Hearings to examine the nominations of James A. Crowell IV and Stuart G. Nash

Good morning. Let me welcome everybody to this hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Today the full committee will be considering eight nominations to the DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals. I wanna thank you for the nomi- thank the nominees for being here. But it's a full docket we've got in front of us. Uh, we look forward to to hearing from you. And despite the fact that my colleagues are fleeing the room, believe me, they are, they're eager to ask you questions. It's great to have ranking member Kim uh here with me today, and uh I look forward to a t- to a terrific hearing. The children are welcome in the room as as well, so uh the the more the merrier. Uh let me just uh uh say a word about uh the significance of of the day's uh hearing. Uh we have many many uh open spots, vacancies, both on the DC Court of Appeals and the DC Superior Court. These are vitally important courts to the safety of the capital city to the well-functioning of the capital city. I think one indication of that is we have with us in attendance today, the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals, as well as the Chief Judge of the DC Superior Court. We welcome both of you. I think your presence attested the significance of this hearing and the significance of the panels that we are going to be hoping to fill with these nominations today. Uh, there's significant significant backlog currently pending in the Superior Court, for example, more than a hundred thousand cases, one hundred thousand cases. were pending in the Superior Court at the start of the last year. Tens of thousands of those remain unresolved this year. Criminal trials are now running months longer than they did just before the pandemic. Some homicide and violent felony cases, which are the most serious matters the city faces, won't see trial until twenty twenty seven. You just think about the number of victims' families that are waiting for answers. Defendants who are sitting in jail without their day of court. And unfortunately all too often, dangerous people back on the street while the docket sits untouched. The Court of Appeals has its own vacancy problems, ones that has gone unaddressed for years. Every empty seat on either court is a case that does not get heard in a timely manner, a docket that does not move, a family that is left without answers. And that is why this hearing really matters. Here's our order of procedure today. I'm gonna turn it over to ranking member Kim to make his opening statement. Then I'm going to swear in and introduce briefly each of our nominees with a consent from my colleagues, which I hope that they'll give. We're gonna enter your opening statements into the record. And then I'm gonna give you a chance, ra- in lieu of a lengthy opening statement, we'll put those into the record for you. But I wanna give you a chance to introduce any family members or other special guests you may have with you today and then we'll jump right into questions. But first, let me turn over to ranking member Kim.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman, and thank you to you and Chairman Paul for moving forward with these nominees. Uh, and I'm I'm appreciative of uh filling in for ranking member Peters for allowing me to step in today for this really important hearing. Uh, while this shouldn't be a spectacular thing, I also want to take note that the nominations before us today came through the proper channels via the DC Judicial Nominations Commission, as required by law. To the nominees, congratulations, and thank you for your dedication to public service. For years, DC has struggled to fill local judicial vacancies. Um, that is because, unlike states they ha- that have their own process to place people on the bench, in DC, uh, we must follow a federal process of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation despite the fact that these are not federal judges. Unfortunately, this has historically led to long delays in confirming new judges, and the DC legal and public safety systems have suffered as a result. Still, it's critical we move forward in in place in in this process to place forward and confirm judges who demonstrate that they are qualified during the vetting process filling the vacancies on the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals will allow DC to tackle its case backlog and give people timely access to their day in court this is a unique role of this particular committee and I think it's important for the members that we take this seriously, uh, that we on top of what we're trying to do with legislation, with, uh, federal level confirmations, uh, the ability for us to be stewards and look after, uh, our capital, uh, is so important to play our role and to be able to lift up those that'll be doing this work day in and day out. So again, thank you for stepping up and I look forward to this hearing.

Very good. Thank you, Senator Kim. It's the practice of the committee to swear in our witnesses, so I'll ask you now to rise. and raise your right hand if you would, and respond to me.

Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do. I do.

