FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                          DAG
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1997                          (202) 616-2777
                                                TDD (202) 514-1888

                                 
         STATEMENT BY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER


     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This week, Congress is considering
drastic legislation that may sound appealing, but could seriously
obstruct federal prosecutors from bringing tough cases.  Without
a single markup or even a committee hearing, a last-minute
appropriations amendment would require taxpayers to pay criminal
defendants who are the "the prevailing party" in criminal cases. 
The only exception would be when prosecutors bring charges that
are "substantially justified," a term that the legislation does
not even define.

     The sponsors argue that they want to rein in abusive
prosecutions.  So do we.  That's why safeguards are built into
the process.  Prosecutors must already go to a grand jury before
they can indict a defendant.  Judges can already turn away
selective or vindictive prosecutions, and attorneys can already
be sanctioned, fined, dismissed and sometimes even sued.

     Our criminal justice system is founded on the premise that
prosecutors must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a
defendant broke the law.  That means some criminals go free
because the high burden of proof cannot be met.  This country's
founders rightly desired that it was more important to let some
guilty citizens go free so that other innocent citizens were not
unjustly imprisoned.  But under this very drastic legislation, if
this very high "reasonable doubt" standard is not met, taxpayers
could foot the bill.
  
     If this bill becomes law, people like John Gotti, who beat
the rap at his first trials, and John Hinckley and John DeLorean,
who were also acquitted, could wind up with big taxpayer checks. 
Plea bargains that save time and put criminals behind bars could
become a thing of the past.  Prosecutors would be forced to make
a decision with one eye on their office budget, instead of
keeping both eyes on the pursuit of justice.  And whenever they
couldn't get a conviction, prosecutors would have to spend time
fighting lawsuits instead of fighting criminals.  In fact, suits
over the amendment's vague wording could snarl up the courts for
years.

     The fact is, prosecutors sometimes build a case with
evidence that ends up being suppressed.  Sometimes sexually
abused children are too shaken to deliver compelling testimony. 
Sometimes key witnesses disappear or die.  And sometimes there
are hung juries.  We should not punish prosecutors and send the
bill to the public when someone beats the rap.

     The Fraternal Order of Police has spoken out against this
amendment.  So has the National District Attorney's Association. 
So has the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Association.  They
have done so because they know the truth:  this bill may sound
good, but it will handcuff prosecutors, and it could cost the
taxpayers a fortune in high-stakes payoffs to America's Most
Wanted.  This is quite simply a bad bill.  And if it passes,
Attorney General Reno will strongly recommend that the President
veto it.
                              # # #
97-440