Criminal Justice Advisory Group - CJAG February 10, 2016 MINUTES

Transcription

1 HANDOUTS - Meeting Agenda - Meeting Minutes 12/9/15 Criminal Justice Advisory Group - CJAG February 10, 2016 MINUTES MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 8:35am Welcome Chris Peek welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked for brief introductions. Members approved the December minutes by consensus. Assessment of the Citizen-Initiated Complaint Process in Mecklenburg County Michael Griswold briefly provided background regarding the origin of this project and then introduced Emily LaGratta and Natalie Reyes of the Center for Court Innovation, as well as Dr. Shelley Listwan of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The consultants presented their report and findings to the group 1. During the presentation there were occasional questions and comments from the CJAG group regarding the findings. Highlights of these questions and comments are discussed below. Chief Jeanne Miller of Davidson mentioned that when police arrive on scene they are in a difficult position when attempting to decide whether to bring charges since they did not personally witness any criminal activity. District Attorney Andrew Murray followed Chief Miller by stating that police are able to shift this difficult decision directly to the magistrates by involving citizens in the citizen-initiated complaint process. Murray discussed his support for reducing the public window hours from 24/7 to a narrower timeframe. Murray also suggested a cooling off period may be useful since so many cases are ultimately dismissed due to the complainant not showing up for court. Judge Regan Miller asked Judge Hoover, who presides over the private warrant court, for his opinion and Hoover agreed with Murray that a cooling off period would be beneficial. Hoover also stated that many cases are dropped due to absence of the prosecuting witness. Deputy Chief Jeff Estes expressed concern about reducing the magistrate public window hours because there are occasional instances where citizens legitimately need to see a magistrate during the proposed off hours. Murray clarified his statement that a small cooling off period and/or changing the magistrate public window hours would not impact the discretion of police and the police should absolutely be able to escort a citizen to the magistrate s office during off hours if there is the need to do so. Sue Green stated that many of the restitution cases that dispute settlement mediates are settled and that the program is effective in resolving issues related to finances (contrary to a finding presented by the researchers). Open Discussion See above. Further consideration of the report s findings and recommendations will be conducted through the Neighborhood Campaign, co-chaired by Robyn Withrow and Katrina Watson. This group will hold a meeting immediately following the CJAG meeting to discuss the research with the presenters and to determine next steps. All are welcome to attend. MEETING ADJOURNED at 9:59am. Action Items: 1. None 1 The presentation slides are attached to these minutes and are also available on the Criminal Justice Services website under Research & Reports. 1

2 Criminal Justice Advisory Group - CJAG February 10, 2016 MINUTES Name Erika Emerson Jeff Estes Katy Fitzgerald Sheena Gatehouse Kim Gettys Sue Green Michael Griswold Carol Hickey Kathy Hill Donnie Hoover Fallon Hopkins Jessica Ireland Dave Johnson Bobby Jones Joan Kennedy Emily LaGratta Shelley Listwan Vivian Lord Stacy Lowry Hope Marshall Felicia McAdoo Bart Menser Jeanne A. Miller Regan Miller Andrew Murray Melissa Neal Todd Nuccio Loretta Pagan Chris Peek April Phifer Natalie Reyes Demi Smith-Wright Stephen Strzelecki Rhonda Walton Katrina Watson Telisa White Robyn Withrow Position/Agency Mecklenburg ITS Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Criminal Justice Services District Attorney's Office Adult Probation/Parole Dispute Settlement Program Criminal Justice Services County Manager's Office Clerk of Superior Court's Office District Court Judge Criminal Justice Services Criminal Justice Services Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Clerk of Superior Court's Office Child Support Enforcement Center for Court Innovation UNC Charlotte UNC Charlotte Community Support Services Criminal Justice Services Sheriff's Office District Attorney's Office Davidson Police Department District Court Judge District Attorney Criminal Justice Services Trial Court Administrator Sheriff's Office County Manager's Office Magistrate's Office Center for Court Innovation Sheriff's Office Criminal Justice Services Community Corrections Chief Magistrate Sheriff's Office District Attorney's Office 2

3 Assessment of the Citizen-Initiated Complaint Process in Mecklenburg County, NC February 10, 2016 Emily LaGratta Natalie Reyes Center for Court Innovation Shelley Listwan, Ph.D. Jennifer Hartman, Ph.D University of North Carolina Charlotte

4 2013 Analysis Department of Criminal Justice Services conducted analysis of the Mecklenburg County Citizen Warrant Court docket (cases calendared from Nov 16, 2012 to May 13, 2013) Two core questions 1. Does the docket reduce service demand overall? 2. Does the docket benefit the parties involved?