We'll let the record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Now let me, without objection, enter each of your opening statements into the record. And now we'll just go down the line here. We'll start with you, Mr. Crowell. I'll have a brief introduction for each of you. And once I do that, we'll give you the opportunity to introduce any family members or other guests you may have with you. Our first nominee is James Crowell. Am I saying that correctly?

Uh, Crowell.

Crowell, there we go. Well, we'll get it right. Mister Crowell, the Honorable Judge James Crowell. Judge Crowell is an Associate Judge in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He previously served in leadership roles at the Department of Justice, and as a United States Attorney of the District of Maryland. Judge Crowell has a long and distinguished career as well in the United States Army Reserves. Thanks for being here today. Next is Mister Stuart Nash. Mister Nash is a partner at Holland and Knight. where he practices in the white-collar defense and governmental investigations divisions. He previously served as an associate judge on the superior court of the District of Columbia from twenty ten to twenty sixteen. Before that, he had a long tenure as a prosecutor at both the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney's Office here in the District of DC. Welcome, Mr. Nash. Uh, Mr. De Bono, am I saying that correctly, Mr. De Bono? OK, good. Mr. Christopher De Bono, Senior Counsel, at the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, OLP, where he leads efforts to develop and implement DOJ's policy objectives, including those concerning drugs, firearms, violent crime, and digital assets. Before his service at OLP, he was a senior attorney with the DEA's Office of Chief Counsel, and he's worked in private practice at multiple firms. Welcome, Mr. DiBono. Mister Michael DiLorenzo is a deputy chief in the national security section of the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia where he investigates and supervises matters relating to national security. Mister DeLorenzo has a long career as a prosecutor. Before his current role, he was a prosecutor at the Department of Justice, the US Attorney's Office for the District of DC, and in the State of Maryland. Welcome, Mister DeLorenzo. Next, we have the Honorable Sharon Goody. Uh, Judge Goody is an Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia, in the Office of Administrative Hearings, where she has served since two thousand and five. She hears matters involving public benefits, homeless shelters, nursing homes, and mental health group home issues. She's also a Commissioner on the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission. Before becoming an ALJ, Judge Goody was a prosecutor in the DC Attorney General's office. Thank you for being here, Judge. Next we have Mister Craig Lein. Mister Lein is a partner at K and L Gates. Before joining K and L Gates, Mister Lein served as Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the Department of Labor. He also previously served as the City Attorney for the City of Coral Gables, Florida. Two more, Miss Christine Macy. Miss Macy is a Deputy Chief in the Felony Major Crime Section at the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. Before her current role, Miss Macy served as a Senior AUSA, that's an Assistant United States Attorney, investigating and prosecuting homicide cases in the DC Superior Court, and fraud cases in the United States District for the District of Columbia. Welcome, Miss Macy. And finally, last but certainly not least, Mister Timmer, John Timmer, is a senior trial counsel in the enforcement division at the SEC. Before joining the SEC, Mister Ter- Mister Timmer served as an assistant US attorney in the US attorney's office for DC where he investigated and tried cases in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ranging from assaults to homicides. Again, welcome to all of you. Thank you again for being here. Now I'll just give you each a chance to introduce any family members or other guests you may have with you and we'll start with you, Mister Crowell. Thank you, Senator. Uh, good morning to all of you. I get impressed at

Thank you,

the

Senator, good morning to all members of the committee. Uh, I'm joined this morning, uh, by my wife, Michaeline, uh, our son, Jack, uh, who was, I believe, fourteen the last time we appeared before you, Senator. Uh, so he's grown up a little bit, but we're grateful to be back before you, and our daughter, uh, Elliot, who is viewing from afar. She's on a service trip abroad. Um, and then I'm also joined by Chief Judge Blackburn Rigsby. of the uh d c court of appeals as well as chief judge tony lee uh from uh my current court the trial court here in the d c superior court thank you senator

fantastic welcome to your family members and again welcome to both of the chief judges it's terrific to have you mister nash

