uccessfully managing the relationship between prosecutors and law enforcement agencies requires trust and an understanding of the sometimes conflicting missions of each group. While police agencies are tasked with determining whether probable cause exists to make an arrest, prosecutors can prevail on a case only when the evidence proves a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This difference in burdens often causes conflicts between police and prosecutors. This article is intended to present one successful approach to building trust and cooperation between police and prosecutors that has been implemented by the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office in Charlotte, North Carolina. The success of this approach is summarized by Major Johnny Jennings of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department: “The synergy created by the roundtable process between the police and the District Attorney’s Office is unprecedented in my 21 years of law enforcement. It speaks truly to the fact that we are a team with a common interest in mind, which is to bring criminals to justice and provide closure to the victims and their families.”¹

Background

The criminal court systems throughout the United States are organized and intended to resolve upwards of 95 percent of cases through guilty pleas, rather than trials. The process of offering a negotiated plea to a criminal defendant is often seen as a mysterious ordeal that prosecutors decide in secret. The fact that the police are typically not privy to the deliberations involved in crafting plea offers can cause police to distrust prosecutors, and the police may assume that prosecutors offer plea arrangements because they are uninterested in justice, do not understand the strength of the case, or are just plain lazy. When confronted with complaints about plea offers, prosecutors often think the police are ill-informed and unwilling to acknowledge any weakness related to the quality of investigation or strength of evidence in a case.

For years, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office had a difficult relationship. In 2009, CMPD Police Chief Rodney Monroe publicly criticized the former district attorney (DA) for lenient plea offers and the lack of community engagement in the plea offer process. The former DA, in turn, complained about the quality of cases brought to his office. As a result, Chief Monroe worked internally on a number of changes to improve the quality of cases by implementing case reviews by supervisors prior to presenting felony cases to the DA’s office, streamlining the case report writing process, and holding officers accountable for their work.

For many years, the poor relationship had a negative impact on both the police department and the DA’s office and affected the public’s perception of both. Despite this history, these two agencies now enjoy a relationship of trust and collaboration. Chief Monroe says, “Under the current administration, we now have a true ally that shares the same priorities not only as it relates to crime but to the community as well.”² A large part of that improved relationship can be traced to a new approach to plea offers. Describing the benefits of the new approach, Deputy Police Chief Vicki Foster says, “The roundtable collaboration has totally changed how we do business. All parties involved… come together for one common goal and that is to bring justice to the family of each victim and to ensure the perpetrator is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”³

The New Approach

In 2010, voters elected Andrew Murray to replace the retiring DA. Soon thereafter, Chief Monroe and District Attorney Murray agreed to have a prosecutor present at all homicide scenes to capture a true picture of the crime, the details, and the effect on the families. Chief Monroe says, “This first-hand knowledge cannot be replicated by words alone. The actual presence of a district attorney on scene adds a sense of urgency and sensitivity to the understanding of the crime.”⁴

One of Murray’s first initiatives was to institute a process known as “roundtabling” cases. This approach gives the police a seat at the table during discussions of plea offers in homicide cases. Prior to this process, the police might submit a case only to learn, after the fact, that charges had been reduced or even dismissed. There may have been discussions about some resolutions, but the discussions were often hostile and did not take place during the decision-making process.

The Homicide Team Roundtable is a group consisting of every member of the DA’s Homicide Prosecution Team, the DA, and the CMPD Homicide Command Staff. This group meets on the first and third Wednesday of every month. Every murder and vehicular homicide case is debated at these meetings, and, together, these groups determine what plea offers, if any, should be made. The assigned prosecutor for a case presents the facts of his or her case to the entire group. These meetings include discussions about witness issues, sentencing laws, admissibility of certain types of evidence, and any other facts relevant to a particular case. Then, together, the group deliberates on the desired outcome based on the facts of each case and the applicable laws. What makes this process unique is that police officials now have an opportunity for their voices to be heard regarding what should happen to the cases they have invested a significant amount of time investigating.

The results have been positive and sometimes surprising. In this group of 15–20 people, there have naturally been disagreements about what should be done with a particular case. However, to date, those disagreements have never fallen along agency lines. Police and prosecutors have been on both sides of any disagreement. Also, these disagreements have become less frequent as prosecutors learn more about police views of cases and police learn more about the evidentiary issues and sentencing laws that affect cases. As police have been part of conversations about legal issues—including the exclusionary rule, hearsay, and jury verdicts in similar cases—they have been able to use that knowledge as they investigate new homicides.

Reaching these decisions together has provided other tangible benefits for both sides. When meeting with the families of victims to tell them the terms of a plea offer in their loved one’s case, police and prosecutors do so with one voice. Both police and prosecutors meet with those families together, and the families can see that the offer was discussed by a large, diverse group of subject-matter experts. This allows victims’ families to have more confidence that making a particular plea offer is the right decision. As stated by CMPD Captain Roderick Golding, “The roundtable process eliminates all possibilities of finger pointing regarding how homicides are investigated and adjudicated. Instead, detectives and investigators create a united front to address concerns by the victims’ families, the media, and the community.”⁵ Judges also have more confidence in tendered plea agreements because they know that plea offers are the result of a deliberative process, rather than just a single prosecutor’s assessment of a case.

