I had the opportunity to have lunch with Darin LaHood the other day and talk about his candidacy for Peoria County State’s Attorney. I’d link to his website, but he doesn’t have one yet — he says he’ll be setting up one soon.
We went to Kellehers in beautiful downtown Peoria where I had the fish and chips and he had a chicken sandwich. Even though this isn’t a restaurant review, I have to say that lunch was delicious and the service was very good.
Why change?
One of the first questions I asked about his candidacy was why we should replace the current state’s attorney. Kevin Lyons has a high conviction rate and has been doing the job for over a decade, so why should we boot him out?
LaHood said that he believes crime in the number one issue right now in Peoria. He pointed out that Peoria has the highest crime rate per 100,000 population of any county in Illinois. He doesn’t lay all the blame for that at Lyons’ feet, but he doesn’t think Lyons is doing enough to address it, either. Having had the job for so long and lacking serious challengers in past elections, LaHood perceives that Lyons has grown complacent.
As for Lyons’ 94% conviction rate, LaHood points out that every plea deal is considered a conviction and goes toward that rate. So if you plea a large percentage of cases, you’re going to have a high conviction rate. It doesn’t indicate what your success rate is for cases that actually go to trial.
Although this came up later in the conversation, it’s worth noting here that Lyons’ decision to blow off the mayor’s task force on crime — calling it “a waste of time” — was seen by LaHood as a major faux pas. He sees it as a sign of Lyons’ lack of leadership and “defeatist mentality.”
What will you do differently?
LaHood has already released his “five-point plan to revitalize the Peoria County State’s Attorney’s Office and reduce crime in Peoria County,” and so much of the conversation focused on explaining each of those points. As stated in his press release, the five points are:
- Evaluate the current State’s Attorney’s plea bargaining system.
This evaluation would aim to determine why repeat offenders are receiving plea agreements that involve no jail or prison time. - Initiate a Community Prosecution Program.
This program will be implemented in high crime areas of the County and involve a proactive partnership between the State’s Attorney’s Office, law enforcement, Neighborhood Associations, and public and private organizations. The State’s Attorney’s Office would be used to solve problems, improve public safety and enhance the quality of life of Peoria County citizens. Specifically, under the program, a criminal prosecutor will be assigned to a “high crime” area within our County and will work with the local police officers and neighborhood groups on a daily basis to prosecute crime in that area. - Create a Gang and Violent Crimes unit.
This would be a new unit under the direction of the Peoria County State’s Attorney’s Office. This unit will specifically focus on the apprehension and prosecution of gang members and violent offenders in our County. - As State’s Attorney, LaHood will actively meet with and participate in the City of Peoria’s Crime Task Force.
LaHood will work personally with the Task Force’s members in a cooperative effort to help reduce our crime problems. - LaHood will partner with community leaders from our urban and high crime areas to re-build a level of trust.
LaHood will work with urban leaders to re-establish a level of trust that no longer exists between law abiding citizens who live in our urban areas and our Criminal Justice System. LaHood will enhance the level of diversity within the State’s Attorney’s Office by initiating a plan to hire and employ minority attorneys in both the Charging and Felony Trial Units.
While Darin talked about all these points, he spent the most time explaining the second one. According to the American Prosecutors Research Institute, a “community prosecution program” is “a long-term, proactive partnership among the prosecutor’s office, law enforcement, the community and public and private organizations, whereby the authority of the prosecutor’s office is used to solve problems, improve public safety and enhance the quality of life of community members.” They go on to explain:
Under this emerging philosophy, prosecutors are viewed not just as officers of the court who come on scene once a crime has occurred, but rather as members of the community who have the power to stop crime from occurring. This community-oriented prosecution has become not just a new program, but a new strategy for prosecutors. Community prosecutors use tools such as nuisance abatement, drug-free and prostitute-free zones, restorative justice, community courts, gun reduction programs, truancy abatement, and graffiti cleanup to improve neighborhood safety.
You can read more about community prosecution programs in this Bureau of Justice Assistance publication (PDF). The idea is that a prosecutor would be assigned to a geographic area — for example, in the city of Peoria one prosecutor could be assigned to the East Bluff, one to the South Side, one to the West Bluff, etc. — and would prosecute all the cases within that area. The prosecutor would get to know and work with the local neighborhood organizations and police to solve problems that are unique to that particular area.