uh thank you uh senator good morning uh i'm joined here today by my wife mary uh and my son christopher uh i have two other children who are uh working uh um one outside the united states and uh one uh up in new york city and we're not able to be here but i think are are watching remotely um i'm also joined by uh two of my work colleagues uh at holland tonight uh bill gould and john brownlee we started together in the us attorney's office for d. c. in nineteen ninety seven and have worked together on and off uh ever since and and i also have family friends mike flanagan and jocelyn dyer with me today

terrific very good mister devono

senator i am joined today by my wife uh alissa kempler um is behind me today and then my two children uh are here as well my son and my daughter um my parents came to see the hearing today and my father-in-law is here as well and i've a ton of uh friends and colleagues that i hope are watching

fantastic mr. de lorenzo

good morning senator and good morning um i'd like to thank my family who has been uh supported throughout my legal career um including my mother who is watching from above marion um my father henry um my wife paula and our two boys michael and christopher unfortunately they can't be here um they due to a a family um commitment um but they are watching um but thank you

very good uh judge goody

thank you good morning

thank you senator i'm joined by my son daniel

good morning

and seven friends eric yeah bravo and i like that

Fantastic. Mister Lien.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Senators, I'm joined today by my wife, Doctor Anna Maria Munoz Lien, uh my college sweetheart, when we met at Georgetown in nineteen ninety four. And I'm joined by my son, Pierce Lien, who attends School Without Walls here in the district, and I did wanna mention my daughter, Alexandra Lien. Uh she's not here today, she's autistic with intellectual disability. She attends St. Colette of Greater Washington, but we'll celebrate with her tonight.

Fantastic. Miss Macy.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning. I am joined today by my husband, Sean, seated behind me, as well as my parents, Denise and George McIntyre, who traveled from Michigan to be here today, as well as my son who's made some vocal appearances, and hopefully that will stay at a minimum.

It's most welcome. Any interventions are are very welcome. Mister Timmer.

Good morning, Senator, uh, and members of the committee. Uh, I'm joined here today by my wife, Jennifer, uh, my aunt, uh, Barbara Timmer, um, and my aunt, uh, Catherine Benkheim. Um, watching from afar, eh, my, is my mother in California, Susan Timmer. Um, and my two, our two daughters are at summer camp right now, so they are nowhere near a screen.

It's probably a good thing. Um, they'll come home to good news, hopefully. I'm going to defer my questions, and so we'll begin questions now. We'll do five minute rounds and we'll begin with ranking member Kim.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Again, thank you to all of you for for joining up. here i i wanted to really be able to use this to hit home what the impact of these vacancies are to uh the district and to help people understand specially here at the federal level why it's so urgent that we move forward uh to be able to move forward with this panel but just for large to be able to make sure we're doing better to be able to keep up with the needs so in particular uh you know mister kroll and uh mister nash i wanted to start with the two of you you know you're certainly aware of just the the challenges that we're facing right now when it comes to the judicial vacancies currently there are is over a roughly twenty percent vacancy rate on both the d. c. superior court and the court of appeals and the failure to replace these nominees has meant that the city cannot effectively administer justice, can you help us uh you know help explain what the problem is when it comes to this growing number of vacancies how does that impact public safety in DC. Mister Kroll, I'd like to start with you.

Thank you, Senator. Uh, with respect to the the impact of the unfilled vacancies, first, we are so grateful. Uh, as a sitting trial judge on the DC Superior Court, I am especially grateful. Uh, I know Chief Judge Lee is as well for you considering the nominees, uh, here today for both the Court of Appeals and the trial court. Um, with the lack of judges, it uh decreases as senator holly observed uh the number of cases we can hear uh the average uh judicial officer in my civil division that i'm currently in i spent the four years in the criminal division i spent three years in our family court division and the numbers are um skyrocketing they're quite quite high uh and i work as absolutely hard as i can uh but there are only so many hours in the day uh and we can't get to all the cases and it does create that backlog and those numbers are real Those cases are real, the litigants are real, and those delays are felt by those who are not able to get justice.

