The public has a right to know the policies implemented by the District Attorney’s Office, how those policies relate to public safety, and how effective tax payers dollars are spent. This Prosecutorial District covers 4 counties. The DA’s office does not currently have a stand alone website and is limited to what each county website wishes to publish. It is an issue that has to be worked out with each county with the goal of having a website for just the DAs office.

It is extremely important that the Office of District Attorney engage in a review process to insure that bias is not tilting the justice system. The challenge is dealing with 4 different county governments and the issues of finances. My campaign staffers are already doing some basic research about data management systems for the Prosecutorial District. We are looking at what systems exists, what are best practices and how these platforms will work over 4 counties.

I will work with all four counties to create a common reporting system. I also will reach out to the other District Attorneys around the state in an effort to create standardize reporting across the state.

Since 1990 the Attorney General’s Office is responsible for investigating all FATAL police shootings. However all, over 100, fatal shootings have been declared to be “justified”. Given that the current criteria for “justified” shootings does NOT include a review of the events leading up to the moments of the shootings, I have reservations about the current process the AG’s office uses when determining justification. I have been reading and considering Eric Holder’s outline for response to police shootings in Chicago. I have been pondering if the District Attorney’s in Maine should follow the recommendations laid out by the former Attorney General concerning prosecutorial response to police shootings. Police and Sheriff departments need to have the funding to under go continuing education that teaches new ways of de-escalation situations that can lead to shootings.

The District Attorney must be accessible by all members of all communities within the Prosecutorial District. What format this will take needs to be discussed by all stakeholders. Perhaps a Task Force that meets once a quarter?

Unequivocally yes! Further, I believe that the advances in neurology, cognitive psychological research, and behavioral science research has made it very clear that the frontal lobe, the decision making center of the human brain, continues to develop and it not fully formed until the age of 25. It is important that the prosecutor’s office take these factors into consideration when placing charges, using alternative courts and in sentencing. Community Based Restorative Justice is a great avenue for dealing with children and their decisions that are “criminal” in nature.

Prison is not the place for children. Current research now shows that the lack of Frontal Lobe development coupled with the influence of Puberty Hormones, it is difficult for teen-agers to resist impulsive risky behavior that can lead to running afoul of the Justice System. These biological influences must be taken into consideration when dealing with children within the Justice System.

However, it is incumbent on the District Attorney’s office to work with the local communities to develop community service programs where they do not exist within Prosecutorial District 6. This District covers four counties, each with its own set of infrastructure and capabilities to participate in a Community Base Restorative Justice system.

Of course I support this in concept. I also would support transitioning the facility to housing adults to help with the housing shortage we are dealing with for adult prisoners. I also believe that we must figure out a format for responding to violent youth offenders.

Someday we will look back and wonder how anyone could embrace this inhuman policy.

The bail system in Maine needs to be reformed. The District Attorney’s Office should request that only the truly dangerous offenders be held without bail due to the serious risk to public safety. A person’s income or assets should not have a place in determining an individuals incarceration or their freedom. Cash bail is punitive to the poor or the ill and therefore unequal justice under the law. When I am District Attorney, cash bail will only be requested when dealing with dangerous violent offenders.

Absolutely I would support the elimination of cash bail for non-violent misdemeanors.

As I stated above I believe that cash bail for non-violent misdemeanors should be eliminated. Bail should be a matter of public safety and flight risk consideration. The entire bail system needs to be overhauled. The current system was last overhauled in 1987 and reflects the issues of the day. It is incumbent on District Attorneys to lobby the legislature to have the statues changed to reflect the knowledge gained about the effectiveness of the policies that influenced the statutes and their amendments over the years.

As District Attorney, I will work with the relevant stakeholders involved with this issue to prevent prosecutions and criminal convictions for crimes of poverty. Each case needs to be reviewed on its own to separate out non-violent actions from violent crimes. Community Based Restorative Justice will be used to seek restitution for those who have been harmed in a non-violent manner along with calling in local services to help the individual who is dealing with homeless issues.

You are asking the police to make prosecutorial decisions. To better answer this question I need more detail about what crimes you are asking about. I believe that for any and all violent crimes an arrest should and needs to be made.

All prosecutorial policies in Prosecutorial District 6 will be reviewed and overhauled when I am elected. Some of the current policies have been in place since 1972 and need to be changed to reflect the times we live in now. All new policies will be available to the public, defense lawyer and other Prosecutorial Districts around the state.

Problem solving court have been highly effective in other prosecutorial district. I will establish a Co-Occuring Disorders Court, A Drug Court and a Veteran’s Court in the midcoast.

