Judge Finds No Bias in Crack Prosecutions

In one of the first decisions of its type in the nation, a federal judge in Los Angeles has rejected allegations that the U.S. attorney’s office singles out African Americans for crack cocaine prosecutions because of their race.

The ruling represents a major victory for federal authorities in Southern California who have been besieged with allegations that they target minority neighborhoods for crack investigations while ignoring white traffickers in the potent drug.

Since Congress passed tough mandatory sentences for crack cocaine offenses in 1986, all crack defendants at the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles have been minorities, except one. Of the total, at least 75% have been African American. Most whites are prosecuted in state court, where the penalties are far lower.

“There is no evidence that the prosecutive decisions by the United States attorney’s office for the Central District of California are made on the basis of race,” said District Judge W. Matthew Byrne Jr., who held hearings in March to address allegations of selective prosecution.

In his two-page ruling, made public Monday, Byrne said the evidence shows that the FBI and federal drug task forces allocate their resources according to a “good faith” evaluation of an individual’s history of violence and which communities are most imperiled by the crack cocaine trade.

“We are gratified,” said Nora Manella, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. “We expected that any judge who looked carefully at the statistics and the evidence would reach this conclusion.”

Federal authorities in Los Angeles have steadfastly maintained for more than a year that they target neighborhoods where crack trafficking is especially devastating, and those are in minority communities.

Very few white traffickers, they say, would be able to meet federal prosecution guidelines. The criteria include gang activity, criminal records, potential for violence and the ability to sell at least 100 grams, or about four ounces, of crack. The level was raised from 50 grams almost a year ago.

Byrne issued the ruling in a criminal case against Paul Eugene Jamar of Los Angeles, a 24-year-old African American accused of selling almost 150 grams of crack cocaine to undercover officers. If convicted, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for each of the six counts filed against him.

Jamar’s defense attorney, federal public defender Myra Sun, declined to comment Monday, saying she is waiting for a more detailed ruling that Byrne plans to release later this month.

During court arguments on the case, she asked Byrne to dismiss the case on the grounds that federal prosecutors discriminate against minorities in crack cocaine cases. It was the first time direct allegations of racial bias in crack prosecutions have been leveled against the U.S. attorney’s office.

The defense contended in March that the use of sting operations in areas the government believes are riddled with crack-related violence and gang activity have had an unfair impact on African Americans. Since 1992, almost 75% of all federal crack defendants in Los Angeles have been black.

Federal crack laws, Sun said, are simply being used to get at members of minority groups while whites are excluded. The criteria the government selects, such as suspected gang activity, guarantee that a preponderance of blacks will be prosecuted because whites usually are not associated with gangs, she added.

“The feds can go into white communities and find people selling more than 50 grams of crack,” Sun said. “If they went everywhere they would find people of all races selling the drug.”

Assistant U.S. Atty. Rick Drooyan, chief of the criminal division, told Byrne that reducing violence and gang activity are legitimate law enforcement goals supported by minority communities. To divert limited federal resources from crack problems in those neighborhoods would be tantamount to racism, he said.

“We are not manipulating these guidelines,” Drooyan told the court. “The aggravating factors of violence, prior records and guns are not being used as proxies for race.”

In Los Angeles and elsewhere, the rigid penalties for crack trafficking have been among the most controversial legal issues in the federal court system.

Under the law, anyone caught trafficking in 50 grams of crack--less than two ounces--must serve a minimum of 10 years in prison. Those found in possession of five grams of crack, an amount weighing less than a quarter coin, face mandatory five-year sentences.

In Missouri two years ago, U.S. District Judge Clyde S. Cahill refused to give a mandatory 10-year sentence to a young African American convicted of crack trafficking. He called the federal law discriminatory.

“Subtle racism” had resulted in the selective prosecution of blacks, Cahill decided after hearing evidence that federal prosecutors in St. Louis had never charged a white person for crack trafficking. His decision was overturned on appeal, however.

Until the Jamar case, the legal debate has centered on how much proof of selective prosecution must be provided before courts can order federal prosecutors to open their files to defense attorneys exploring allegations of racism. The evidence usually has consisted of statistics showing the overwhelming numbers of minorities who have been prosecuted.

Over the last four years, two federal judges in Los Angeles have dismissed crack cocaine cases after the U.S. attorney’s office refused to comply with their orders to turn over records. One of these cases is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Since the dismissals, federal prosecutors have released volumes of material in an attempt to show they do not discriminate against minorities. As a result, some judges have turned down defense requests for documents, saying they did not provide enough indication of discrimination.

But in one of the most recent decisions, U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts concluded that there was “a strong inference” of discrimination in crack prosecutions and ordered prosecutors to turn over their records.