Mister Nash.

Uh, well thank you, Senator. Um, uh, on the one hand I I feel a little bit, uh, uh, odd talking about the the difficulty in in moving nominations through the process because uh Judge Kroll and I were nominated uh just this month and and um and so uh uh this committee has moved with great alacrity to put us on this and and to do this hearing and and certainly uh everyone uh sitting in the the the dais uh this morning and and the staff behind um uh has nothing to do with the the delay in the court of appeal filling court of appeal slots because you all have been nothing but gracious in moving our our nominations along it uh uh quite a quite a great clip but uh uh senator hawley i think uh in his opening remarks really put the the statistics to to uh to this problem. Um, one of the seats that uh, uh, I guess the seat that technically that Judge Kroll was uh, was nominated to has been open now for thirteen years. Um, so it's been at least thirteen years since the Court of Appeals has had its full slate of uh,

Thirteen years. Wow.

uh, of judges, and so um, you know, I, I know, I, I know Judge Kroll by reputation, myself uh, uh, I know uh, uh, both of us are, are really looking forward to rolling up our sleeves uh getting to work um given our experience in the superior court i think we're in a position to hit the ground running when we hit the court of appeals and uh if we're fortunate enough to be confirmed in uh uh forward to doing our share to to try to drive those numbers down and and get the point i mean i'm right now i'm a consumer of justice in the district of columbia i'm a a practicing lawyer and uh it takes a long time to get a decision uh both in the superior court and the court of appeals and uh we're we're committed to do what we can to make it.

And that challenge, it's something that makes everything not just slower but more expensive, and just more difficult to be able to navigate for for everybody. Is that right?

I mean there there gets to be a point, uh honestly, on the civil side where where litigants will decide that they're just gonna settle their matter rather than than wait um interminably for a for a for a trial or or or court of appeals. And and it wasn't that way when I was serving on the superior court ten years ago. This is a problem that has, for whatever reason, uh, um, um, become more of a problem in, in recent years. And, uh, uh

Yeah. And it has that impact. I mean, it makes, as you said, people start to not believe in the system in terms of its ability to, to function. And, you know, this is by virtue of the values that our country has in terms of giving people their day in court and being able to do that in a timely manner, And I just think at a time when there's such distrust in government, we need to show that we're doing the nuts and bolts, uh, and being able to deliver in that type of way. So, again, you know, I'm I'm very grateful to to Chairman Hawley, as well as, uh, Chairman Paul of the full committee, for moving this forward, for recognizing that this is an important function of this committee, and necessary for our capital. With that, I'll turn it over.

Very good. Uh, Mister Nash, if I could just start with you, you wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post. in which you state, and I'm gonna quote now, the DC Court of Appeals has become a substantial and underappreciated obstacle to reducing the city's high rate of violent crime regardless of who has control of the police. Could you just elaborate on on what you meant by that and um what perspective you might bring to this position in in light of your views here.

Uh, thank you, Senator. Um My opinion piece related to a specific case that came to my attention because um As you know, the Court of Appeal sits in three judge panels, and uh the the Court of Appeal's rendered a decision in a criminal case where two of the three judges who were on the panel, a unanimous decision overturning a gun conviction. Two or three of the judges on the panel sa- uh said in writing in their opinions that uh they were um uncomfortable with the way that they were coming out. They believed that their decision was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. And yet they felt compelled by the precedence of the DC Court of Appeals to come out the way they did. I I practiced law for a long time. I had never seen a decision come out unanimously with two of the three judges saying they didn't agree with their own decision. And uh, and I thought that that was uh um an interesting enough phenomenon that it was worth writing about. Um, I I looked at the case. I I came to the conclusion that uh, in my in my in my piece i came to the conclusion that uh the the judges who had expressed reservations about the opinion were right uh that's what i wrote in the opinion piece um and uh and it turns out that uh uh i wrote that last august uh this this winter uh the us supreme court weighed in on the decision and reversed the d. c. court of appeals not in the specific case that i wrote about but uh in another case on that same issue um, saying that, uh, the the issue that I wrote about, uh, um, the the DC Court of Appeals, uh, should be reversed.

