The power of prosecutors determining who gets diverted

• In Event: Innovation and Reform in Prosecution: Outreach, Declination, Diversion, and Case Outcomes

Abstract

As ‘problem-solving’ courts increase, it is important to analyze how they operate and their impacts. For example, the number of behavioral health dockets have grown yearly in Virginia. While mental health court implementation has grown, the academic literature focused upon them has lagged behind that of drug courts. This study aims to fill a gap in the literature by focusing upon the dynamics of mental health court teams and the power of determining who gets considered for diversion. Specifically, we utilized a mixed-methodology to first determine the most common charges faced by individuals on Virginia’s behavioral health court dockets. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with docket coordinators to learn about how they designed and now operate their court. The results indicate that the most common charge on Virginia’s dockets is assault on law enforcement, which carries a six month mandatory minimum and is being disproportionately charged to Black defendants. The interview results describe a docket run equally by team members, except when it comes to the power of the prosecutor in determining who gets to join the docket and what happens to their charges post-completion. The presentation will conclude with an exploration of the policy implications of the results.

Authors

• Steven Keener, Christopher Newport University

• Audrey Morrison, Christopher Newport University