5 2013 Findings Two core questions 1. Does the docket reduce service demand overall? -Number of court appearances remained unchanged (1,130 court appearances; Average = 2.2 appearances/case) 2. Does the docket benefit the parties involved? - Dismissal rate remained high (88%) -Only 25% of cases were resolved through mediation -But mediation was successful when utilized

6 Current Project (2015) In-depth analysis and review of the citizeninitiated complaint process in Mecklenburg County Project goals - Understand and document the function of the citizen-initiated complaint process - Explore opportunities for improvement

7 Methodology Local partners 26 th Judicial District Magistrate s Office District Attorney s Office Public Defender s Office Police departments (Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Davidson, Matthews) Dispute Settlement Program Qualitative data In-person & remote stakeholder interviews Site visit (February 2015) Criminal complaint forms (74 total)

8 Methodology Quantitative data Cases processed between Jan 1 Dec 31, 2014 Sources Criminal complaint forms Dockets Dispute Resolutions/Mediation

9 Key Findings: Case Pathways Police service call (common but not required) Complaint filed by citizen at Magistrate s Office anytime (24/7) with or without police-issued incident report Summons or arrest warrant issued if magistrate finds probable cause * Referral to mediation can occur at this stage, but is rare Defendant arraigned at first appearance & district attorney refers eligible cases to Citizen Warrant Court

10 Key Findings: Defendants Processed by Citizen Warrant Court 2014 cases Individuals vs. complaints # of complaints = 2,936 # of defendants = 1,616 Referrals for dispute resolution/mediation # of complaints = 889 # of defendants = 594

11 Demographic Profile of Defendants Citizen Warrant Court 2014 cases Individuals vs. complaints Average age = 31 72% African American 57% male

12 Figure 1: Number of Defendants Processed by Citizen Warrant Court by Month, (n = 1616)

13 Figure 2. Charge Types, Citizen Warrant Court, % 27% Simple Assault Communicating Threats 11% 9% 5% Property Larceny Unauth. Use of MV Percentage 3% Trespass 2% Other

14 Key Findings: Dispositions in Citizen Warrant Court Possible pathways Mediation Diversionary program, such as deferred prosecution Guilty plea at Citizen Warrant Court Trial at Citizen Warrant Court Transfer for traditional court processing Dismissal High percentage of cases dismissed due to failure to appear by complainant * Data are limited

15 Figure 3: Outcomes, Citizen Warrant Court, % Dismissed 13% 6% Order for Arrest Moved to other courtroom 1% Guilty/NG verdict 14% Missing Data Percentage

16 Key Findings: Mediation Mecklenburg County Dispute Settlement Program Certified volunteer mediators Available in courtroom Meet privately in the courthouse Goal is to reach a settlement agreement If agreement reached, case will be dismissed by presiding judge at Citizen Warrant Court with $60 fee * No fee if case referred directly earlier in the process In 2014, 889 cases (n=590 defendants) were referred to mediation

17 Figure 6. Percentage of Cases Successfully Resolved through Mediation by the Dispute Settlement Program, 2014 Unresolved 18% Resolved 82% n = 330

18 Figure 5. Party Who Declined Mediation Services, % % 10 0 Declined, Complainant Declined, Defendant 6% Declined, both 1% Declined, Attny n = 108 Percentage

19 Key Findings: Stakeholder Perspectives of the Citizen Warrant Court Strengths Re-routes low level disputes from regular criminal docket Engages citizens throughout the process Mediation provides potential for long-term resolution Challenges Misconceptions among stakeholders and the public about the process Potential for abuse by complaining citizens Logistical or legal barriers for complaining and responding citizens Justice system resources may be being misused (e.g. targeting cases unlikely to succeed at mediation, net-widening) For magistrates, volume of and challenging nature of complaints Limited data collection

20 10 Recommendations 1. Create and disseminate educational resources 2. Enhance procedural justice practices 3. Consider earlier referral to mediation 4. Implement safeguards to discourage abuse of citizen-initiated complaint process 5. Consider enhancing the role of law enforcement

21 10 Recommendations 6. Provide assistance to victims throughout the citizeninitiated complaint process 7. Convene regular stakeholder meetings and provide other avenues for information sharing 8. Consider other opportunities for out-of-court resolution 9. Collect additional data 10. Consider addressing specific challenges of domestic violence victims

22 Thank you! Emily LaGratta Natalie Reyes Shelley Listwan, Ph.D. Jennifer Hartman, Ph.D