This this was DW versus the United States, I think was the case. Is that correct?

That's the one I wrote about, the the one that the Supreme Court, uh,

Right.

later, um, wrote is confusingly enough called the United States versus RW, but, uh, same issue, uh, uh, different case.

But sticking with the DW case, Uh, this is uh, the Court of Appeals panel, as you said, threw out a defendant's gun crime conviction, even though if I remember correctly, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, the defendant's lawyers admitted at trial that the defendant illegally possessed a firearm.

That's true. Uh, that's not an unusual circumstance. Um, um, the the defense was that the police had acted inconsistently with the Fourth Amendment. And, and, and so it's not uncommon for, um, lawyers to challenge the Fourth Amendment issue, if they lose on the Fourth Amendment issue,

This is because the,

they will

not to interrupt you but just to mindful the time here, this is because the DC Court of Appeals had previously held that running away from officers unprovoked this is a quote from the controlling precedent, does not provide a reasonable ba- basis for suspecting that individual being involved in criminal activity. You said in the op-ed, most non-lawyers would I think concede that unprovoked flight provides an officer with sufficient reason to establish whether the fleeing individual might be involved That seems very commonsensical to me. Here's my question. Here's really what I'm driving at. What what does this mean for your approach to the role? If you're confirmed to this court that you've written about, does that mean that in in pr- in cases, let's let's abstract from this particular precedent. In cases where you think that the court's precedent, uh, or previous cases is wrong, will you push to have those reviewed in bank? I mean, what, give me a sense of what this means about your approach to the job.

well i i guess i would say to begin with um senator that i am not seeking this position because i plan on bringing a particular my um my theory uh uh of judging is that uh um every case should come before a a a tribunal that uh has an open mind eh and is going to hear the evidence um both the facts and the law apply them in an unbiased fashion. So, so I, I do not want to uh, anyone to suggest that my editorial that talked about a, a single case that I thought was wrongly decided, i- is reflective of me um, trying to uh, bring an agenda to the court. Um, that being said, um, uh, I think what the editorial demonstrates is that when I see something that I think is unjust, or, or, or not consistent with precedent, I am not shy about uh making my feelings uh known on that. And and and if you know, I I get to the uh fortunate enough to be confirmed and I get to the court, i- if I'm on a three judge panel and two of the judges disagree with me, I am not going to be shy about uh expressing my opinion. Um, I think as my editorial did, I I I think I do it in a respectful fashion. I I anticipate I would continue to do it in a respectful fashion. I I served on the Superior Court for six years and I think I had a a reputation of being a measured and respectful judge, and I would hope to continue that, uh, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed to the court.

Good, very good. Judge Crowell, let me just ask you before I return to Senator Kim. Uh, before you became a judge, you had a long career as a prosecutor. Drawing from your experience both both as a prosecutor and now your years on the bench, do you think that DC's criminal laws are being under-enforced, over-enforced, and forced about the right amount. What's your sense of it?

Senator, um, I appreciate the question. I think that, uh, on the restrictions on me that wades into public policy, I would be reluctant as a sitting judge to speak to matters of public policy. The judicial canons greatly restrict me, uh, from commenting on matters of public policy. Um, what I can tell you is as a federal prosecutor, um, I fought against violent crime. I sought justice for victims and I woke up every day fighting for those victims seeking justice for those victims whether it's rico violent crime cases that was my bread and butter um and uh what i have experienced while when i served on the in the criminal division the superior court the volume of cases um is significant and there are uh issues that need to be addressed

in your experience and as a general matter do tough sentences help deter violent crime or no

Uh, m- my experience is they do. Uh, uh, I - I believe that there are - there's a statute that provides what courts must consider in determining sentences amongst those factors and - and deciding a holistic faction is specific deterrence as to that offender as well as general deterrence as to the community there's rehabilitation there's also the nature and circumstances of the offense and in crafting a decision a judge is statutorily required to consider each of those factors in balancing a decision. but absolutely specific in general deterrence has a significant factor.

