DOCSLIB.ORG

National Study of Prosecutor Elections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Study of Prosecutor Elections The Prosecutors and Politics Project National Study of Prosecutor Elections FEBRUARY 2020 Table of Contents About the Prosecutors and Politics Project .................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 About the Study .................................................................................................................... 8 State Reports ........................................................................................................................ 10 Alabama .................................................................................................................... 11 Alaska ........................................................................................................................ 18 Arizona ...................................................................................................................... 19 Arkansas .................................................................................................................. 22 California ................................................................................................................. 26 Colorado................................................................................................................... 35 Connecticut ............................................................................................................. 39 Delaware .................................................................................................................. 40 Florida ....................................................................................................................... 41 Georgia ..................................................................................................................... 45 Hawaii ...................................................................................................................... 53 Idaho ......................................................................................................................... 55 Illinois ...................................................................................................................... 62 Indiana ..................................................................................................................... 77 Iowa .......................................................................................................................... 90 Kansas .................................................................................................................... 104 Kentucky ................................................................................................................. 117 Louisiana ................................................................................................................ 125 Maine ....................................................................................................................... 132 Maryland ................................................................................................................134 Massachusetts ....................................................................................................... 138 Michigan ................................................................................................................. 141 Minnesota .............................................................................................................. 152 Mississippi ............................................................................................................ 163 Missouri ................................................................................................................. 167 Montana.................................................................................................................. 183 1 Nebraska ................................................................................................................ 190 Nevada .................................................................................................................... 202 New Hampshire ................................................................................................... 205 New Jersey ............................................................................................................. 207 New Mexico ........................................................................................................... 208 New York ................................................................................................................ 211 North Carolina ..................................................................................................... 220 North Dakota ........................................................................................................ 227 Ohio ......................................................................................................................... 234 Oklahoma ..............................................................................................................246 Oregon ..................................................................................................................... 251 Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 256 Rhode Island ........................................................................................................ 266 South Carolina ...................................................................................................... 267 South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 270 Tennessee .............................................................................................................. 278 Texas ...................................................................................................................... 283 Utah ........................................................................................................................ 306 Vermont ..................................................................................................................310 Virginia ................................................................................................................... 313 Washington ........................................................................................................... 329 West Virginia ........................................................................................................ 335 Wisconsin .............................................................................................................. 343 Wyoming ............................................................................................................... 