Co-occurring Disorders Courts are essential to creating real justice in our communities in the absence of a responsible effort by our legislators to rebuild our mental health infrastructure. Jails and prisons have become the new asylums. This policy destroys both communities and human beings, all the while costing the taxpayers enormous amounts yet delivering nothing in the realm of public safety. Furthermore, it creates dangerous working conditions for our corrections officers who are not trained to deal with mental illnesses.

I will implement a Drug Court in Prosecutorial District 6, with or without the help of the Maine Judiciary. Drug Court is a cost effective way to balance the Law and the needs of an individual.

See Above (I will implement a Drug Court in Prosecutorial District 6, with or without the help of the Maine Judiciary. Drug Court is a cost effective way to balance the Law and the needs of an individual.-

In the State of Maine our population is composed of 1.2% Latino, 0.85% Asian and 0.6% African American. Therefore, with a client of color, it is virtually impossible to ensure that there is race equity in the jury pool. It is vital that the District Attorney’s office acknowledges that implicit bias is real and the race of the defendant as a factor at a jury trial. It also is important that the DA’s office does everything it can do to combat racial bias. I will make it policy for all staff to engage in implicit bias training and education.

See Above (In the State of Maine our population is composed of 1.2% Latino, 0.85% Asian and 0.6% African American. Therefore, with a client of color, it is virtually impossible to ensure that there is race equity in the jury pool. It is vital that the District Attorney’s office acknowledges that implicit bias is real and the race of the defendant as a factor at a jury trial. It also is important that the DA’s office does everything it can do to combat racial bias. I will make it policy for all staff to engage in implicit bias training and education.)

See Above (In the State of Maine our population is composed of 1.2% Latino, 0.85% Asian and 0.6% African American. Therefore, with a client of color, it is virtually impossible to ensure that there is race equity in the jury pool. It is vital that the District Attorney’s office acknowledges that implicit bias is real and the race of the defendant as a factor at a jury trial. It also is important that the DA’s office does everything it can do to combat racial bias. I will make it policy for all staff to engage in implicit bias training and education.)

As District Attorney I will work to end jail time for non-violent misdemeanors. I will review cases for low level marijuana possession and push for the conversion of remaining jail time to community service. I will divert people with substance abuse issues into treatment programs if they are charged with non-violent offenses.

I commit to charging a defendant with the appropriate charge for which the evidence supports.

Overcharging has been a tool to force plea bargains. In to many cases the court’s time, money and efforts by defense attorney’s have been wasted as the current DA’s office uses over charging in an effort to scare defendants into accepting a plea to a lower offense just to secure a conviction.

I believe in the use of problem solving courts when possible or appropriate.

Mandatory minimums removes a judge’s ability to take into consideration additional information or circumstances when sentencing a defendant. Mandatory minimums do not balance the needs of the community and the rights of an individual. Often, these minimums are passed by the legislature for the public optics rather than an actually overhaul of the Justice System.

The number one issue for the District Attorney’s office will be the balance between justice for the community and the right of the individual. Community based Restorative Justice takes into consideration the ramifications of all legal actions when striving for repairing damage and harm cause through crimes. This includes all collateral consequences, whether immigration consequences, education, housing, parental rights, employment, and so on.

By flooding local law enforcement with large amounts of people on limited conditions release, it stresses the limited resources of the police. This constant struggle to redeploy resources means cases drop through the cracks. By focusing on those who are being charged with violent offenses the police can insure the community is protected.

Often these are “gotcha” efforts to engage in punitive actions that are focused on the poor and ill.

This is a complex issue that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. This question is to open and vague for a succinct answer.

Random searches should not be the standard applied to all cases. There must be an articulable suspicion that passes the smell test before a judge.

1) Transitioning to a Community Based Restorative Justice policy 2) Instituting problem solving courts like Veteran’s Court 3) Seeking additional funding through Federal Grant Programs

We need to hold more dangerous people without bail through by creating a system similar to the system in Massachusetts known as a “Dangerous Hearing.” We need to punish drug and sex traffickers more harshly to ensure they are taken off the street to keep people safe. We need to be more aggressive with people who commit domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse offenses.

I cannot answer this questions “yes” or “no” because “policies” is too vague and overbroad of a term. I can say that if I am elected District Attorney every case will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Inferring that the District Attorney’s Office would have a general “policy” towards the prosecution of a certain type of case ignores the fact that the District Attorney is mandated ethically to uphold justice and protect public safety.

