investigation into Ritter's alleged improper relationships with some Salt Lake City lawyers. The department began an inquiry-which was soon sidetracked. In October a petition was filed to remove Judge Ritter from all criminal cases then before him, and from all new criminal and civil cases involving the federal government. But it was too late. Ritter ended his incredible judicial career by dying, in 1978.

Another disturbing case involves Herbert A. Fogel, 50, a political fund-raiser for former Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and partner in the law firm in which Scott served as counsel. Appointed to the bench by President Nixon in 1973, Fogel was the lawyer for, and part-owner of, the Gateway Center Corporation, which won a controversial 1971 contract from the scandal-racked General Services Administration (GSA). Because Gateway's winning bid-to supply federal office space in West Philadelphia-was $27 million higher than the lowest bid, the contract caused raised eyebrows. In March 1972 the General Accounting Office reported that the award had been "improper" because Gateway had failed to comply with various criteria in its bid submission.

Despite the widespread publicity that surrounded the Gateway case, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Fogel's nomination in a routine ten-minute hearing. Sen. Roman Hruska (R., Neb.), who was chairman at the hearing, asked Fogel no questions about Gateway, and Senator Scott took up much of the ten minutes with effusive praise of the nominee.

Later, a civil lawsuit brought by a losing bidder produced additional facts about Gateway. Judge Fogel admitted in a sworn deposition that he had backdated a document submitted to GSA. Making false statements or using falsified documents in dealing with a federal agency is a federal crime, punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.

Although the FBI pressed for approval to investigate in 1973, it was not until 1975-only five months before the statute of limitations expired-that the Justice Department commenced the investigation.

Called before a federal grand jury, Judge Fogel allegedly invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions. Four months later, Justice dropped the investigation, but a high official of the department suggested to the judge's attorney that Fogel should resign. Two years later, Fogel complied.

Fogel is not the only federal judge to face pressure to resign. John V. Singleton, Jr., 61, has sat on the bench of the Southern District of Texas court in Houston since his appointment in 1966 by President Johnson. During his tenure, his lenient pattern of sentencing has angered law-enforcement officials. In 1970, for instance, Singleton reduced a two-year prison term to six months for New Orleans Mafia chief Carlos Marcello, who had assaulted an FBI agent. And Judge Singleton's sentence of probation for Frank Sharp, the key figure in Texas's notorious Sharpstown banking scandal, raised more suspicions in law-enforcement circles.

Then, in 1976, a Department of Justice investigation turned up large personal loans to Judge Singleton in the records of Houston's now defunct Franklin Bank. At that time, Judge Singleton was presiding over the criminal prosecution of James Robert Lyne, former president of the bank.

In 1977 Judge Singleton informed his fellow judges that he was being investigated by a federal grand jury in Houston and that he had been asked to resign. Singleton said his problems had arisen out of his getting heavily into debt and owing money to many financial institutions and individuals. Not only had Judge Singleton not removed himself from the Lyne case, but the Justice Department listed a total of 18 cases in which it thought the judge had a conflict of interest. The grand jury, however, did not indict Singleton, and he remains on the bench as chief judge now. What can be done? The answer lies in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act proposed by Senators Dennis DeConcini (D., Ariz.), Birch Bayh (D., Ind.) and Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.). This bill would empower the Judicial Councils of the 11 federal circuit courts to investigate and rule on complaints against judges. The Councils could dismiss complaints as frivolous or take a number of remedial actions, ranging from reprimands or censure to temporarily stripping the judge of additional cases. A new Court on Judicial Conduct and Disability could either affirm or deny the action or refer the matter to Congress for possible impeachment.

The value of such a mechanism has already been demonstrated at the state level. California adopted similar legislation in 1960, and since then 71 judges have resigned or retired, 6 others have been censured by the California supreme court and 5 more have been removed from office or involuntarily retired.

The Judicial Conduct and Disability proposal passed the Senate last year. Thus, both houses will be considering the proposal in this Congress. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), a veteran trial lawyer before his election to the Senate, says legislation is badly needed:

Foreword

I am pleased to make available a staff report regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment prepared for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary by the legal staff of its impeachment inquiry.

It is understood that the views and conclusions contained in the report are staff views and do not necessarily reflect those of the committee or any of its members.

Pete, W Rodinky

PETER W. RODINO, Jr.

FEBRUARY 22, 1974.

56-982 O - 80

31

(III)