353 Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 357 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 361 2 About the Prosecutors and Politics Project The Prosecutors and Politics Project is a research initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Founded in 2018, the Project studies the role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system, focusing on both the political aspects of their selection and their political power. The Project endeavors to bring scholarly attention to the democratic accountability of elected prosecutors, to increase our understanding of the relationship between prosecutors and politics through empirical study, and to publicly share research in order to increase voters’ knowledge about their elected prosecutors and broader criminal justice issues. For more information about the Prosecutors and Politics Project, its mission, and its research, please visit https://law.unc.edu/academics/centers-and- programs/prosecutors-and-politics-project/ Questions about this report should be directed to the author, Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick ([email protected]). 3 Executive Summary* American prosecutors wield significant power in the criminal justice system. They must decide when to file charges, which crimes to prioritize, and how lenient or harsh to be in plea bargaining. Prosecutors are entrusted with this power, in part, because they are accountable to voters. In most states, that accountability comes in the form of direct elections. Forty- five states elect prosecutors on the local level. These local elections provide a powerful check on the power that prosecutors wield—at least in theory. But how does that check operate in practice? Put differently, how much of a choice do voters have about who will make important criminal justice decisions in their communities? This report presents the results of a nationwide study of prosecutor elections. The first of its kind, the study gathered data from every jurisdiction that elects its local prosecutors in a recent election cycle. The study showed great variation in elections across the country. Some elections gave voters choices in both primary and general elections to choose their local prosecutor. But other elections were entirely uncontested. And some elections did not even have a single candidate on the ballot. Whether an election gave voters a choice seems to depend on two different factors. The first of those factors is the population in the district where the election
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Traffic Tickets-**ITHACA CITY COURT ONLY
    The Ithaca City Prosecutor’s Office prosecutes traffic tickets within the City of Ithaca and as part of that responsibility also makes offers to resolve tickets in writing. Please note that written dispositions can only be accommodated in cases in which the charges do not involve misdemeanors. If you are charged with any misdemeanor, including Driving While Intoxicated or Aggravated Unlicensed Operation you must appear in person in Court. The following applies to traffic tickets in the City of Ithaca that are not misdemeanors. All questions about fines, penalties and rescheduling of court dates/appearances must be addressed to the Court. If you have an upcoming Court date on a traffic ticket, only the Court can excuse your appearance. If you fail to appear in Court, the Court can suspend your driver license. If you wish to request that an upcoming appearance be rescheduled to allow time to correspond with our office, you must contact the Court directly. Contact information for the Ithaca City Court can be found here How to Request an Offer to Resolve Your Traffic Ticket Pending in Ithaca City Court Due to the large volume of the traffic caseload we only respond to email requests. Please do not use mail, fax or phone calls to solicit an offer. Please do not contact the Tompkins County District Attorney, the Tompkins County Attorney, or the Ithaca City Attorney- only the Ithaca City prosecutor. To confirm that this is the correct court, check the bottom left of your ticket- it should state that the matter is scheduled for Ithaca City Court, 118 East Clinton Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Things to Remember Before Talking with a Prosecutor
    THINGS TO REMEMBER BEFORE TALKING WITH A PROSECUTOR *A PROSECUTOR IS NOT YOUR ATTORNEY* The Prosecutor is a representative of the State and cannot provide you with legal advice. If you feel you need advice on how to resolve your ticket, please consider hiring and consulting with an attorney. A Class C misdemeanor is a criminal charge, meaning this is a legal process with two opposing sides and a neutral party that determines guilt. The prosecutor is hired to represent the State and does not decide your guilt. Guilt is only decided by either: Judge or Jury (Bench Trial) (Jury Trial) Things you should Things you should not discuss with prosecutor: discuss with prosecutor: -offer for deferred to resolve your ticket -facts of your case -changing your plea to resolve your ticket -advice on how to plead -how to request discovery -trial procedures ANY STATEMENTS MADE TO A PROSECUTOR CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN TRIAL PAYMENT PLANS Should you want to set a payment plan and cannot pay your ticket in full, you will need to see the Judge. Know that this will result in a conviction. If you’d like an offer to keep your ticket off your record, please refer to the below chart: How To Resolve Your Case With The Prosecutor Do you want an offer to pay for your ticket? YES NO Do you want to accept the offer No Set for trial that has been made? YES Do you need more time to save for the offer? YES NO Ask Judge for a Complete deferred continuance if you agreement and haven't had one.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Prosecutor: Independence, Power, and the Threat of Tyranny
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2001 The American Prosecutor: Independence, Power, and the Threat of Tyranny Angela J. Davis American University Washington College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Angela J., "The American Prosecutor: Independence, Power, and the Threat of Tyranny" (2001). Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals. 1397. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/1397 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarship & Research at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The American Prosecutor: Independence, Power, and the Threat of Tyranny AngelaJ. Davis' INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 395 I. DISCRETION, POWER, AND ABUSE ......................................................... 400 A. T-E INDF-ENDENT G E z I ETu aAD RESPO,\SE....................
