Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.27.2008 9:10 pm

Wednesday editorial: Prosecutor to prosecutor

  • Email this
  • Print this

Jennifer JoyceSt. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce proposed last week a discrete but significant exercise in regionalism: St. Louis and St. Louis County should merge their jury pools.

Ms. Joyce is on the right track. But she should think bigger.

City residents do more than their share of jury duty. The volume of criminal cases in St. Louis circuit courts and the frequency with which defendants demand a jury trial mean city residents are called to serve every two to three years.

Their suburban counterparts, according to Ms. Joyce, can go the better part of a lifetime never being called.

Broadening the pool would spread the burden of jury duty more equitably throughout the region. (Some would argue it also would ease her job as a prosecutor, given that suburban jurors generally are more trusting of law enforcement and thus more likely to convict in criminal cases.)

Her proposal came amid expressions of worry about public safety: the recent rise in violent crime; the failure of myriad public agencies to intervene on behalf of children headed for trouble and heavy turnover of experienced prosecutors who owe a great deal of money in student loans and can earn more in private practice.

There is a common thread running through all these concerns:

Crushing demands on one part of the criminal justice system can degrade public safety in a much larger area. City and county residents have a shared interest in a strong and efficient regional criminal justice system because crime and disorder do not respect political boundaries.

The St. Louis region would benefit not just from combining jury pools but also from a grand merger of county and suburban courts, prosecutors and police departments. Many potential advantages come to mind: less duplication of effort, better and more flexible use of resources, better policing and potentially, a far safer region.

On the other hand, think of the turf battles. Think of the outraged screams of some suburban residents who would see some of their tax dollars flowing to police and courts in urban areas. Think of the hostile reaction such a proposal would receive in the Legislature. Just because a proposal makes sense doesn’t mean it makes good politics.

Still, there are plenty of things Ms. Joyce and St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch could work on — prosecutor to prosecutor — that could make a differenceRobert P McCullough without a dramatic reordering of the political landscape.

Ms. Joyce points out that she and Mr. McCulloch already collaborate. Both are members of a state prosecutors association and work together on legislative issues. They coordinate well on multi-jurisdictional crimes. Their employees participate in joint training programs.

That’s good for starters. What else can they do?

How about establishing a pool of experienced prosecutors from both offices — cross-deputized and available to try serious felonies in either jurisdiction, sort of a prosecutor’s version of the police Major Case Squad? That way each office could help the other on tough cases and ensure that neither is caught short of top lawyers.

Student loan costs make it difficult to recruit and retain top law school graduates, not just among prosecutors but also in all kinds of public-interest law practices, including public defenders and legal aid lawyers.

The public sector can’t compete with private law practice when it comes to salaries. But what about a program — funded with a combination of public dollars and private philanthropies — to help talented young lawyers pay off their student loans in return for few years of public trial work?

Ms. Joyce and Mr. McCullough should consider a joint planning process, perhaps in concert with other regional prosecutors and professional organizations. By exploring different ways to work together, they might well make the justice system work better and make the rest of us safer in the bargain.

(A video slide show of Ms. Joyce’s interview on The Platform can be seen here.)

Note: An early version of this editorial was edited to correct the spelling of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s last name.

5 comments

Comments are closed.

Why is it that Ms. Joyce is on the right track?

ACORN tells us that they have registered thousands of new voters among the poor in the City. Isn’t it voters that are called for jury duty? Ms. Joyce should be ’swimming’ in jurors.

Unless of course those people don’t actually exist.

But you at the Post tell us there is no vote fraud in the City.

So Ms. Joyce should have all the jurors she needs.

Unless there is vote fraud in the City. But you say…

Interesting isn’t it?

— tsquare
10:29 pm May 27th, 2008

Typical Post Editorial. Exclaim what a great idea this is and blame a third party ( the legilature ) then forget about the hard questions, such as: Who would run a combined Prosecutors Office? McCullough or Joyce?? What about the outrage screams from some city residents when the racial makeup of juries changes??? Then there’s all the power plays on a possible merger of police departments, such as: Leadership, Equipment, proceedures, pay, benefits, pensions, RESIDENCY and many others which would end any and all possibilities of a merger. Pie in the sky wishing.

Here’s a novel approach. How about the city pay for the services they should be providing on their own for once, instead of always having their hand out wanting others ( Feds, State and County ) to pay for them??? Quit giving out property tax abatements and have city residents pay for city services.

— Rick N
9:35 am May 28th, 2008

“Rick N” provides a broad and incisive analysis of all the problems.

A merged jury pool would almost always have some dissenting votes in the case of city defendants. As a potential suburban defendant, I’d be leery of a trial by a jury of my peers, particularly from a merged pool. Many just aren’t sharp enough, and despite the lawyers’ opportunity to reject some potential jurors, twelve do eventually have to be accepted.

I say that as the jurist in an armed robbery case, years ago in the Clayton Courthouse, who noticed a fault in PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence and kept a young Afro-American defendant from being convicted on a second count. He was properly convicted and sentenced on the first. ELEVEN other jurists simply failed to analyze what they were looking at, and the judge refused to allow the photographs back into the jury room.

The bailiff quietly confirmed after the trial that the photographs had been taken after a PREVIOUS robbery by the same individual at the same store.

— Bob H
11:09 am May 28th, 2008

As someone who has been called for jury service several times since moving here in 1985 ( I remember about 5 - 6 times in the 1990’s), I think this is a great idea.

The last time I was called, the judge on the case dismissed me from the last stage, and, noted that I had been called approximately every 14 months. She then noted my record to give me some time off from jury duty.

— RHarnack
2:58 pm May 28th, 2008

still missed one; “Ms. Joyce and Mr. McCullough should consider a joint planning process”; dont hate the players, hate the game. and not the messenger either.

— Bill Haas
9:47 pm May 31st, 2008