Discussing the cases as a group also allows both police and prosecutors to avoid repeating mistakes from case to case. Captain Golding believes this practice benefits his department by “sharpening the skills of the detectives’ supervisors through discussions of strengths and weaknesses of cases as applied to legal strategies from both prosecutorial and defensive perspectives.”⁶ The police officials involved in this process participate by applying legal principles to real cases. Discussions about whether a statement will be suppressed or whether evidence will be admissible in real, current cases are far more instructive than classroom exercises with hypothetical situations. Deputy Chief Foster says, “Detectives continuously learn through roundtable conversations. Prosecutors provide invaluable information on what is needed to strengthen cases and research every angle of the law to ensure no options are overlooked.”⁷

Determining plea offers as a group also ensures consistency and fairness. Allowing individual prosecutors to construct plea offers could result in similarly situated cases receiving dissimilar treatment. When the entire roundtable team discusses an offer, this ensures consistency with other similar cases. This is certainly important to maintain the public’s trust that every case is prosecuted according to the facts and the law—rather than based upon irrelevant factors such as the social or economic status of the defendant or the victim.

The Process

Every two weeks, cases are scheduled for roundtable discussion. This structure provides a deadline for both police and prosecutors to keep cases moving within the system. The police are required to provide files within a certain period of time, and prosecutors have a deadline to review the file prior to the roundtable. This provides built-in case management of pending cases. If a case is not presented to the roundtable within a certain period of time, both agencies can identify and address any issues causing the delay.

The roundtable consists of the aforementioned prosecutors and police officials holding the rank of sergeant or higher. The assigned prosecutor presents the case to the group and then invites questions regarding the facts, which allows police to correct any factual issues. Having both agencies present ensures that the facts are fully discussed. The roundtable participants then discuss issues such as the strength of the case, the legal issues involved, the defendant’s prior criminal record, the possible punishments, and the role of each participant in a particular case. Roundtable members conduct these discussions understanding that this jurisdiction, along with all others, have constraints on the number of cases that can be tried each year. However, the primary consideration is what offer best balances the need for punishment with the strengths or weaknesses of any particular case. Following the discussion, the assigned prosecutor will make a plea recommendation within the North Carolina sentencing guidelines.⁸ The entire group then discusses whether a plea offer should be made, and if so, what offer is appropriate.

Every homicide case is subjected to roundtable scrutiny. This allows police to have confidence that the prosecutors will not selectively present cases. It also allows police to see a broad cross-section of their investigative work to determine when particular issues arise. Since its inception in 2011, the homicide roundtable has reviewed more than 200 cases. The DA’s office keeps records of each plea made and whether or not the plea was accepted. These records allow prosecutors to determine whether plea offers need to be adjusted based on the number of cases in which an offer is accepted. When a defense lawyer presents a counter-offer, this too is reviewed by the roundtable.

Another advantage to the roundtable approach to plea offers is that all parties are exposed to innovative investigative tools and approaches. Oftentimes, a prosecutor or police official may have an idea to strengthen a case that the others in the room have not considered. That idea then becomes part of the collective knowledge of the team. Newer prosecutors see how more seasoned prosecutors evaluate cases and can learn to spot similar issues in their own cases. Police supervisors from one homicide squad can see how other homicide squads have approached difficult issues and benefit from each other’s experience. The increased level of dialogue created by the roundtable approach results in better decisions on individual cases and better relationships between participating agencies.

Conclusion

Cooperation between police and prosecutors occurs every day in every jurisdiction. The benefits of working together through cooperation and collaboration are well known and hardly revolutionary. However, the approach described here has proven successful and may provide a framework for prosecutors and police agencies to discuss expanding their partnerships to include collaboration in determining the final outcomes of their cases. Deputy Chief Foster states, “This collaborative effort goes a long way in police-[prosecutor] relationships. In order to be successful, police and prosecutors must work as a cohesive unit; citizens rely on us to put forth our best during a time that is their worst.”⁹♦

Notes:
¹Johnny L. Jennings (major, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department), email, June 3, 2013.
^{2Rodney Monroe (police chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department), email, September 11, 2013.
3}Vicki Foster (deputy chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department), email, September 3, 2013.
⁴Monroe, email.
⁵Roderick Golding (captain, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department), email, June 13, 2013.
⁶Ibid.
⁷Foster, email.
⁸Sentencing in North Carolina is determined based on a combination of the severity of the crime along with a defendant’s prior criminal history. N.C.G.S. §15A-1340.17, http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=15a-1340.17 (accessed February 28, 2014).
⁹Foster, email.

Please cite as:

William T. Stetzer, “A Collaborative Approach to Plea Offers,” The Police Chief 81 (April 2014): 26–29.

Top