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Prosecution Guide
    CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE JOB GUIDE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION Description Types of Employers Prosecutors work in all levels of government–local, state, Federal—U.S. Department of Justice: and federal. Prosecutors are responsible for representing the government in criminal cases, including Post-Graduate Jobs. The DOJ hires entry-level attorneys felonies and misdemeanors. At the state and local level, only through the Attorney General’s Honors Program. this work is typically done by District Attorneys’ Offices The application period is very short, typically the month or Solicitors’ Offices. Offices of State Attorneys General of August in the year prior to your graduation year. The may also have some responsibility for criminal matters of number of attorneys hired varies from year to year, and statewide significance or for criminal appellate or post- the positions are highly competitive. conviction matters. Federal criminal matters (e.g., financial crimes, drug enforcement, and organized Paid Summer Internships. The DOJ hires a number of crime) are typically handled by a U.S. Attorney’s Office students for paid summer positions through its Summer (USAO) either exclusively or in cooperation with the Law Intern Program. These positions are open to 1Ls Criminal Division of the Office of the U.S. Attorney and 2Ls, although most successful applicants intern General. during their 2L summer. Graduating law students who will enter a judicial clerkship or a full-time graduate program may intern following graduation. The application Qualifications period is very short, typically the month of August in the year prior to the summer you would be working. Many prosecutors’ offices prefer that entry-level attorneys have coursework, summer experience and/or Unpaid Internships.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prosecutor, the Term “Prosecutorial Miscon- Would Clearly Fall Within a Layperson’S Definition of Prose- Duct” Unfairly Stigmatizes That Prosecutor
    The P ROSECUTOR Measuring Prosecutorial Actions An Analysis of Misconduct versus Error B Y S HAWN E. MINIHAN Rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct The New York Times, Jan. 4, 2014 The Untouchables: America’s Misbehaving Prosecutors, And The System That Protects Them The Huffington Post, Aug. 5, 2013 Misconduct by Prosecutors, Once Again The New York Times, Aug. 13, 2012 22 O CTOBER / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER / 2014 P ROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT has become nation- in cases where such a perception is entirely unwarranted… .”11 al news. To a layperson, the term “prosecutorial miscon- The danger inherent in the court’s overbroad use of the duct” expresses “intentional wrongdoing,” or a “deliberate term “prosecutorial misconduct” is twofold. First, in cases violation of a law or standard” by a prosecutor.1 where there is an innocent mistake or poor judgment on The newspaper articles cited at left describe acts that the part of the prosecutor, the term “prosecutorial miscon- would clearly fall within a layperson’s definition of prose- duct” unfairly stigmatizes that prosecutor. A layperson may cutorial misconduct. For example, the article “Rampant assume that the prosecutor intentionally committed a Prosecutorial Misconduct” discusses United States v. Olsen, wrongdoing or deliberately violated a law or ethical stan- where federal prosecutors withheld a report that revealed dard. sloppy work on the part of the government’s forensic sci- In those cases where the prosecutor has, in fact, commit- entists, resulting in wrongful convictions.2, 3 The article ted misconduct, the term “prosecutorial misconduct” may “The Untouchables: America’s Misbehaving Prosecutors, not impose a harsh enough degree of stigmatization.
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Gender and Immigration in American Politics by Christian
    Expansion and Exclusion: Race, Gender and Immigration in American Politics By Christian Dyogi Phillips A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Rodney Hero, Co-Chair Professor Taeku Lee, Co-Chair Professor Lisa García Bedolla Professor Gabriel Lenz Summer 2017 Abstract The United States’ population is rapidly changing, but the ways in which political scientists measure and understand representation have not kept apace. Marginal shifts in descriptive representation over the past two decades have run counter to widely espoused ideals regarding political accessibility and democratic competition. A central assumption often made by academics, and the public, has been that groups which are otherwise disadvantaged in politics may leverage their communities’ numerical size as a political resource to gain influence. To this end, many studies of racial descriptive representation find that a larger minority population is associated with a higher likelihood of a racial minority running for and/or winning. However, these positive relationships between population growth and descriptive representation are tempered by an extensive literature documenting limits on racial minority groups’ political incorporation. Moreover, current frameworks for understanding group competition or patterns of descriptive representation are silent about whether shifts in racial demographics may also have an effect on the balance of representation between women and men. These contradictions in debates over representation, and how groups gain influence, undermine the notion that eventually, marginalized groups will be fully incorporated into politics. White women have had de jure access to the voting franchise in the United States since 1920.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Prosecutor: Serving the Interests of All the People
