Born: 1959
Education: Howard University School of Law (1984); Northwestern University (1981)
Admitted to Bar: 1985
Experience: U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan; judge, Michigan Court of Appeals; judge, Detroit Recorders Court; presiding judge of the Criminal Division of Wayne County Circuit Court
Legal affiliations: Past president, Association of Black Judges in Michigan; Wayne State Law School adjunct faculty; Paul Robeson Academy mentor
Jeffrey G. Collins was appointed as U.S. attorney nearly two years ago. A former Michigan Court of Appeals judge, Collins loves his new role in the Eastern District of Michigan.
"The Court of Appeals is a very predictable and controlled environment," Collins said. "As U.S. attorney, my day can change in the course of an hour — it's action-packed."
Indeed.
Collins' appointment coincided with 9-11 terrorist attacks, thrusting him into the spotlight as head of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the largest Middle Eastern community in the nation.
The Eastern District of Michigan has lead the nation in bringing terror suspects to trial, and it's no surprise that the U.S. Attorney's Office has had its share of media attention —positive and negative. Collins takes it all in stride.
"It comes with the turf," Collins said.
Q. You've been involved in some high profile cases this year. Tell me a little bit about each one.
A. We had the first terrorism case, United States v. Koubriti, et al., in which four defendants were charged with material support of terrorism. The jury convicted two of them of the terrorism charge. The third defendant was convicted of document fraud, and the fourth defendant was acquitted. That was a major case for not only my office but for the country. We were very pleased with the outcome.
Another terrorism case that resulted in a conviction, United States v. Makki, involved defendants who were smuggling cigarettes to Michigan from North Carolina. The proceeds from this operation were going to support the Hezbollah terrorist organization.
There's been other major litigation throughout the year. One huge case involved the Detroit Police Department, United States v. City of Detroit. That case resulted in a consent decree requiring the Detroit Police Department to change its patterns and practices regarding witness detention, excessive force and conditions of confinement.
A couple of pending cases have received a lot of publicity. In one, 18 police officers were indicted on alleged civil rights violations. We have another case pending regarding a civil police department employee who worked in the evidence property room who was indicted for stealing cocaine out of the property room and selling it. And these are only the highlights.
Q. What case was the most challenging or difficult for you? Why?
A. The terrorism trial was the most challenging. I remember when the lawyers came to me when it was merely a document case and they wanted to indict on material support of terrorism. They showed me the evidence in support of that charge and I agreed to go forward with it. I knew this would mean the eyes of the nation would be upon this case so we wanted to make sure every "I" was dotted and every "T" was crossed.
Because that case was the first post 9-11 terrorism case in the nation, it posed litigation issues like summoning witnesses from across the nation and from all over the world.
Q. Despite these attempts, alleged exculpatory evidence is surfacing.
A. That has occurred just a couple weeks ago and has created some challenges.
Q. How do you feel about the publicity you've received?
A. It comes with the turf. Because our district has the largest number of people of Middle Eastern descent, we have a lot of unique challenges so it is imperative that we, the government, put a human face on policy. That human face has to be someone who is accessible, who is reachable, and who can answer questions and concerns. I made community outreach after 9-11 a high priority of this office.
I meet on a monthly basis with leaders from the Middle Eastern community right here in the office. We have formed a group called BRIDGES — which is an acronym for Building Respect in Diverse Groups to Enhance Sensitivity — which brings federal law enforcement and Middle Eastern community groups together on a monthly basis to discuss tough issues. It was the first group of its kind in the nation and has been very successful.
Q. Attorney General John Ashcroft has also received a lot of publicity this year, much of it negative. How do you feel about that, and how do you defend him?
A. Most people in the country agree with the policies of the Department of Justice. The overwhelming majority approves of the job we're doing protecting the nation from terrorism.
However, there is a vocal dissent, but we cannot let the vocal dissent overshadow what I think is a minority view. I think the majority of people, once given all the facts, approve of the job the attorney general is doing and what we're doing as a department as a whole.
I serve on the Attorney General Advisory Committee so I meet with the attorney general every four to six weeks. In that capacity, I have gotten to know him and his strength in character in not being discouraged by a vocal dissent, by staying on message and promoting the overriding priority of the department which is to protect the country from any further acts of terrorism. We will not be deterred from that even if there is a spirited dissent. I defend him based on the record. Since 9-11, there has not been another attack on U.S. soil.
Q. There has been much criticism of the U.S.A. Patriot Act as well.
A. A lot of people claim the department is abusing civil liberties or abusing powers under the Patriot Act, but it is important to distinguish fact from fiction. I'll give you one example: When the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the ACLU for a report of abuses, it responded, "We have none."
I have none to report in this district. People say we're going to libraries and searching library records. That's fiction. What's fact is that it has never been done once. Part of my job is to set the record straight.
Q. Some have accused you and others of crossing the line when it comes to civil rights. Where do you draw the line between protecting American interests and protecting individual liberties?
A. One thing I'm most proud about is I've created a counter-terrorism unit made up of lawyers in our office who focus on terror investigations and prosecutions. They are extremely busy. I instruct them in the course of their work to think outside the box, but never think outside the Constitution.
In terms of drawing the line, the line has been drawn — the Constitution draws the line. We act within its parameters. Not only do we aggressively prosecute crimes that can facilitate terrorism, such as passport fraud, money laundering or identity theft, but we are equally committed to aggressively enforcing hate crimes and acts of discriminatory back-lash.
When people see the full picture they see we are not abusing rights, but are acting within the scope of the Constitution.
Q. You recently announced a zero tolerance weapons policy for Detroit Metro Airport. What brought this about and how big of a problem was it?
A. We think that, post 9-11, people must take the time to check their bags or belongings, because the "oops, I didn't know I had a gun" defense will no longer fly.
Across the country, law enforcement departments have been meeting to come up with ways to protect the nation. You want to have the highest security at airports and if there is any way to promote public safety at airports, we have to take advantage of it.
There are federal statutes under which we can prosecute someone for carrying a gun on an aircraft and we will use those statutes. One gun that goes through checked luggage, in carry-on luggage or on one's person, is one gun too many. Even if someone has a good intent, if the weapon gets in the hands of someone who doesn't share that good intent, you have a problem.
Subscribers Only