The District Attorney’s Office will not prosecute cases based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We will prosecute cases based upon the charges and facts alleged, with no prejudice based on any factors including race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Therefore, we will not keep information disaggregated by race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

As said above, the District Attorney’s Office will not be prosecuting any cases based upon the race, religions, gender or sexual orientation of defendants.

Under 5 M.R.S. §200-A, the Attorney General is an independent prosecutor in any officer-involved shooting.

It is necessary to engage many groups, including those listed above, but also having law enforcement and other civic groups involved in addressing the problems in our community, especially those involved in the opioid epidemic, domestic violence, and sex trafficking.

I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no.” Young offenders who commit misdemeanors or low level felonies should be considered for restorative justice or pre-adjudication diversion programs. Young offenders who commit violent felonies and violent misdemeanors, such as assault, aggravated assault, gross sexual assault, attempted murder, or murder, need to be held in-custody in a secure location to ensure public safety.

Unfortunately, though I agree that children and youth have less impulse control than adults, sometimes juveniles commit violent offenses and need to be adjudicated in a manner that protects public safety. The Maine juvenile code that allows violent felonies to be bound over protects public safety.

I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no.” Although I recognize that some community-based alternatives to incarceration facilities could have some value, sometimes violent youth offenders need to be secured to ensure public safety, and right now there is no plan for these community-based alternatives. In addition, the programs that are in place at Long Creek Youth Development Center offer value that would be difficult to achieve in any community-based program, while also possibly being the only answer that ensures public safety. I would advocate that it would be in the public interest to consider some changes but I would need more information about advocating on what changes need to be made.

First off, though incarceration is not ideal, the question inferring that the Long Creek Youth Development Center “causes harm” has no factual backing. I agree it is not ideal to have people in the Long Creek Youth Development Center, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the time it is for the purpose of public safety or their own safety. I do not advocate for the closing of the Long Creek Youth Development Center since (1) right now, we have no other alternatives, and (2) we need to mechanism to secure violent youth offenders. In addition, having recently toured the Long Creek Youth Development Center, I am well aware of many of the programs that these youths have access to that are outside of anything that a youth would be able to have at any community-based program.

Having worked extensively with Juvenile Community Corrections Officers (JCCOs), who are some of the most hardworking, caring, compassionate, and professional probation officers I’ve ever worked with, unfortunately sometimes housing a youth at the Long Creek Youth Development Center is better than the alternative of leaving that juvenile on the street where he or she is extremely susceptible to becoming a victim of rape, sex trafficking, exploitation, drug addiction, or murder. Sadly, I know of two recent cases where youths requested commitment at the Long Creek Youth Development Center due to their own fear of being left on the street.

I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no” without a clearer definition or explanation of term “substantial flight risk.” Cash bail is a mechanism to ensure the integrity of the judicial system, ensuring a person shows up to court and ensuring public safety. Even if a person is arrested for a misdemeanor, that person needs to participate in the adjudication of his or her own prosecution. If this person has a history of failing to appear for Court, cash bail is the best mechanism to ensure he or she shows up.

According to stats recently released, New Jersey pretrial services, which is now the government entity used for this no-cash ball system, is going to be running a significant deficits of millions of dollars for years to come under their new system. The premise that millions of dollars is saved is flawed. As a prosecutor in Cumberland County, the current system works. The stats at the jails in Maine from 2015 show that less than 13% of prisoners are held based upon their inability to make bail. Bail ensures people show up to court, and the blanket elimination of cash bail would increase failures to appear in Court and more people with arrest warrants.

Prosecutors often agree to personal recognizance based upon the crime and if there is little or no criminal history. We do not make bail recommendations based upon a person’s financial situation, rich or poor. Making bail recommendations based on economic situations would be counter to our goal to uphold justice. It would lead to a disparity that one economic class would be treated different than another. I do think the State needs to be able to hold people without bail on a showing of “dangerousness” which come after an evidentiary hearing, a ruling by a judge, and a designated amount of time that prosecutors would have to bring that person to trial.

I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no” because it is unclear. First, we do not prosecute people for camping or sleeping in cars. Second, the idea to “work with businesses” makes an assumption that businesses have some sort of role in making arrests or prosecutions. I can say that prosecuting quality of life crimes, such as criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, and indecent exposure (if it is a situation of urinating in public), is important to increase the quality of life and the safety of people who live in those areas. If areas are allowed to have crime run rampant, drugs, violence and crime will increase in those areas and increase the dangers to those who live there. I support speaking to businesses as well as other members of the public for ideas how to solve our community problems.

