DA's like to keep cops off of the streets

Anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system knows that the majority of cases are resolved short of trial. Cases get dismissed, motions to suppress evidence get granted and people charged with crimes plead guilty.

It is the last one that allows the urban criminal justice systems to actually function, avoiding lengthier delays between arrest and trial. "Plea bargaining" is generally a give and take. DA's will make an offer, clients with either accept it, reject it or make a counter offer. Often there is a meeting of the minds and a deal is worked out. Sometimes not.

Here is where it has gotten tricky in Louisiana. Given the ridiculous mandatory sentences for some cases, a clients only option to avoid a 10-15 year jail sentence is for us to try and work out some sort of deal with the DA. IF we can.

The IF part of that is much bigger here than in Philadelphia. You see, as I learned today, the DA's generaly policy is that if they have a strong case, they will not even consider a sentence less than the mandatory minimum.

Example: I have a client who is 25. He has one prior arrest, for which he was found guilty. He know has been arrested again for distribution of cocaine. Because of his prior felony conviction if he is found guilty after trial he has to serve a MINIMUM of 15 years at hard labor, with no parole, probation, etc. I don't know many 25 year olds who think past 30, much less 40, so staring at that number it seems reasonable to try and resolve it without a trial and spare him that amount of time.

The DA does have an exceptionally well put together case. 10 police officers, video and audio surveillance and a ton of other circumstantial evidence.

DA's position: We have such a good case, we can't lose, he's gotta do the 15 years.

My position: If you are not going to offer less than he would get after, what is the possible reason to plead guilty.

I'm not going to rant again about the unfairness of mandatory minimums, but the problem with the DA's attitude is the actual effect on law enforcement.

We are going to have
-10 police officers spending.
-1 police officer bringing over the alleged narcotics.
-1 police technician bringing over the video and audio surveillance.

So we end up with 12 police officers spending a day or more in court waiting to testify in a case. 12 officers who could be, I don't know, patrolling the streets. 12 police officers who could be out investigating the backlog in unsolved homicides this city has. 12 police officers who could be writing up their arrest reports. You get the point.

So instead of this case being resolved short of trial and offering something that a client could live with, we are going to have what in all effects may be a long and drawn out guilty plea where the net effect is taking 12 police officers off of the streets. Crime prevention indeed.