Senator Kim, anything further?

I I'd actually like to build off of that, but I'd like to ask this to the nominees for the DC Superior Court. That issue about balancing, that issue about trying to to weigh and and using your judgment on that, uh on uh on these cases that could be before you. I tried to think through, you know, the challenges when it comes to crime committed by younger individuals in Washington DC, a a trend that unfortunately we've been seeing on the rise. And I wanted to ask each of you to just give me a sense of how do you balance that importance of accountability when it comes to our rule of law with the potential of rehabilitation, with uh the potential of of continuing to try to shape young people who have their whole lives ahead of them. How do you each of you think through that and will approach that if confirmed into these jobs uh mister de bono why don't we start with you and we'll go down the line

uh as mister uh judge kroll said the as a judge i'll be confined to the decode provisions uh on sentencing and uh the factors that i'll have to consider which is specific deterrence uh general deterrence uh rehabilitation and uh any education that can be provided to the defendants and i think that that is important i think it's important to keep uh individuals that are a threat to the community out of the community and then i think it's also important that uh before individuals are returned to the community they know where they pose a threat uh particularly for younger individuals that are likely to reenter the community that they are in a position where they can do so and that they are fully rehabilitated and no longer to in a position where they're gonna cause harm to the community and so uh if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed i'll i'll look at sentencing uh based on the criminal history of the specific defendant any um, pretrial sentencing recommendations, statutory penalties, and then try to craft a penalty that accomplishes all of the goals of sentencing.

Mister DiLorenzo.

Great, thank you. The sentence really has to be crafted to the individual, and that's, you know, the judge's role as I I would I would agree with my my fellow nominee. And by doing that you look at each case on o o o on its own. And you look at the the seriousness of the offense, um, the characteristics of the accused, which which includes right would include of the of the accused um their their record as well you also look at the impact on the the victim and you know the sentence another factor would be protecting protecting the public and again deterring this defendant from committing that offense in the future and that may very well be punishment it may be a debilitation um another um factor is deter others from committing that offense so you know it's every case has to be taken um on its own facts um you know

miss Cote

um so i concur with my fellow nominees as

would you mind speaking into the mike load

sure is this better

yeah

ok i confer with my fellow nominees that it has to be done on a case-by-case basis certainly uh what i look for is community safety if this person is on release is is this person going to be safe in the community yes sometimes no um in particularly i prosecuted juveniles we'd have the uh the presentance report we'd get sometimes psychiatric reports so we could get uh a better sense of what was gonna work best for this particular individual in the community also look at potential for rehabilitation to rehabilitate this particular individual parents um if if this particular individual is out in the community what's that gonna say if this up, what's that going to say? Uh, so a number of things, and and it's gonna vary with each defendant or respondent.

I would follow the standards in the statute. I would For for a violent crime, it's important that you treat it very seriously. In the end, the goal of sentencing, I when you when you look at all the standards, I've always taken it to be to make sure that this person does not commit another crime. And that can include rehabilitation, but that also sometimes includes a sentence that's commensurate with what they've done.