In conjunction with his other initiatives, LaHood sees this kind of program having a significant impact on Peoria’s crime problem. He believes too many criminals know how to play the system because of a plea bargain arrangement that is out of control. Other counties in Illinois have instituted standards such as “no plea agreements for violent felons” and “no plea agreements when a gun is used in the commission of a crime.” Darin would like to see those kinds of ideas implemented here.
Specific cases
I took the opportunity to ask Darin about some specific cases that have been in the news recently and how he would handle them.
In regards to Rakiem Campbell, the boy who threw a patio brick off the I-74 overpass killing the passenger in a car below, LaHood had a couple thoughts about that, after first giving the necessary disclaimers (e.g., he wasn’t privy to all the evidence the police and prosecutor saw, etc.). First of all, he wondered why this kid was out wandering the streets considering all the other crimes he had already committed — attacking a jogger, setting fire to a vehicle, etc. Why was he back on the streets already? Secondly, he believes that if the charging unit of the prosecutor’s office charged Campbell with murder, that they believed the evidence supported that charge. Since the evidence likely didn’t change between then and when the boy plead out, he wonders why this case didn’t go to trial. “I’m a big believer in the jury system,” he said. If the charges were correct, he believes the jury would have convicted Campbell on them. Here again, he says, is an example of the plea bargaining system gone wrong.
Regarding the jaywalking case down by the courthouse a year ago (not the recent Manual/Woodruff students issue) when the state’s attorney’s office threw out the jaywalking tickets, LaHood was supportive. He said that when you have a statute that has not been enforced for years and people are not put on notice that it will start being enforced, it’s not really fair to start enforcing it out of the blue. However, he would have done more to explain his reasoning to the community than Lyons did.
I also asked him about Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act violations. I brought up the case recently where the Park Board secretary illegally erased a closed-meeting tape that was evidence in a lawsuit. The state’s attorney’s office declined to prosecute, apparently satisfied with an unsigned apology from the secretary that wasn’t even given under oath. There were a couple of reasons for bringing this up: One is that I wanted to know whether he would take OMA and FOIA laws seriously to support open government; the other is that his mother-in-law is Bonnie Noble, and the Park Board case in particular would be a clear conflict-of-interest. LaHood agreed it was important to be consistent in the prosecution of OMA and FOIA violations, and he agreed that for the Park Board case he would have to recuse himself and have someone neutral look at it instead.
Preemptive disclosure
Toward the end of our lunch, LaHood volunteered some criticism he expects to get from his opponent. There was a case he tried in Las Vegas that was overturned on appeal because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” The case was called United States v. Weatherspoon, and you can read the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion here (PDF). It was a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel.
The “misconduct” to which the ruling refers is something called “vouching.” It’s where the prosecutor vouches for the credibility of the witnesses (in this case, police officers) in the case. To a layman like me, this sounds like no big deal, but apparently in legal circles it’s a no-no. Such an action “plac[es] the prestige of the government behind a witness,” and thus prejudices the jury against the defendant. It “invites the jury ‘to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.'”
In his defense to me, LaHood stated that he “makes no apologies” for being “aggressive” in his prosecutions. He said he had prosecuted over 1,000 cases and had only been reversed three times. The Ninth Circuit, he explained, is one of the most liberal appeals courts in the country (they were the ones who famously said that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional), and other courts have found that statements like the ones he made were not considered vouching. He encouraged me and anyone else concerned about this issue to read the ruling for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Conclusion
Bottom line, the message LaHood tried to get across was that it was time for some new and creative ideas in the State’s Attorney’s office. He thinks the State’s Attorney’s office needs to partner more with the city, law enforcement, neighborhood associations, etc., and take more of a leadership role in confronting the crime issues that face Peoria. He believes he has the experience and creativity to make a difference.
I could care less about how many times a higher court has reversed this guy. The big question with him and with Lyons is are they willing to prosecute the tough cases, the ones they might lose? Lyons stats are based on a set of rigged numbers, he chooses what cases to kick and what cases to prosecute, he stacks his own deck and lets criminals walk if the case is not a slam dunk. Talk to local law enforcement about him. I am more concerned with the arrest to prosecution ratio rather than stats derived from the cases hand picked by Kev and his staff.