There are many Class D and E crimes that involve violent offenses, such as domestic violence offenses, assault, reckless conduct and criminal threatening. Issuing summons as opposed to making an arrest can put public safety at risk.

If no, would you create and publicize one? NO Each case needs to be handled on case-by-case basis. I would make public the fact that the District Attorney’s Office will seek restitution where appropriate and fines where appropriate or if it is mandatory by statute.

I agree that jails are not appropriate for those with mental illness or mental health issues. If a person presents a public safety risk, however, and no alternative is available, jail may be the only suitable option to protect the public.

I am willing to commit to advocate for expanding treatment programs available for people with mental health issues. I would also advocate for more resources to fight opioid addiction, sex trafficking, and having dangerous defendants held without bail until trial.

I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no” because it ignores the fact that the legislature has made drug possession and trafficking a criminal offense. Prosecutors do not pick and choose the laws that we prosecute. We are mandated as members of the executive branch to execute the laws. If the legislature no longer makes these drugs possessions and trafficking a crime, then the District Attorney’s Office will no longer be involved. I would support legislation for treatment and education programs. As District Attorney, I will be out speaking to the public to try to increase education and awareness about the dangers of opiate use, which will help with the opiate epidemic.

Again, I cannot answer this question “yes” or “no” for the same reasons listed above. If the legislature defines certain actions as crimes, as the executive branch, the District Attorney’s Office is mandated to execute the laws as criminal is necessary. That said, I do support diversionary treatment for defendants with limited records, who are users and not traffickers, and who do not pose a public safety risk.

Racism is misguided, ignorant, and evil. I do support the concept at reducing racial bias in Maine’s criminal justice system. However, I would need to know the specific legislation in order to be able to support it.

At the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office, we do not base prosecution on race in any way shape or form. Tracking such information would be unnecessary. If there is evidence that there are prosecutors in Cumberland County are acting in a fashion that bases prosecutorial decisions on race, then this issue may need to be revisited.

In 2016, Rachel Talbot-Ross of the Maine NAACP came to the Maine prosecutors Conference and taught a program about inherent bias. Though I found her talk interesting, I have never witnessed any prosecutor in the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office act in any fashion with an inherent bias towards any person based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Due to that, I do not think it is necessary to this type of training. If there was evidence of an issue that came up, then this issue may need to be revisited.

Although I have not seen any evidence of a problem of “mass incarceration” in Cumberland County, the core reason that people go to jail is based on actions that people take prior to their involvement with the District Attorney’s Office. I cannot pledge to something that I have little control over or to say the District Attorney’s Office is going to stop prosecuting cases in order to reduce the number of incarcerated people because that could create a public safety risk. Furthermore, the District Attorney’s Office goal is to increase public safety and uphold justice, which I will continue to do as a prosecutor.

As District Attorney, I will charge what is appropriate based on the facts alleged and the law written.

I answer this question “yes” only because the District Attorney’s Office is already committed to justice, which includes not overcharging and basing charging decisions based on the evidence provided. Prosecutors are ethically obligated to behave in this manner.

The Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office already recommends diversionary programs instead of incarceration if appropriate based on numerous factors, including public safety.

I believe people convicted of Aggravated Sex Trafficking should have a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. I also believe that people convicted of engaging a prostitute should have a mandatory minimum sentence of 48 hours in jail.

I cannot answer this “yes” or “no” because the term “actual threats” is vague. I support limiting conditions of release based on the facts of the crimes alleged.

Though on its face this seems logical, conditions of release are used for bail purposes to increase public safety. During the pendency of a cases, it is possible that circumstances change that do not ensure the safety of the community and therefore bail conditions are tools to protect public safety. Defendants have the ability to file a motion to amend bail if there is a change in circumstances.

The Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky made it clear that immigration consequences need to be discussed with defendants by his or her attorneys, otherwise it can be grounds for a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” I think it is unnecessary to have two brands of justice, one for citizens and one for defendants who may have immigrations issues. In a similar vein, I would reject the notion of creating a policy that would treat defendants who may have immigration issues more harshly than those without those issues. Collateral consequences are not just for consideration for those facing immigration issues. If I am elected District Attorney, my Assistant District Attorneys will be instructed to take into consideration collateral consequences for any person pleading guilty, to act with compassion and understanding, but not to risk or sacrifice public safety or the interests of victims.

I answer “yes” based upon my personal knowledge that police departments to not advocate for custodial arrest unless there is a need to protect public safety.

Random searches and testing are tools that can be used to protect public safety for a defendant who is on bail.