I concur with the sentiment of my fellow nominees in terms of each case needs to be looked at in the particulars of that particular defendant and the particular facts of that case so working in the legal framework I would of course start with any sort of requirements of if there is a statutory mandatory minimum at play, that that of course has to be considered in the sentencing and followed. I'd also look at the sentencing guidelines that provide a parameter for judges as a starting point to consider what is assessed as a a fair uh and reasonable sentence, that you can then apply the specifics of the case to th- to that particular case and determine what the appropriate sentence is by looking at the s- the factors in the DC code to include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the criminal history of the defendant, their personal circumstances, so to your question their their youth their particular background, those considerations. And I would say that I would uh em- employ this approach as a judge very consistently with how I've done as a prosecutor for almost fourteen years.

Um, I just, I think this is such an important issue as, as a parent uh here in the community. Um, it's, it's, it's so important to, to be mindful of, of, of what you're raising. Um, I'd echo a lot of what my uh fellow nominees have said about judging each case uh and each defendant on uh on their own merits and applying the the factors that are laid out by the code. um i will add that uh the d c code as it relates to juvenile justice talks about some of the purposes of that code and there to um they are to rehabilitate and also to hold juveniles accountable for their actions and you know i'm i'm convinced that holding somebody accountable for what they've done is part and partial of rehabilitation unless you've understood that that you've done something wrong, you you can't move forward. And so I think that that's um those are important goals that I'd I'd keep in mind as I uh, if I am fortunate enough to be confronting cases like that.

And let me just ask now the Superior Court nominees. So starting with you, Mister de Bonham, and just as Senator Kim did, I just wanna go down the line and give you each a chance to respond to a question or two. Let's come back to this notion of deterring violent crime. What is it that your under what is your understanding of what your role would be, each of you,

my idea of my role if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed is to set up a a punishment uh sentence for a an individual has committed a crime uh that is commensurate with the crime uh commensurate with the individual's criminal history and is appropriate enough to deter that individual from committing further crimes to protect the public safety and to prevent others from engaging in similar activity.

right mr. de la renza

i i would agree with my my um fellow nominee i mean as a prosecutor um you know i made recommendations um for incarceration um as a judge you're better suited because you see at at the sentencing you know he um see the the whole picture and should be should look at the whole picture um and you know part of that is to um you know impose a sentence that will deter this individual and part of that is sometimes giving a stiff sentence but a but a piece of that is oftentimes to to provide some sort of rehabilitation to get to to get to the motive of of what may have caused the crime and that's uh getting some piece of rehabilitation it may be drug treatment it may be sort of some some sort of mental health treatment so it's a fashion appropriate sentence that deters this individual deters Others as well.

Judge Goody.

And I concur with my fellow nominee. parents. I remember when I was a prosecutor, um, there was a level of recidivism that was getting frustrating. And so what I would be looking at, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is, um, is this, uh, has this person done this once or has this person done this What was put in place on that first time? Did it work? um and and what can i do for this person to hopefully prevent recidivism for that one person let the community know that i'm trying to prevent um recidivism in a larger sense uh so be looking at their past record is it the same thing over and over again or is it different things uh any reports that i can get on psychiatric psychological if i'm in a juvenile uh delinquency court um i'd wanna know how can i make how can i i can't make sure but how can I come closest to making sure that this person is not gonna do it.

Mm-hmm. Very good, Mister Lane.

Judges play a critical role in deterring crime. The way I would approach it is to apply the standards in the code as mentioned. Um, but you know, ultimately it's to avoid outlier sentences, to make sure you're applying a standard that's equal across the people that you see, obviously looking at the individual circumstances, but in the end it's important that people know that if they commit a crime, they will be punished.

Ms. Macy.

I spent several years as a Assistant US Attorney focused specifically on homicide cases and that was just a fraction of my time as in the office I also spent other years focused on other violent crimes so violent crime I have seen up close and I realize how significant of an impact it has on the defendants the victims, the victims' families, the defendants' families and the community as a whole. So it's a matter that's very important to me and as a judge if I'm so fortunate to be confirmed I would approach uh my role to to addressing violent crime by proceeding fairly in the cases before me, by handling them efficiently so that defendants get their day in court, victims get their day in court, and ensuring that the rights of both perpetrators and victims are addressed and considered in in crafting appropriate sentences for the particular case before me.