    V INE.2PPR 03/14/01 10:33 AM THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR: SERVING THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PEOPLE Alan Vinegrad* The legal profession’s conception of public interest work has tradi- tionally focused on the work of pro bono or civil liberties-based organi- zations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and its local chapters, a variety of legal defense funds, the Legal Aid Society, and other similar organizations. Certain law schools provide financial incentives and insti- tutional support designed to actively encourage their students to pursue job opportunities with these groups. Many students—the author in- cluded—can easily spend three years at a law school and not have any notion that public interest work also includes the job of being an Assistant District Attorney (local prosecutor), an Assistant Attorney General (state prosecutor), or an Assistant United States Attorney (federal prosecutor). Many others, aware of the general role of the prosecutor in our legal system, nevertheless have been steeped in publicity in recent years about the rather unique and increasingly politicized work of our most prominent prosecutors—the special prosecutors appointed under the now defunct Independent Counsel statute.1 From this publicity, one can easily draw incomplete, if not unfair, judgments about what it means to be a prose- cutor in our society. It did not occur to me until well into my legal career that my own notion of public interest work was under-inclusive in this one significant respect: it did not include the work of the tens of thousands of federal, state, and local prosecutors across the country who lead the legal fight against crime and protect our society and its citizens from those who seek to enrich themselves at society’s expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Hereby Halt the Proposed
    No. __-___ In the Supreme Court of the United States ____________________________________________________ KELI’I AKIN, KEALII MAKEKAU, JOSEPH KENT, YOSHIMASA SEAN MITSUI, PEDRO KANA’E GAPERO, and MELISSA LEINA’ALA MONIZ, Applicants, v. THE STATE OF HAWAII, GOVERNOR DAVID Y. IGE, ROBERT K. LINDSEY JR., Chairperson, Board of Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, COLETTE Y. MACHADO, PETER APO, HAUNANI APOLIONA, ROWENA M.N. AKANA, JOHN D. WAIHE’E IV, CARMEN HULU LINDSEY, DAN AHUNA, LEINA’ALA AHU ISA, Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, KAMANA’OPONO CRABBE, Chief Exec. Officer, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, JOHN D. WAIHE’E III, Chairman, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, NA’ALEHU ANTHONY, LEI KIHOI, ROBIN DANNER, MAHEALANI WENDT, Commissioners, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, CLYDE W. NAMU’O, Exec. Director, Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, THE AKAMAI FOUNDATION, and THE NA’I AUPUNI FOUNDATION, Respondents. ______________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX ___________________________________________________________________________ Michael A. Lilly Robert D. Popper, Counsel of Record NING LILLY & JONES JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 707 Richards Street, Suite 700 425 Third Street, SW Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Washington, DC 20024 (808) 528-1100 (202) 646-5172 [email protected] [email protected] H. Christopher Coates William S. Consovoy LAW OFFICES OF H. CHRISTOPHER COATES J. Michael Connolly 934 Compass Point CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC Charleston, South Carolina 29412 3033 Wilson Boulevard (843) 609-7080 Arlington, Virginia 22201 [email protected] (703) 243-9423 www.consovoymccarthy.com Dated: November 23, 2015 Attorneys for Applicants Case 1:15-cv-00322-JMS-BMK Document 122 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1667 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2015 MOLLY CC.
    [Show full text]
  • National Prosecution Standards, Third Edition Updated 2009
    National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards Third Edition with Revised Commentary Table of Contents Introduction Definitions Part I. General Standards 1. The Prosecutor’s Responsibilities 1-1.1 Primary Responsibility 1-1.2 Societal and Individual Rights and Interests 1-1.3 Full-Time/Part-Time 1-1.4 Rules of Conduct 1-1.5 Inconsistency in Rules of Conduct 1-1.6 Duty to Respond to Misconduct 2. Professionalism 1-2.1 Standard of Conduct 3. Conflicts of Interest 1-3.1 Conflict Avoidance 1-3.2 Conflicts with Private Practice 1-3.3 Specific Conflicts 1-3.4 Conflict Handling 1-3.5 Special Prosecutors 4. Selection, Compensation, and Removal 1-4.1 Qualifications 1-4.2 Compensation; Responsibilities of the Chief Prosecutor 1-4.3 Compensation of Assistant and Deputy Prosecutors 1-4.4 Benefits 1-4.5 Workload 1-4.6 Removal 1-4.7 Discharge of Assistant and Deputy Prosecutors 5. Staffing and Training 1-5.1 Transitional Cooperation 1-5.2 Assistant and Deputy Prosecutors 1-5.3 Orientation and Continuing Legal Education 1-5.4 Office Policies and Procedures 6. Prosecutorial Immunity 1-6.1 Scope of Immunity Part II. Relations 1. Relations with Local Organizations 2-1.1 Chief Prosecutor’s Involvement 2-1.2 Information Input 2-1.3 Organization Establishment 2-1.4 Community Prosecution 2-1.5 Enhancing Prosecution 2. Relations with State Criminal Justice Organizations 2-2.1 Need for State Association 2-2.2 Enhancing Prosecution 3. Relations with National Criminal Justice Organizations 2-3.1 Enhancing Prosecution 2-3.2 Prosecutorial Input 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Prosecutor in Historical Context