Police didn’t arrest campbell for those other crimes until he was arrestd for the brick throwing incident. Therefore, he wasn’t out walking the street after he was charged.
Also, where is he going to get the money to do this gang unit. And who is in a gang. For the most part, people deny they are in such a group so it’s dubious as to whether you can prove that.
Anonymous said, “where is he going to get the money to do this gang unit.”
Perhaps he’ll use the money that Lyons was going to use for his proposed cold case unit.
Cooperation between the states attorney, police, and so forth are absolutely essential, but your description of this “community prosecution program” makes it sound like a lot of left-wing nonsense. “drug-free and prostitute-free zones, restorative justice, community courts, gun reduction programs,”
Isn’t the whole city supposed to be drug-free and prostitute free? Or is this program going to create drug zones and drug-free zones; prostitute-free zones and red-light districts?
What’s a “community court”? I thought we were paying for a courthouse down on Main Street already. Why do we need another? Gun reduction programs? I think we have one of those already, but, personally, I think an armed citizenry is the best crime deterence there is.
Finally, there is the money question. Many of these ideas carry price tags. LaHood should be addressing the cost and where that money is going to come from. Taxes in Peoria are too high already.
The status quo is not working and one gets the feeling that a “one size fits all” approach is the norm. Bottom line is that the Courts and Criminal justice system needs to be more responsive to the needs of the community. Darin makes a lot of sense and I plan to support him.
The information I included on community prosecution was from APRI and not provided by LaHood. I provided that information just to give some background on those kinds of programs generally. I didn’t intend to give the impression that LaHood was advocating all the things that APRI listed as examples of things that can be done with a community prosecution program.
All LaHood specifically advocated was rearranging staff already in the state’s attorney’s office — i.e., assigning a prosecutor “to a ‘high crime’ area within our county and [working] with the local police officers and neighborhood groups on a daily basis….” There are something like 20 prosecutors in the state’s attorney’s office.
The one knock I don’t think Lyons deserves is his refusal to sit on another blue ribbon panel created by politicians to placate their egos and get nothing done.
Exactly what has this panel done or offered for crime in Peoria? Praying? Zilch.
I did a blog entry on this exact topic some time ago and only to reiterate, these panels end up being nothing more than blue ribbon panels for a gab fest and Lyon’s was right to not participate.
When these panels start going out and finding the truly remarkable Peoria area people to participate and not the usual chest pounders and ego filled people, then that is the time to participate.
Lyon’s was right in making the comment his time would be better spent elsewhere.
When will we hear from Darin’s superiors out in Las Vegas as to what sort of job he did out there? He can throw out all the numbers he wants to, but have they been verified by the powers that be in Vegas? It’s a good idea to run on one’s track record if one’s track record is accurate and solid… this has not been shown yet to be the case for Darin.
I’m waiting to see it. No one involved in the news in this area seems interested in verifying anything regarding Darin’s or Jim McCona-whatever’s backgrounds for the masses to peruse.
I find that odd.
LaHood is exactly right. Here’s what’s going on. To maintain a “high” conviction rate, Kevin Lyons overcharges in the first instance — like he did by charging that kid who threw the brick off the bridge with murder — and then plea bargains it down to a lesser offense… thereby maintaining a high conviction rate. In the end, Lyons is happy — because he gets a conviction; the defense lawyer is happy — because he can tell his client that he got him off of a murder charge; the kid is happy — because he thought he was going to go away to prison for life for murder; and the only losers are the citizens of Peoria, because the whole legal justice system is brought into disrepute… and crime keeps increasing. Of course, in that case, Lyons’ behavior is even more cynical and duplicitous… because the only reason he plea bargained it out is because he doesn’t want to lose the black vote in his upcoming election. Way to go Lyons! You’re a real profile in courage! It’s time for a change.
Prego,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you have a phone and I am sure you have an internet connection. Why don’t you just do the research yourself if you are so uncomfortable with them?
“restorative justice, community courts”
Restorative justice programs are markedly successful at reducing recidivism and community courts are quite successful at controlling petty crime. Community courts are sort-of like small claims courts for petty or “quality of life” crime; it’s less-formal, and offers a wide variety of solutions, not just imprisonment, community service, and fines.
