D.A. leaves mark on Texas

Dallas County’s judicial system made life-altering mistakes in the past and must take steps to ensure they’re not repeated, the county’s newly elected top prosecutor said recently at North Lake.

“We’ve sent innocent people to jail in Dallas County – we’re guilty of that,” District Attorney Craig Watkins said in his opening remarks to students and faculty attending Dr. Gabriel Bach’s Leadership Series on March 30.

With his election, Watkins has already left his mark on Texas: He’s the first black district attorney in the state’s history. But setting a first isn’t enough for Watkins. Instead, he’s made it his mission to bring major reforms to the way the district attorney’s office does business.

Watkins said his first priority is to “restore the credibility” of the DA’s office. He believes that a large percentage of people have lost their trust in prosecutors following the scandals that have plagued the office in recent years.

Since 2001, 13 people convicted in Dallas County of murder, rape or other serious crimes have been exonerated by DNA evidence, according to the New York-based Innocence Project.

“Seeking justice not only means convicting … it also means that if someone is in the system that doesn’t need to be there, it’s our job to get them out.” Watkins said.

It’s a job Watkins said is overdue. Dallas County leads the nation in the number of exonerations granted after review of DNA evidence. In order to help correct previous mistakes, Watkins has made over 300 of his office’s case files available to the Innocence Project of Texas, a group associated with the New York organization dedicated to freeing those who have been wrongfully convicted.

Watkins has other ground-shaking goals for his new office.

He said the measure of success for the district attorney’s office should no longer be its conviction rate. Instead, he said, ensuring the safety of the community and helping offenders assume a contributing role in society are more important considerations.

A large part of that vision involves establishing what Watkins calls “community courts” that would function similarly to Teen Court. The community courts would allow certain misdemeanor cases to be diverted out of the criminal justice system as long as both the victim and the defendant agreed to participation.

Such cases would be sent to a panel of three or four members of the community where the offenses had been committed.

Both the victim and the accused would have a chance to present their sides to the panel. No finding of guilt would occur. But an alleged offender, with the victim’s consent, would receive a penalty that does not include incarceration. If that alleged offender complied with all terms of the penalty, his or her criminal case would be dismissed.

The example Watkins used to explain his vision of the community courts system was a case involving someone who had stolen a car radio. The community court might sentence that offender to cut the victim’s grass for six months.

Rather than clogging criminal courts with minor cases that Watkins says are likely to end in plea agreements, a community court would allow the victim to describe his loss and force the offender to see the impact of his offense.

“At the end of the day, a person is less likely to commit [another] crime if they have a vested interest in the community,” Watkins said.

The concept isn’t without its critics.

Toby Shook, a former assistant district attorney who lost the November election to Watkins, isn’t as optimistic about the potential of community courts.

When asked his opinion of Watkins’ hypothetical car burglar- turned-groundskeeper, Shook voiced concerns.

“You might have one kid who breaks into a car as a prank,” Shook said, “but most car burglars are doing 30-40 a night. They’re in it for the money. I wouldn’t want someone like that coming to my house to cut my grass.”

Watkins acknowledged that some misdemeanor cases will not be appropriate for diversion to community courts. He said DWIs and misdemeanors involving assault or family violence would be excluded from the program.

The bottom line, according to Watkins, is that some kind of change is critical if we’re serious about reducing crime, because the current system clearly isn’t working.

“If we do what we’ve done in the past, we’ll get what we have [now] – crowded prisons and a high crime rate,” said Watkins.