Related articles:

Concerns about defense funding delay Domestic Violence Court Domestic Violence Court starts up despite hiccup

Other articles by Kim Smith:

Woman pleads to attempted forgery Accused's kin jubilant until 2nd verdict is read Driver in home-invasion spree, murder draws life plus 34 years Last Panda Express defendants sentenced to time served, freed 10.5 years for man who fatally shot girlfriend in head Man to get 4 years in prison for drug-related homicide Mom gets 5 years; failed to protect tot from abuse Man burned during arrest gets probation 1.5 years for thefts from her boss Ex-Nogales cop guilty of raping one teen and abusing another

Health Care
SOUTHERN ARIZONA ENDODONTICS I
NSURANCE PROCESSOR Dental
Apache Dental
Porcelain Techs General
Prestige Maintenance USA
Area Manager Technical
Yavapai College
Analyst Banner Programmer Health Care
Freedom Manor
Caregivers Education
Yavapai College
Teachers Retail
TOTAL WINE & MORE
WINE TEAM MEMBERS, CASHIER & STOCK MEMEBERS

The future of Pima County's ballyhooed new Domestic Violence Court could be in jeopardy just days before its opening session because the grant that funds it doesn't include money for defense attorneys.

Pima County Public Defender Robert Hooker wants the county to return the $351,000 grant to the Governor's Office or give his office almost double that amount — $688,000 — to represent domestic- violence suspects.

The grant doesn't include any funding for extra prosecutors, either.

Grant writer Cathy Cermak, who supervises the Pima County Probation Department's domestic-violence unit, said the grant will pay for a portion of the judge's salary, two probation officers, an extra sheriff's detective, two part-time advocates for victims, an investigator to serve warrants, and support workers.

While it's true the grant isn't paying for any prosecutor positions, Hooker said he is convinced Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall will eventually be forced to ask for additional funding, either from county taxpayers or the Governor's Office.

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said it's up to Presiding Superior Court Judge Jan Kearney whether the grant is returned, but Hooker won't be getting any funding for the new program.

"We're not going to fund it. It's that simple," Huckelberry said. "If they can conduct the court without the Public Defender's Office, I guess they can."

Kearney declined to comment Thursday through Pima County Superior Court spokesman David Ricker.

"We're looking at all of the aspects, but it would be premature to comment on any of this," Ricker said.

The new court is scheduled to start operating on Wednesday.

The Justice Court, Probation and Sheriff's departments and the County Attorney's Office agreed several months ago to apply for the grant because a lack of resources and poor coordination within the criminal-justice system resulted in repeat domestic-violence offenders escaping the harsher punishments and felony convictions called for in the law.

Every year, about 2,700 domestic-violence cases make their way through Pima County Justice Court, which handles crimes committed everywhere in the county except the city of Tucson.

The officials realized one specialized court was needed because, with domestic-violence cases being assigned to eight judges, there was a lot of inconsistency in how the cases were being handled.

The county asked for $421,000 and was awarded $351,000 in late December.

Hooker's office stopped representing misdemeanor suspects last year, leaving it to the Office of Court Appointed Counsel to defend misdemeanor domestic-violence suspects.

Phil Maloney, who heads that office, said the only time he heard about the Domestic Violence Court was in September, during a meeting of the county's Justice Coordinating Council.

At the time, both he and Hooker expressed concerns that the grant did not include money for defense.

"I knew there was no money for defense, and I said we shouldn't accept a grant under those circumstances," Hooker said.

Hooker and Maloney said they didn't hear about the court again until after the grant had been accepted.

Now that Domestic Violence Court is a reality, they agree Hooker's office should again start representing all those accused of domestic-violence-related crimes.

Having one office handle all those cases makes sense administratively, they said, and from a strategic standpoint because those convicted of three or more domestic-violence offenses face prison time.

The problem is, no one has any idea how much the Domestic Violence Court will really cost, Hooker and Maloney said. Nor do they know if there will be more defendants or how much it will cost to prosecute or defend them.

More convictions could also mean more jail housing costs, Hooker said.

Regardless of which office defends domestic-violence suspects, Hooker and Maloney said the cost will go up with this program because it requires defendants who are placed on probation to attend monthly review hearings before a judge. Right now, most suspects are placed on unsupervised probation so they aren't monitored.

Hooker also said statistics from other Domestic Violence Courts show only a 40 percent success rate. If that's the case, defense attorneys can expect to find themselves representing clients during violation hearings, too.

On average, probation-violation hearings require four court appearances to get resolved, Hooker said.

"The bottom line is that the County Attorney's Office and the Probation Department don't want us involved and so they're going to fight us on all of this budgetary stuff," Hooker said.

Huckelberry said he doesn't know how realistic Hooker's funding request is, but defense funding should have been addressed before the grant was accepted.

"This has been a confused mess. There's been a severe lack of communication," Huckelberry said.

"We learned about it at the last minute, and we were not fully cognizant of the adverse effect it would have on the balance in our criminal-justice system," Huckelberry said. "We probably wouldn't have given permission to apply for the grant if we had."

David Sanders, Pima County's chief probation officer, said he understands the grant will not be returned. If the county doesn't fund Hooker's office, he hopes other money can be found. "It would certainly be a blow to the program" otherwise, he said.

Hooker also has objections to the way the Domestic Violence Court came into being, and how it was set up.

One of the court's expressed goals is to convict more domestic-violence offenders, Hooker said. Although judges are ethically required to be impartial, several judges were involved in the formation of a court that is intent on convicting people, he said.

Moreover, the court is designed in such a way that Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton — who has been picked to run the program — won't have the ability to assess each case individually, Hooker said.

Peyton said everyone who walks into his courtroom will be treated fairly. "I've been a lawyer for 30 years, and I've done defense work, and I've done prosecution work, and I do not operate that way," Peyton said. "I do not operate that way. I never have and I never will."

Peyton also pooh-poohed the idea of a conspiracy against the defense.

"The notion that the judiciary would be part of a conspiracy to exclude the defense is a mistake," Peyton said. "It's not correct. It's just not."

Still, Hooker is convinced his office and the Office of Court Appointed Council were purposely kept out of the grant-application process and subsequent planning sessions so prosecutors would have an easier time obtaining convictions.

Maloney is less adamant, agreeing the goal is more convictions but noting, "Whether or not there's a conspiracy, I don't know. Whether it's a matter of people not thinking things through or acting intentionally, I don't know."

Read more crime-related news including the Star's Police Beat blog at azstarnet.com/crime