For example, if you had a kid shoplifting and he went to community court, the court might discover he had no father in the home and was routinely truant because of transportation issues. The court could work with social service agencies and community businesses and organizations so attack ALL the problems, not just sentence him for shoplifting — get him a male mentor, arrange reliable transportation, have him give direct but non-monetary restitution to the store (maybe picking up litter or something at the shopping center). The idea is that community court can address contributing factors that lead to crime, not just the crime itself, and that it can deal with “minor” issues communities are reluctant to prosecute (graffiti, noise ordinance violations) because they don’t want to send some dumb teenager to jail for four weeks for a petty crime, or spend a lot of taxpayer money and prosecutor/judicial time on something so minor, but that make a big difference in quality of life of the community and that should be dealt with — just not, necessarily, with jail time or large fines.
They work a little differently in every community (some places only have community courts available for juveniles, for example), but most places that have them like them.
I think the overturned case is a non-issue. While I’d be concerned if the States Attorney was routinely losing cases on appeal (would indicate to me a lack of legal knowledge) but an occassional overturn could be a good indicator of an individual that is willing to push the limits of the existing law to address crime (and as is perhaps the cause in this case – an inadvertent legal misstep).
I actually believe that Lyons is doing much better than he is getting credit for from many in the community. Yeah, he has short-man syndrome and is arrogant as hell – but he also has a sharp legal and political mind.
It will be good to see a real race where perhaps the citizens can’t lose no matter who wins.
I also agree with prior comment regarding the “crime task force” — unfortunately we have a history here in Peo-town of developing great plans with no follow-through and/or giving lip service to task forces with no real attention of accomplishing anything other than getting the heat of our backs regarding a particular issue. While we shouldn’t stop doing them, we also should view them as the panacea for the community.
A deed done is 100 times more effective than a deed discussed.
People want to get tough on crime until it is their kid.
11Bravo, like I’ve said a few dozen times, I’m way too lazy to do the research myself. On top of that, I’m certain I would not ask the correct questions. Moreover, my college degree certainly isn’t in Journalism. Finally, why the hell should I do it when blogs and newspapers exist, huh? Isn’t that what THEY exist for?
I’d like to think so.
Hey pregnant guy, everybody and everyone knows who Jim McConoughey is. I think the local press has reported on him for quite some time. He’s been with Heartland Parntership just as long as you probably have been posting messages online. Instead of sitting there and talking about the looks of the female media reporters, perhaps you should read what some of them write.
C.J.: I read that same decision and found it too esoteric for me to grasp the difference between vouching and simply saying that the evidence is credible. Perhaps a few of the many, many lawyers who read blogs would care to read it and offer their insights.
Eyebrows: that is what the court supervision program does, exactly that. If it is still in existence, it should be implemented to the full extent. It was basically a volunteer run program, administered by the courts, and dhad teeth in it. Would like to hear if it is still going-anyone know?
Hey Anonymous: I already he was with the Heatland thing, you dimwit… maybe you ought to read what I’m posting before jumping to conclusions. I’m assuming he did NOT get rich by being in that post… it’s what got him the deep pockets that I’m interested in, idiot. Geez…
Hey Anonymous: I already KNEW he was with the Heatland thing, you dimwit… maybe you ought to read what I’m posting before jumping to conclusions. I’m assuming he did NOT get rich by being in that post… it’s what got him the deep pockets that I’m interested in, idiot. Geez…
Seems to me that community supervision isn’t going to address what most people here want — the heads of the bad guys.
Darin called me some time ago and asked for my support. I met with Darin and had him as a speaker at the Noon Optimist Club. He outlined his five points and was impressive throughout his presentation.
I gave him two books to read knowing that he was busy campaigning but felt I would know more about him from aking his opinions on what he felt the authors were conveying to their readers. The books were “Dirty”, a book on drugged out kids, their sometimes drugged out parents and their travails as they all try to put together a life. The other book is by Juan Williams “Enough” which I’ve blogged on previously and should be of interest to everyone who is concerned about who and what causes a community to expand any existing divides.
I’ll hear him again at his fund raiser at ELM on the 8th.If you feel a chage whould be made, disregard what Phil L.says and send money. You don’t win many elections without money well spent to promote your cause.
No request received from Kevin asking for my support.
I agree with most everything said by C.J. and most of you “commentors”.