Mister Timmer.

I'd I'd echo what my fellow nominee uh Miss Macy said. Um, during my seven and a half years at the US Attorney's office, practiced exclusively in superior court um first as a line attorney and then uh as a supervisor um and so saw firsthand the impact that the judges had uh on on crime in the community and and agree uh with her that um i think steps i can take are to be to one to follow the d c code um to impose uh sentences that are law and with the sentencing guidelines and to uh to work efficiently to ensure that uh if somebody commits a crime as arrested as charged that they have their day in court and that that day comes swiftly, um, so that, uh, it's, it's the community can see for themselves, um, that, that justice has not been denied and has not been delayed.

Judge Goody, let me just ask you if I could on just on the same topic, in, in twenty twenty two you were on a panel at Brandeis University in which you said, among other things, there is no rehabilitation in prison. Just help me understand your thinking here and here's where I'm, here's where I'm going as you can probably imagine. Does, does that mean that you would be hesitant to uh send a first time offender or someone who you think, well maybe this person could benefit some from some rehabilitation. Uh the sentencing guidelines call for, would strongly suggest uh prison time, but I don't wanna do that because there is no rehabilitation in prison. I wanna do everything I can to avoid sending people there. I mean, we could take me inside your mind here and explain that to me. You just turn on your microphone there, yeah.

Sorry about that. Um uh yes i did say that um what i should have um let me first specifically answer your question then go back um

yep

uh for there is a difference between juveniles and adults first of all for juveniles the standard is rehabilitation so there is a focus on providing service about what happens in prison arose from when i was in law school and i actually taught at the lorton prison we used to house our prisoners in lorton now housed in the federal system. And I saw that conditions were not great for rehabilitation. That's where that came from. Your question was, would that make me hesitate to put someone in prison? No. Community safety is my number one thing. Um, if we can fi- craft a rehabilitation package that makes someone safe to be back in the community, let's do that. Uh, but if somebody can't be made safe in the community, then is prison.

Let me uh ask each of you now, again, just as superior court nominees, in view of of the backlog, the huge backlog that the court is currently facing. Just give me your sense of what you would do to help address this huge backlog, how important you think it is, and what your role would be in making sure that these cases are heard, uh, defendants get their day in courts, but also, uh, victims, um, uh, get the redress that they deserve. Let's start with you, Mr. DiBono.

Unfortunately enough to be If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, my role will be to efficiently move my cases, to set clear expectations for the parties, um, set clear deadlines, um, be, uh, clear from the front, uh, about what I expect them to do and be prepared to do when they come to court. And then to show up with the same effort and to be prepared to handle the matters that come before me when they do appear. That way the cases are quickly handled, they're quickly and efficiently resolved in the a- and we're able to get justice for victims and appropriate sentences in place for offenders.

it it's necessary to strike a balance between efficiency and and and fairness. And I've appeared before many judges, I've learned a lot from from good habits and and bad habits. Um, in in order to to m- to move things along, what what I would do is, uh, as if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed, is is I would be, um, the example to everybody in the courtroom. I would go in and I and I learned this too. I w- during my clerkship, my judge, William M. Jackson, who sat on the superior court, um, I saw him do this. He was a career prosecutor and he was on a family um a family calendar and what he did and what i would do is prepare he was often and i would be most it would be paired lawyer in in the court law i read the the the pleadings and i'm ready to go but in addition to being the example it's it is essential as my co-counselor as my fellow nominee said that expectations are set and i found that um in in my experience the best way to set expectations expectations is to have a standing order. I found courts with standing orders where it's clear what the expectations are, move um efficient court room um uh you know, eh eh the court rooms run efficiently and and the and there is that fairness. And then also when there are egregious violations, a a court has to be willing um there must be consequences when there's repeated egregie egregious