Judges Probe Prosecutors’ Choices on Drug Arrests : Enforcement: Defense lawyers claim police target minorities under ‘schoolyard’ law. Prosecutors say officers go where problem is greatest.

Three federal judges sharply questioned prosecutors and defense lawyers Monday about claims that the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles has selectively targeted blacks and Latinos for prosecution under a 1986 federal law requiring stiff prison terms for dealing drugs near schoolyards, playgrounds and video arcades.

U.S. District Judge W. Matthew Byrne Jr. said the judges had decided to jointly question the lawyers because nine currently pending cases in federal court here raise the same question. But Byrne said the judges would rule separately on whether each case should be dismissed on grounds of selective prosecution.

Congress passed the so-called “schoolyard law” as part of the Controlled Substances Act to combat drug sales within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard, or 100 feet of a playground or video arcade.

Local authorities have made virtually every arrest in these cases in Southern California. They then consulted the U.S. attorney’s office to determine whether the defendant should be prosecuted in state or federal court.

Where these cases are prosecuted is significant, because federal sentences are stiffer. For example, a defendant in state court could receive only a six-month sentence for an offense that would bring 20 years in federal court.

Judge Byrne said the defense lawyers would have a tough task to prove selective prosecution.

“We might be terribly concerned about how these cases were selected,” he said, but “the only way you can prevail on this motion is to prove that the selection (of defendants) was made on the basis of race.”

The U.S. attorney’s office set up a special program to prosecute schoolyard cases in 1987.

Defense attorney Mary Gibbons of North Hollywood told the judges that since then, 91 of the 92 people charged under the law in federal court here were either black or Latino. She said this showed that the U.S. attorney’s office was intentionally targeting minorities for prosecution.

“They’re only looking in South-Central Los Angeles and the Hispanic areas,” Gibbons said. “They’re just not looking in white areas for schoolyard cases. They’re only looking in areas where they’re going to find minorities.”

Such enforcement, she said, raises further questions about the tactics of the Los Angeles Police Department and the U.S. attorney’s office..

Gibbons said the U.S. attorney’s office has jurisdiction in seven Southern California counties, but the only cases it had filed under the schoolyard law were generated by police agencies in Los Angeles County--primarily the Los Angeles Police Department.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven G. Madision replied that “race was not a factor” in the office’s decisions on whom to prosecute. He said the decisions were based on criteria set out by former U.S. Atty. Robert C. Bonner Jr.--primarily the quantity of drugs sold and whether the person had prior convictions. Persons who did not meet the criteria were referred to the district attorney’s office for prosecution in state court.

However, Madison said he did not know the answer to several questions posed by judges Byrne, Terry J. Hatter Jr. and Mariana R. Pfaelzer. They included how many of the cases involved children, how many of the arrests were made at night, how many of the arrests were made in public housing projects and the racial composition of persons whose cases were referred to state court. Federal Judge Richard A. Gadbois Jr. also participated in Monday’s hearing, but did not question the attorneys.

The judges indicated that they were wary of granting defense lawyers extensive discovery because of what they considered the wide-ranging nature of the requests. Judge Pfaelzer called their request for information on how officials in the LAPD made decisions about what areas to target “very-far reaching.”

However, the judges also indicated that they were puzzled that there were virtually no cases involving white defendants, as it is well-known that there is considerable drug-dealing in some white neighborhoods and in some schools with predominantly white student bodies.

“Why are all these cases from minority areas?” Hatter asked Madison.

“The police went where they thought the problems were the greatest,” the prosecutor replied.

Later, Hatter said he believed the LAPD could generate cases from white schools because “they have undercover agents” in those schools.

“Isn’t the real problem (that) nothing was being presented to you (for prosecution) except minority cases?” Pfaelzer asked Madison.

He responded that he didn’t know, because “we don’t keep records on race.”

For months, several federal judges have privately expressed dismay about some of the schoolyard cases filed in Los Angeles. The judges feel that some of these cases are more appropriate for state court because they are generated by local law enforcement and do not involve large-scale crimes.

Byrne said he had handled one case where “a 20-year-old girl” was charged and convicted under the law after selling $25 worth of crack cocaine to an elderly LAPD informant while in her boyfriend’s apartment in a housing project within 1,000 feet of a schoolyard.

The woman received a five-year sentence, a mandatory minimum under current federal law. Byrne questioned the wisdom of “the prosecutorial discretion” involved in filing the case in federal court rather than state court.

“That’s a separate question” from selective prosecution, Madison responded.

“I guess it is,” Byrne said. “I hope someone is thinking about it because a substantial number of us are deeply concerned about those decisions.”