Baltimore City state’s attorney candidates address issues 

Posted: 8:46 am Fri, September 10, 2010
By Daily Record Staff

With the Sept. 14 primary election fast approaching, The Daily Record asked the two major candidates for Baltimore City State’s Attorney — incumbent Patricia C. Jessamy and challenger Gregg L. Bernstein — to answer five questions about key issues, each in 250 words or less. The questions and the candidates’ verbatim answers — listed in alphabetical order of the candidates’ last names — are below.

What standards govern the decision to prosecute and which factors are most relevant?

Mr. Bernstein: The standards that govern the decision to prosecute a crime are the law, which specifies the legal elements of the crime, and the evidence that supports that prosecution, such as witnesses and forensic evidence. The most relevant factors are input from the victim, the interest of justice and public safety to community.

With regard to exercising “prosecutorial discretion,” the State’s Attorney’s Office must aggressively prosecute those cases that impact our public safety and satisfy the purposes of punishment — deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation — while at the same time, recognizing the need for alternatives to conviction and incarceration for non-violent offenders.

Ms. Jessamy: The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard for conviction. At Central Booking, we review minor cases on the basis of the ability to prove in court.

We evaluate each felony case on a case-by-case basis. Witnesses are evaluated based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to the following: sobriety, criminal record and his or her reputation for truth and veracity. A case involving a single witness, under the influence of drugs, with a criminal record and no corroboration would be declined, and the attorney would work with the detective to improve the case.

Trying a case without sufficient proof only leads to acquittal and the potential for the proverbial “revolving door” syndrome.

Are current diversion programs for nonviolent substance abusers sufficient and effective? How could they be improved?

Mr. Bernstein: Substance abuse in Baltimore has been at epidemic levels for a generation. The sheer number of nonviolent substance abusers caught up in the criminal justice system shows that current diversion programs are inadequate.

I do not support incarcerating nonviolent substance abusers. I firmly believe in alternatives to incarceration, particularly drug treatment courts. But it is not the chief prosecutor’s job to create drug treatment programs.

The most meaningful contribution the State’s Attorney can do is to separate the drug users who don’t belong in the criminal justice system from the drug dealers — many of whom are engaging in violence — who do. I would work with community-based programs and social service agencies to divert non-violent drug users and juveniles to proven programs that provide the services that they need to get on the right track.

Ms. Jessamy: Current drug diversion programs are not sufficient and most are not long enough, usually 90 days. There are not enough inpatient treatment facilities. Drug Treatment Court is long enough (18 months-2 years), but it needs more available slots.

There are insufficient programs for individuals who have dual diagnoses (drug addiction and mental health issues). We participate in Drug Treatment Courts at the circuit court, district court and juvenile court. We also participate in Mental Health Court at Hargrove District Court. We are actively involved in the Felony Drug Initiative at the circuit court.

How can they be improved? With the establishment of 120-day treatment programs, increasing the availability of additional inpatient treatment facilities, and establishing more effective arrangements with members of the medical community to help identify and treat individuals with dual diagnoses.

Given the limited funds available to the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, what changes can be made to increase its effectiveness in fighting crime?

Mr. Bernstein: The Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office has a $32 million annual budget. This budget has increased more than 70 percent in the past decade, roughly equal to the budget for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office that serves a city double Baltimore’s size and had over 300 murders last year.

As State’s Attorney, I will conduct a comprehensive audit of the budget, office structure and salaries. Through this audit process, I will work with my team to determine what changes should be made to devote our resources to prosecuting violent criminals and improving efficiencies and programs in the office.

If current programs are working or show potential for success if properly implemented and staffed, such as the War Room, I certainly would keep them in place. I also will apply for federal and private grants to provide additional resources to accomplish these goals.

Ms. Jessamy: The State’s Attorney’s office fights crime on many fronts — including through our prevention, intervention and diversion programs, and through our prosecution efforts. The hard working men and women in the office do an outstanding job under very challenging circumstances.

We have already employed a ‘vertical prosecution’ model in many of our units, as well as other innovative prosecutorial strategies. Our attorneys are constantly making recommendations which help improve investigations, and subsequently improve convictions. We will continue to work with our attorneys and police investigators to improve the investigative process in order to have the best evidence available to us to put forth the best case in each and every instance.

If you had more money, what would you do within the State’s Attorney’s Office to improve the conviction rate, especially for violent crimes?

Mr. Bernstein: I would hire and train more lawyers to investigate and prosecute violent crime. I would put the State’s Attorney’s Office technology on par with current best practices at private law firms, beginning with providing Blackberries and voice mail to my lawyers and creating databases to track prosecutions and improve conviction rates.

I would track my office’s statistical data to help me and my staff make informed, intelligent decisions about how best to allocate office resources and personnel. I also would use this data for purposes of public accountability — to let the public and the media see how well — or not — the office is serving the public safety interests of the community.

I would make the War Room do what it initially was designed and funded to do: track repeat violent offenders and use the information collected to let the courts know when certain repeat violent offenders should be held without bail or returned to prison to complete sentences when they violate their probation by committing subsequent crimes.

Ms. Jessamy: I view the prosecutor’s job as being one to serve justice. My priority is getting violent criminals off the streets and keeping them off the streets for as long as possible. You can have a high conviction rate and not achieve either of these goals.

If I had unlimited funds, I would hire a cadre of competent, experienced retired detectives and assign them to the State’s Attorney Office’s Violent Crimes Units to work alongside police detectives and prosecutors to improve investigations so that cases that go to trial have the best evidence. I would add two additional attorneys, one for training and another for the new Forensics Unit.

The training attorney would be responsible for police training and the forensics attorney would assist forensics in assuring that all attorneys had assistance in determining what forensic evidence is necessary so that we use the lab resources efficiently and present the best evidence to juries in ways easily understood.

If you could reinvent or “fix” three things in the criminal justice system — in the State’s Attorney’s Office or elsewhere — what would they be?

Mr. Bernstein: First, and foremost, I would focus prosecutor resources on violent crime. Things aren’t going to turn around until law enforcement gets a handle on the relatively small number of violent, dangerous people who literally have been getting away with murder.

Second, I would create a State’s Attorney’s Office that has competitive salaries and programs for training and mentoring young lawyers that attract the best and the brightest law school graduates.

Third, I would improve the witness protection program to better protect victims and witnesses who feel threatened. As State’s Attorney, I will work with law enforcement to identify and offer protection proactively to victims and witnesses at high risk of intimidation. I will not wait for witnesses to ask for protection but do everything I can to insure that witnesses at high risk are offered meaningful protection.

Ms. Jessamy: First, I would eliminate the bail bond system and allow for a process in which 10 percent cash is paid to the courts; individuals would get back the money posted (minus administrative costs) when they appear for trial or their cases are complete.

Second, I would increase the penalty for criminal cases which entitle individuals to a jury trial. The number of misdemeanor jury trials continues to rise and account for tremendous resource usage at the circuit court level.  Reducing this number is a priority.

Third, working with the Baltimore Police Department (BPD), I would create an efficient system within the BPD to notify officers of their court dates, with computerized acknowledgement of receipt of the notice. I would recommend a fine or some form of discipline for officers who fail to appear for trials where they are necessary and essential witnesses.