of us in the justice community continue to have high regard for the protection provided by the U.S. Marshals Service," Gonzales said that week at an awards ceremony for marshals. "I know Director Reyna agrees with me that no judge should ever feel intimidated or threatened in any way, and I have asked the department to see if there is more that should be done."

Kevin Madden, spokesman for the Justice Department, said Gonzales is carefully weighing the complaints about the service, as well as the challenges it faces.

"This is an attorney general who listens," Madden said. "He takes the judges' concerns very seriously."

Judicial distrust of the service increased this month when the Justice Department and the Marshals Service pushed on Capitol Hill to seize control of a proposed $12 million appropriation from Congress for judicial security. Judges wanted the money in their budget to install electronic security in judges' homes.

The Marshals Service won control of the appropriation, though Congress directed that it be used for the electronic security.

A March 2004 audit by the inspector general for the Justice Department found that the Marshals Service often failed to assess the danger of threats against judges in a timely and credible way.

The audit also called the assessments "of questionable validity" because the service did not have access to historical information about 4,900 threats against judges from 1996 to 2004.

The Marshals Service insists that it is now faster at gauging threats and that the historic data are now available.