E-Mail # 1 dated May 5th -- Me to Prosecutors, CLO and Court Coordinator: Hello. My client is on the docket for a (6 month) PTI completion on May 16th. I believe she is in full compliance. Would it be possible to dismiss her case prior to that date so that she does not have to miss work? Thanks.
CRICKETS CHIRPING
E-Mail # 2 dated May 12th -- Me to Prosecutors, CLO, and Court Coordinator: Hello. Just following up here. My client is on the docket for a (6 month) PTI completion on May 16th. I believe she is in full compliance. Would it be possible to dismiss her case prior to that date so that she does not have to miss work? Thanks.
E-Mail Response from Chief on May 12th -- Reply to all -- Hello. Not sure if you e-mailed certificates of completion (of required courses) to another chief, but I do not have them. Could you forward them to me and I will dismiss?
E-Mail # 3 on May 12th -- Reply to all -- My client said she gave them to her supervision officer, but if you don't have them, I will get them and send them to you.
E-Mail Response from Probation Supervisor on May 12th -- Reply to all -- I received the certificates of completion and I will send them to the chief.
E-Mail # 4 on May 13th -- Reply to all -- Thank you. Will my client need to appear in person on Monday or will the case be dismissed off docket?
E-Mail Response from Probation Supervisor on May 13th -- Reply to all -- I don't know if your client has to be there or not. Chief, can you please advise?
CRICKETS CHIRPING
THIS MORNING IN COURT
ME: Good morning, did you dismiss my client's case?
CHIEF (pulling up my client's case on computer): Did you send me the paperwork?
ME: No, the probation supervisor . . .
CHIEF: You need to calm down!
ME: Um, I am calm.
CHIEF: You never sent me the contract.
ME: Wait. What? The PTI contract?
CHIEF: Calm down.
ME: I am calm, but why would I have sent you the PTI contract?
CHIEF: It is not in my e-mails.
ME: Well, you weren't chief when we signed up six months ago, so it wouldn't be in your e-mails.
CHIEF: I meant the certificates of completion of the courses. Did you send those?
ME: No, the . . .
CHIEF: If you didn't send them to me, how will I know if she did the courses.
ME: Well, the super--
CHIEF: You need to send me the certificates and I am not seeing any e-mail from you.
ME: It wouldn't be from me, the supervisor . . .
CHIEF: No e-mail from you.
ME: Can I talk?
PAUSE
ME: The e-mail would be from the probation supervisor. He sent you an e-mail saying that he had them.
CHIEF LOOKS AT E-MAIL: Well, the standard procedure for a PTI is that you send me the certificate of completion.
ME: That has never been my experience in the past.
CHIEF: That's standard procedure.
MISDEMEANOR TWO: Yeah, that's how we always do it.
CHIEF: I'll dismiss it this time, but in the future you need to send the certificates to me.
ME: Whatever.
MISDEMEANOR TWO: And if you are done talking, I need my chair back.
11 comments:
Hopefully the Chief was having a bad day/week and the interaction was an aberration. An ADA’s reputations is made based on his/her honesty and treatment of others. At the criminal courthouse, reputations are everything.
Another day, another “new procedure” - none of which ever make sense or are efficient.
The Chief’s ADD is somehow your problem?
How is the backlog coming along?
Why does the DA not just drop the misdemeanor (unimportant) cases and just focus on the felonies for recovery's sake?
Lee, misdemeanors like assault, theft, and burglary of a vehicle are very important to the victims. And the district attorney is charged by law with handling these cases- unlike private attorneys and the PDs office, prosecutors do not get the luxury of caps on the number of cases they handle. As a result of the early firing bloodbath and the crushing caseload, the office has seen a tremendous turnover to the point it cannot keep positions filled, which leads to more overworking. To try to plug the holes, inexperienced prosecutor are being pushed into spots they are not capable of handling effectively.
A misd chief, for example, used to have at at least a dozen or so misd trials and some felony 3 trials. The idea was that not only were they seasoned in the county courts, but they have also gotten some perspective handling felonies. Now, the chief may have a few misd trials and maybe a felony. There are felony 2s for example that have only first chaired a couple of felonies. This is why murders have been moved to felony chiefs and caps to a specialized division.
It’s bad. It’s also not something easily fixed. Between Harvey and Covid, we have an unprecedented backlog and prosecutors who weren’t getting the same amount of trial experience. The environment has become so toxic (including some judges) and the workload so high that it drives experience away. New hires cannot fill that gap as it will take years to get that experience, if they even stay. Lateral hires are so rare as to be a non factor.
The 3 prosecutor per court structure was from a time when the courts had a fraction of the caseload. In addition to twice as many courts, there should be at least 2, probably 3 each of low and mid level prosecutors per court to makes sure cases are handled properly (including communication with defense). As it is, the current structure doesn’t allow much more than daily triage.
You need to make a friendly call to the Misdemeanor Division Chief, and ask what the procedure is in order to make sure you are in compliance. He, or she, needs to set the standard for all the courts to follow.
Is it me, or is it as our nation becomes older, decent people who do their job are confronted with lazy, stupid, rude, unqualified bureaucrats behind glass windows, whose only qualifications are checking boxes.
Nice stereotyping there. Since some of these people annoy you (decent person just doing your job), it must be that they are lazy, stupid, rude and unqualified simply because they are following their administrative procedures. Oh, for the old days when there were no rules and you could get anything you want at any time. Your broad demonization of public servants just doing their jobs is why the former president and the fascists on the Supreme Court feel empowered to seek the dismantling of the administrative state, as today’s EPA case augurs. Lighten up, Francis.
A formal PTI is defined by an order for payment of supervision fees to the probation department. Their entire job is to collect proof of compliance (this is the whole “supervision” part) and then present the results to the authority that initiated the supervision. For a deferred or a probation that’s the judge. For a PTI it’s the district attorney. Everyone should be aware of this. Working at the courthouse should never be this hard for the parties or the lawyers—what a shame. There are at least two county agencies in your story that collected money (hundreds of dollars probably) and then didn’t follow through on their end with an adequate process.
You got the outcome you wanted, right? The rules when it comes to responsibility for public sector vs. private sector are different. You did good. The "Guvment" made you jump through some very annoying hoops.
You got the outcome you wanted, right? The rules when it comes to responsibility for public sector vs. private sector are different. You did good. The "Guvment" made you jump through some very annoying hoops. That's their reason for existence.
Post a Comment