Senate Convicts Judge, Strips Him of Office

The Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment Friday for only the 12th time in its history, convicted U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings of Miami of taking part in a bribery plot and removed him from office.

The 53-year-old Hastings, still protesting his innocence after losing the lifetime job that paid him $89,500 a year, said in a statement that he plans to run for governor of Florida and open a law practice in the Miami area.

He was the sixth judge removed from the bench under the rarely used impeachment process and the first to be convicted by the Senate after being acquitted earlier of the same basic charges in a criminal trial.

Hastings, the first black ever named a federal district judge in Florida, originally raised charges of racism against his accusers. But Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a black lawmaker who presided over the impeachment committee convened by the House, said he did not find any traces of racism in the process. The House voted, 413 to 3, to file the charges.

In a solemn ritual, the required two-thirds of the Senate found Hastings guilty of eight of the 17 charges filed against him by the House. He was acquitted on three charges, and the Senate decided against voting on six others.

In contrast with the more casual atmosphere that prevails during normal legislative business, the senators sat quietly at their desks as the presiding officer, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) read the charges against Hastings.

In a carry-over from the past, Byrd asked the senators: “How say you?” Then each senator responded “Guilty” or “Not guilty” as his or her name was called.

Hastings watched from the gallery as he was convicted, 69 to 26, on the first bribery-conspiracy charge, then he left the Capitol.

More than a quarter of the senators, including five of the 12 lawmakers who sat on a special impeachment committee and heard the evidence against Hastings, voted for acquittal even on the major counts.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the committee, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), its vice chairman, both voted for acquittal on all charges, saying there was insufficient evidence to find Hastings guilty.

Unlike a criminal trial, however, conviction by the Senate requires only a two-thirds vote, not a unanimous verdict. The standard of proof is decided by each senator rather than the customary courtroom requirement of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The main accusation was that Hastings conspired in 1981 with William Borders, then a Washington attorney, to take $150,000 from two criminal defendants in return for going easy on them. He was also accused of making false statements and falsifying evidence in a 1983 criminal trial in which he was acquitted of the bribery charges.

Borders, convicted in a separate trial in 1982, refused to testify during the Senate trial and was jailed for civil contempt pending completion of the proceedings.

In fighting the charges, Hastings contended that he was being subjected to double jeopardy in violation of his constitutional rights, but the Senate rejected that argument, 92 to 1, last spring.

“In my opinion, the judgment is void of the wisdom of the forefathers’ teachings regarding impeachment,” Hastings said after the Senate verdict.

“Further, this . . . case gives new meaning to double jeopardy and renders a severe blow to the cornerstone of justice--the jury system,” he said. “What the Senate has said is that a standard of almost-proven, innuendo and inference is good enough to remove a judge or executive officer by way of impeachment. That is chilling and fraught with the potential to do a lot of harm.”

However, one of the three House members who acted as Hastings’ prosecutors took a different view of the outcome. Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.) said that the vote was a dramatic demonstration of the strength of the Constitution.

“Although no one derives great delight from a conviction such as this, one cannot deny that there is great satisfaction in knowing that the process works like a clock--a slow clock, a tedious clock--but nevertheless as steadfastly as a clock,” Gekas said.

The Senate voted unanimously to acquit Hastings of a charge that he had disclosed confidential information about a federal wiretap that he had approved.

He was also acquitted of a charge that his conduct had undermined confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The Senate voted, 60 to 35, for conviction on that charge, which was short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Similarly, he was acquitted of one count of making false statements, 48 to 47.

Under the cumbersome impeachment process, it took six years for Hastings’s case to come to a final vote in the Senate.

After his jury trial in 1983, a panel of judges investigated for more than three years before concluding that there was enough evidence to try Hastings for perjury.

The case then went before the House committee for investigation, debate and a vote. It then went to the full House, which voted to submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. A Senate committee spent four weeks hearing the case over the summer before sending it to the full Senate.

Counting Hastings, the Senate has removed only six judges from office. In history’s most famous impeachment trial, President Andrew Johnson was acquitted in 1868. Except for a single conviction in 1986, that of U.S. Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada on income tax evasion charges, an impeachment proceeding has not gone to the Senate in more than a half century.

BACKGROUND

Under Article II of the Constitution, Congress may impeach a President, vice president or federal judge for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution requires the House to investigate the charges and vote on impeachment, which is similar to an indictment. The Senate then tries the case, and a two-thirds majority is required for conviction. Throughout U.S. history, the Senate has conducted 12 impeachment trials, and it has convicted and removed from office six federal judges.