Impeachment

trary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings and William Borders, of Washington, D.C., never made any agreement to solicit a bribe from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE III

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings never agreed with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., to modify the sentences of defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, from a term in the Federal penitentiary to probation in return for a bribe from those defendants. Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE IV

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell t truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings never agreed with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., in connection with a payment on a bribe, to enter an order returning a substantial amount of property to the defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings. Judge Hastings had previously ordered that property forfeited.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE V

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings' appearance at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida, on September 16, 1981, was not part of a plan to demonstrate his participation in a bribery scheme with William Borders of Washington, D.C., concerning United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, and that Judge Hastings expected to meet Mr. Borders at that place and on that occasion.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE VI

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings did not expect William Borders, of Washington, D.C., to appear Judge Hastings' room in the Sheraton Hotel in ashington, D.C., on September 12, 1981.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE VII

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath, make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement concerned Judge Hastings' motive for instructing a law clerk, Jeffrey Miller, to prepare an order on October 5, 1981, in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, returning a substantial portion of property previously ordered forfeited by Judge Hastings. Judge Hastings stated in substance that he so instructed Mr. Miller primarily because Judge Hastings was concerned that the order would not be completed before Mr. Miller's scheduled departure, when in fact the instruction on October 5, 1981, to prepare such order was in furtherance of a bribery scheme concerning that case.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE VIII

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings' October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., was in fact about writing letters to solicit assistance for Hemphill Pride of Columbia, South Carolina, when in fact it was a coded conversation in furtherance of a conspiracy with Mr. Borders to solicit a bribe from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE IX

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that three documents that purported to be drafts of letters to assist Hemphill Pride, of Columbia, South Carolina, had been written by Judge Hastings on October 5, 1981, and were the letters referred to by Judge Hastings in his October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with William Borders, of Washington, D.C.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE X

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath, make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on May 5, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XI

From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida. In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on August 2, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-782-9387 in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XII

The false statement was, in substance, that on September 2, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Carolina,

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XIII

The false statement was, in substance, that 803-777-7716 was a telephone number at a place where Hemphill Pride could be contacted in July 1981.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XIV

The false statement was, in substance, that on the afternoon of October 9, 1981, Judge Hastings called his mother and Patricia Williams from his hotel room at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XV

port.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XVI

From July 15, 1985, to September 15, 1985, Judge Hastings was the supervising judge of a wiretap instituted under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code (added by title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968). The

wiretap was part of certain investigations then being conducted by law enforcement agents of the United States.

As supervising judge, Judge Hastings learned highly confidential information obtained through the wiretap. The documents disclosing this information, presented to Judge Hastings as the supervising judge, were Judge Hastings' sole source of the highly confidential information.

On September 6, 1985, Judge Hastings revealed highly confidential information that he learned as the supervising judge of the wiretap, as follows: On the morning of September 6, 1985, Judge Hastings told Stephen Clark, the Mayor of Dade County, Florida, to stay away from Kevin "Waxy" Gordon, who was "hot" and was using the Mayor's name in Hialeah, Florida.

As a result of this improper disclosure, certain investigations then being conducted by law enforcement agents of the United States were thwarted and ultimately terminated.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE XVII

Judge Hastings, who as a Federal judge is required to enforce and obey the Constitution and laws of the United States, to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and to perform the duties of his office impartially, did, through

(1) a corrupt relationship with William Borders of Washington, D.C.;

(2) repeated false testimony under oath at Judge Hastings' criminal trial;

(3) fabrication of false documents which were submitted as evidence at his criminal trial; and

(4) improper disclosure of confidential information acquired by him as supervisory judge of a wiretap;

undermine confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and betray the trust of the people of the United States, thereby bringing disrepute on the Federal courts and the administration of justice by the Federal courts.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Committee on the Judiciary has conducted an extensive inquiry into the conduct of Alcee L. Hastings, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. The inquiry focused on whether (1) he was involved in a bribery conspiracy, (2) he committed perjury at his criminal trial, and (3) he improperly disclosed confidential information that he learned in his official capacity as a United States District Judge.

The Committee finds, based upon a careful study of the evidence, that Judge Hastings was involved in a bribery conspiracy with William Borders of Washington, D.C.; that Judge Hastings perjured himself 14 times at his criminal trial; and that Judge Hastings improperly disclosed confidential information that he obtained while supervising a wiretap. The Committee therefore recommends the impeachment of Judge Hastings.

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT

The Constitution gives the Congress the ultimate, albeit rarely used, power to remove federal officials from office. The Framers of the Constitution adopted the remedy of impeachment as an essential component of the system of checks and balances underpinning our Government. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 65, characterized impeachment "as a method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men." The Framers sought to protect the in

stitutions of government by providing for the removal of persons who are unfit to hold positions of public trust.

The model for the impeachment process adopted by the Framers was English precedent. Hamilton in The Federalist No. 65 specifically referred to the practice in Great Britain as the model from which the institution of impeachment had been borrowed. Indeed, the notorious impeachment trial of Warren Hastings was in progress in England even as the Framers sought to put together a plan of government in Philadelphia.

The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," the constitutional standard, was imported by the Framers directly from English practice, having first been employed in England as early as 1386 in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk and appearing thereafter in impeachments instituted over the next 400 years. The rich body of precedent incorporated with the adoption of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" makes clear that the phrase refers to misconduct that damages the state and the operations of governmental institutions, and is not limited to criminal misconduct. Indeed, the phrase itself had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, but was limited to parliamentary impeachments. In the United States ten of the impeachments voted by the House of Representatives have involved one or more charges that did not allege a violation of the criminal law.

The Framers, however, did not adopt the English model wholesale. A critical difference between the two systems is that impeachment in England was a criminal proceeding intended to punish individuals as well as remove them from office. Impeachment under our Constitution has never imposed criminal penalties such as imprisonment or a fine. The non-criminal nature of the American impeachment process is a watershed distinction from the English practice.

At the time the impeachment process was included in the Constitution, the Framers were concerned primarily with providing a check on the President. They intended impeachment to be one of the central elements of assuring the integrity of the Executive Branch. Federal judges were added to the impeachment provision at the end of the drafting process by making "all civil officers of the United States" subject to impeachment, in addition to the President and Vice President.

As with other aspects of the checks and balances of our system of government, the Framers deliberately rejected a system of pure efficiency in favor of a more complex one that would maximize the integrity and independence of the judiciary. In so doing, the Founding Fathers anticipated that impeachment would be a cumbersome affair, generating controversy and divisiveness and demanding much exertion by Members of Congress. Yet, they believed that no other branch of Government was as qualified to undertake this duty or would safeguard the process as scrupulously from vindictive or frivolous accusations. While the power of impeachment has been exercised infrequently, history attests to the care with which Congress has discharged its prescribed responsibility.

Since 1787, fourteen federal officers have been impeached by the House of Representatives: one President, one cabinet officer, one Senator and eleven federal judges. Twelve of the fourteen officers

« Previous Continue »

Books

Impeachment: Selected Materials, Part 1