    The American Prosecutor in Historical Context By Joan E. Jacoby This is the second of two articles detailing the development of the office of the American prosecutor. The first part appeared in the March/April issue of the magazine. For this reason, the endnotes begin with number 32, where they left off in the first part of the article. The American Prosecutor From Appointive to Elective Status This section examines the democratic movement during the period from 1789 to the Civil War that changed the local prosecutor from an appointed to an elected official. In these early days of the new republic, the country shifted from a limited democracy that was ruled by a few franchised citizens to a democracy that extended the vote to almost all citizens. At the same time, governing power continued to be decentralized as the state’s influence over local authority declined and weakened. With the power of the vote and the election of President Andrew Jackson in 1828, more and more offices became elective. As Jacksonian democracy swept the land, sparked by the spirit of independence in the new states, two important changes occurred. The position of the local judge changed from appointed to elected, which in turn directly helped make the office of the local prosecutor elective as well. A separation of powers occurred that moved the prosecutor from the judicial branch of government to the executive. These two changes gave the American prosecutor a new set of responsibilities, power and authority. Ultimately they became the foundation for the independent discretionary authority that was to distinguish this office from that of any other prosecutor in any country in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Prosecutor by ROBERT H
    [VoL. 24 18 JouRNAL oP niE AMERICAN JuDICATURE SociETY The Federal Prosecutor BY ROBERT H. JACKSON* "The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway." It would probably be within the range of that ate of the United States. You are thus required exaggeration permitted in Washington to aay to win ·an expression of confidence in your char­ that assembled in this room is one of the most acter by both the legislative and the executive powerful peace-time forces known to our coun­ branches P.f the government before assuming try. The prosecutor has more control over life, the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor. liberty, and reputation than any other person in Your responsibility in your several districts America. His discretion is tremendous. He for law enforcement and for its methods can­ can have citizens investigated and, if he is that not be wholly surrendered to Washington, and kind of person, he can have this done to the tu~e ought not to be assumed by a centralized de­ of public statements and veiled or unveiled in­ partment of justice. It is an unusual and rare timations. Or the prosecutor may choose a instance in which the local district attorney more subtle course and simply have a citizen's should be superseded in the ha~dling of litiga­ friends interviewed. The prosecutor can order tion, except where be requests help of Wash­ arrests, present cases to the grand· jury in se­ ington.
    [Show full text]
  • Sb2238 Testimony Jdl 02-10-16
    The Judiciary, State of Hawaii Testimony to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor Senator Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran, Chair Senator Maile S.L. Shimabukuro, Vice Chair Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 9:00 am State Capitol, Conference Room 016 by Rodney A. Maile Administrative Director of the Courts Bill No. and Title: Senate Bill No. 2238, Relating to Judicial Elections. Purpose: Makes conforming amendments to implement a constitutional amendment that establishes judicial elections. Requires the judiciary, office of elections, and campaign spending commission to study appropriate methods of implementing a judicial election system in the State and submit a written report, including any proposed legislation, to the legislature. Judiciary’s Position: This bill would result in far-reaching ramifications not only to the judicial branch of this state, but to Hawaii’s government as a whole. From the time of Hawaii’s Constitution of 1852 through the present day, our judges have never been selected through an electoral process. The current merit-based system, which has been in place since 1978, has served this state well by providing for the selection and retention of qualified judges, while ensuring that judges can exercise independent judgment in deciding cases. While we should always look for ways to improve the current system, this bill proposes a radical departure from it. Jurisdictions with judicial elections have seen dramatic increases in spending, including an influx of special interest money. Judges in these states must raise money to run for office and often face negative attack ads by their opponents or special interest groups. Research studies have shown that judicial elections affect judges’ decision making, and result in less diverse judiciaries.
    [Show full text]