Erskine Bryce, 66, a New York City Marshall, was murdered while in the act of attempting to evict a tenant from an apartment building in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant area on August 22, 2001.
His assailant was JoAnne Jones, a 53-year old tenant who moved into her apartment in June 1999 and was about $14,000 behind in her rent after two years. She had been fighting her eviction in the courts since only a few months after moving in. The legal wrangling had finally come to an end however, and Marshal Bryce was there to serve the eviction notice and padlock her apartment.
Ms. Jones was one bad mama. According to the Associated Press, her arrest record goes back to the 1970s, and in 1994 she served a year in prison for shooting a 14 year-old boy in the groin after the boy allegedly bullied her son.
City Marshals are appointed by the Mayor to 5-year terms. They are regulated by the Department of Investigation's (DOI) Marshals Bureau, and earn income by performing certain tasks in NYC Civil and NYS Supreme Court cases, such as carrying out evictions, collecting money judgments, and towing cars. Much of their work is done in high-risk areas such as Bedford-Stuyvesant. The City Marshals are armed and can radio for police backup when necessary. Mr. Bryce had been a marshal for 12 years.
In this instance, when Marshall Bryce came to padlock her apartment, the 53-year-old Jones reportedly pushed him over a second floor banister and down a flight of stairs, his head hitting a refrigerator on his way to the landing below. Jones then ran down, took his gun and beat him unconscious with an aluminum rod, after which she doused him with some nearby paint thinner and used Bryce's own cigarette lighter to set him afire. He was alive when set ablaze, according to the medical examiner's office. Mr. Bryce died of blunt trauma to his head and neck, and extensive burns.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani called the murder "horrendous and horrific."
Ms. Jones was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. On Oct. 10, 2002, she plead Guilty and was sentenced to a maximum term of life imprisonment, according to the Brooklyn DA's office.
This story is recounted because some process servers have claimed that Marshal Bryce was "one of us" and at least one process server has used his tragic case as a rallying cry for NAPPS to go door to door through the 50 states to network with law enforcement and legislators and get each state's criminal code changed to have process servers recognized as officers of the court with enhanced penalties for assault.
Logic compels we ask this question: How would such a law -- enhanced penalties against persons who assault private process servers -- change the outcome of this case? It's a crime to commit murder, whether the victim is rich, poor, homeless, or a process server. We are all upset over the enormity of the crime committed here, but we should be satisfied that the law worked and Ms. Jones is getting to spend the rest of her natural life behind bars as a guest of the New York prison system -- rent free.
Playing the role of devil's advocate, the logic of thinking that enhanced criminal penalties somehow "sends a message" that you can't mess with process servers, also escapes me. The people we serve don't know the law and, moreover, most don't care about the law. The person who gets angry when served with an eviction notice, a foreclosure notice, or a domestic action is responding with pure raw, non-thinking emotion. And the best counter-action for such conduct, in my opinion, is for the process server to file a lawsuit against the assailant for money damages.
It doesn't benefit the process server for the DA to file a criminal action and have the defendant pay a fine. After all, the process server never sees any of that money. Yet most of the stories I read on the Internet forums center around "teaching the defendant a lesson" by having the DA bring charges. A much better lesson would be forcing him to pay YOU some money.
There are currently 15 states with a variety of laws prohibiting the interference with legal process or obstructing the service of process. Most will agree that these are the types of laws that are helpful to private process servers because they assist them in getting the job done. Having a handy reminder of that law on hand to show a security guard or other person who may be running interference for the defendant can really make a difference.
We've been told by process servers in some jurisdictions, however, that the courts will only apply them to law enforcement officers and not to private process servers. That's a job we'll have to attack on a case by case basis. Nonetheless, these are meaningful laws that really do help process servers do their job.
The NAPPS office is summarizing these interference laws and putting them on laminated cards for easy use in the field. We'll have them available at the annual conference this May in Charlotte, NC.
Big Change in Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure
Existing law in Wyoming requires that process servers obtain a court order to serve initial process. That rule, however, has been changed by the Wyoming Supreme Court and effective May 1, 2003 any person of the age of majority, not a party to the action, may serve process.
The person who put this bronc in the race and rode him home to victory was Member Robert O. Tate of Casper, Wyoming. He began his lone odyssey to get the rule changed in 1999, and he finally succeeded when Chief Justice William Hill of the Supreme Court signed the Order adopting the amendment on Feb. 3, 2003. He proved that one person is sometimes all that is needed to bring about great change.
Find a Process Server by Zip Code
The NAPPS website has a new feature-the ability to find a process server by zip code only. Use the area in the center of the webpage that says click here to locate a process server by distance from a specific zip code. You can then type in a single zip code and put in the mileage-from 1 to 1000 miles-and get a list of all members within that range from the target. It's a dynamite feature. Try it out!
We've also added a section entitled STORE, which has all the Napparel and other items we have for sale. You can view each item separately and then download an order form to make your selections. Mail or fax the order form to the NAPPS office.
Arizona Supreme Court Preapproves CE Credits for NAPPS 2003 Educational Seminar
We are experiencing a surprisingly strong showing for registrations and hotel reservations for this year's conference in Charlotte, NC. Apparently the South is where people want to be. We have a great seminar program scheduled and the food will be simply awesome.
The Arizona Supreme Court has established continuing education requirements for persons who are Licensed Arizona Process Servers. And the Court has preapproved the educational seminar at this year's NAPPS Conference for 7 hours of CE credit.
Update on Department of Justice Contract
We reported in the last issue that the DOJ contract for serving foreign process coming into the United States had been awarded to ABC Legal Services, Inc. of Seattle, and that an appeal had been filed by APS International of Minneapolis contesting the award.
The APS International appeal has been denied and the contract officially remains with ABC Legal Services Inc.
We don't have a timeline on when the DOJ will be making the appropriate declarations to the Convention regarding the changes that have taken place under the contract. We expect, however, that it will be fairly soon.
