老澳门开奖结果

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery claims to be a big believer in data. As last year, Montgomery has blocked effective, commonsense criminal justice reform proposals from becoming law in part by criticizing them as having 鈥渘o data to support鈥� them, and as being 鈥減et projects鈥� 鈥渂ased on myths and rhetoric.鈥�

Given this insistence on evidence-based policy, it would be reasonable to assume that Montgomery would happily comply with a public records request seeking exactly the sort of data he wishes folks would utilize. He鈥檚 done the exact opposite.

In October 2018, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona and investigative journalist Sean Holstege (a consultant that the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona hired to write a report on Arizona prosecutors) sent Montgomery and his office a request seeking basic information about how the office functions: policies, procedures, staff rosters, budget figures, and data on how the office disposes of criminal cases.

This was a large request, to be sure. But rather than accept Holstege鈥檚 offers to receive information on a rolling basis, Montgomery鈥檚 office delayed, stonewalled, and provided platitudes rather than answers.

The office told Holstege it was 鈥渃hipping away鈥� and 鈥渨orking on it鈥� while sending nothing for months. The office also claimed that certain documents 鈥渃annot be provided,鈥� but gave no reason why. As of today, the office has furnished exactly one document: a staff roster for a single year out of a range of years requested.

This refusal to comply with Holstege鈥檚 full request is not only hypocritical for Montgomery, we believe it鈥檚 illegal. So today, the 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona sued Montgomery and his office for violating Arizona鈥檚 public records law. Judge Damon Keith once said that democracy dies behind closed doors. Montgomery has slammed the door in our faces.

In today鈥檚 suit, Arizona law is on our side.

The state鈥檚 courts have held that far shorter delays than this one鈥攚hich now spans over 210 days鈥攙iolate the public records law. Courts are also clear that the government must demonstrate that it conducted a diligent search and explain why any documents are being withheld. Montgomery and his office have also failed on both these counts.

It seems Montgomery does not want daylight on his data, and it begs the question: does he have something to hide? After all, he has done little to clean up the culture of misconduct within the Maricopa County Attorney鈥檚 Office, which was responsible for of the prosecutorial misconduct allegations in death penalty cases in the entire state between 2002 and 2013. He proposed rules requiring prosecutors to disclose more information to criminal defendants, which the Arizona Supreme Court implemented over his objections anyway. According to a , Montgomery is charging poor Arizonans for access to drug rehabilitation programs, making it harder for poor Arizonans to complete these programs.

An ardent anti-drug crusader, he was recently that he was wrongfully threatening medical marijuana patients with felonies. He also Juan Martinez, a prosecutor with a long history of confirmed misconduct鈥攁nd it should come as no surprise that he also refused to make records of any internal investigation public.

Finally, further relevant to this case, he even tried to , even though he has no control over them. Thankfully, city leaders clapped back, saying Montgomery鈥檚 approach 鈥渦ndermines transparency and would likely further strain police-community relations.鈥�

Montgomery鈥檚 track record on ignoring prosecutorial misconduct and driving mass incarceration is distinguished. Sadly, his aversion to transparency is not. Nationwide, prosecutors鈥� offices are among the least open government agencies in the country, despite their immense power over individuals and communities. For example, in a criminal justice system defined almost entirely by plea bargains鈥攐ver 95 percent of cases end in them鈥攑rosecutors control virtually every element of the plea negotiation process, from the charges filed to the terms of the plea to the proposed sentence. Yet almost none of the 2,400 elected prosecutors nationwide voluntarily release data or policies on plea bargaining in their offices. Plus, any data that citizens are able to extract will almost certainly be incomplete, difficult to decipher, and inconsistent across offices, counties, and states.

But prosecutorial transparency, like transparency across government, serves everyone. Voters are more educated. Criminal defendants are better equipped to negotiate deals and prepare for trial. And, as noted by the Phoenix city leaders who opposed Montgomery鈥檚 plan to stifle police disclosures, prosecutors themselves can better build community trust, which is essential to their jobs.

More and prosecutors around the country are waking up to the benefits of transparency and voluntarily disclosing information about their offices. But where they shut the door on democracy鈥攅specially by hiding efforts to exacerbate mass incarceration and deepen systemic racism鈥攖he 老澳门开奖结果 will be the one who knocks. We started today in Arizona.