ACLU Releases Model Legislation To Unlock the 'Black Box' of Prosecutor Secrecy

"They're the most powerful player in the criminal justice system. It's really important to know how they use that discretion behind closed doors."


Top Photo Group/Newscom

Prosecutors are arguably the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system, but they are also one of the least transparent, according to a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released Wednesday.

The report, "Unlocking the Black Box," found that there are few standards for what categories of data prosecutor offices should collect and whether they should release it to the public. It's also often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain information through public records requests. Even prosecutor policies on things like plea bargaining—which is used to resolve the vast majority of criminal prosecutions—are often shrouded in secrecy.

Journalists, policymakers, and voters are now waking up to the incredible power prosecutors wield (defendants have known it since time immemorial). District attorney races that used to be quiet and sometimes uncontested, have turned into well-funded election battles over mass incarceration, drug policy, and policing. Reform-oriented candidates have unseated incumbent, police-backed candidates in cities like St. Louis and Philadelphia.

However, public understanding of how prosecutors make decisions has lagged far behind, which makes it difficult to understand whether even reformers are living up to their promises. The ACLU's report found that the "few public statistics on prosecutorial decision making often only collect information at the broadest level," which makes it "nearly impossible to uncover individual abuses, systemic discrimination, or patterns that do not align with office policies."

"We realized as we started to talk to our colleagues on the litigation and advocacy side that there's not a lot of research or data on how prosecutors use their extraordinary discretion," says Nicole Zayas Fortier, the report's lead author. "They're the most powerful player in the criminal justice system. They decide who to charge, what to charge, whether to offer a plea deal, and what bail and sentencing to recommend. It's really important to know how they use that discretion behind closed doors."

One of the most vexing problems for researchers, policy-makers, and journalists is that criminal justice data is a mess. There are 3,144 counties in the U.S., each with its own criminal justice system. There are no uniform standards for what records they collect, or even common definitions of terms across those counties.

News outlets like Florida's Herald-Tribune had to trawl through numerous databases and dusty boxes of court records to piece together an investigation into racial disparities in the state's criminal justice system.

As Reason reported last year, Florida passed a first-of-its-kind criminal justice bill that requires detailed annual reporting from police departments and state attorneys.

In Illinois, Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx voluntarily releases annual reports and raw data on prosecutions, a fairly groundbreaking move for a prosecutor's office, but her office is the exception to the rule.

Far more offices actively stonewall public records requests. For example, a Missouri prosecutor was recently fined thousands of dollars for violating public records laws in an attempt to stymie local muckraker and former Reason contributor Aaron Malin's attempts to pry loose information on state drug task forces. (One of the drug task forces tried to avoid Malin's public records request by claiming it did not exist.)

Even when prosecutors want to be transparent, Fortier says they are hamstrung by limited resources.

"There's a lot of data collection issues," Fortier says. "Even when prosecutors want to share it, they struggle with technology issues or just how things have always been done."

For example, Fortier notes that while Foxx released a trove of six years of data data on felony prosecutions, her office couldn't do the same with misdemeanor data because of differences in the way the information was collected and stored.

The ACLU report includes a piece of model legislation that the organization hopes will be adopted by state legislators. The "Prosecutorial Transparency Act" would identify key decision points made by prosecutor offices, such as charging and plea bargaining, and require offices to collect the data and send it to a central state agency, similar to Florida's system. It would also require offices to disclose their internal policies on issues like plea bargaining.

Such laws would allow watchdogs, reporters, defense attorneys, and prosecutors themselves to see how their decisions impact the local criminal justice system and stack up against neighboring jurisdictions.

"We've seen incredible strides by individual prosecutors, but without set standards you can't really compare it to anything," Fortier says.

NEXT: Pennsylvania Lawmaker Calls for Thoroughly Unconstitutional Tax on 'Violent' Video Games

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “”The ACLU report includes a piece of model legislation that the organization hopes will be adopted by state legislators. The “Prosecutorial Transparency Act” would identify key decision points made by prosecutor offices, such as charging and plea bargaining.

    Mueller. Mueller.

  2. “You can’t handle the truth!”

  3. public understanding of how prosecutors make decisions

    I know beyond a shadow of a doubt you’re guilty, why else would the police have arrested you? And even if you’re not guilty of this exact crime, I know you’re guilty of something, you worthless piece of shit. Therefore, any evidence that doesn’t help prove your guilt is irrelevant and should be suppressed and anything that makes sure you’re put behind bars where you belong is fair game even if we have to make stuff up.

    That’s my understanding of how prosecutors make decisions. (Unless you’re a cop in which case the exact opposite applies.)

  4. Democratic Presidential candidates hardest hit

    1. Yes, let’s see how Kamala Harris responds to this.

  5. “there’s not a lot of research or data on how prosecutors use their extraordinary discretion”

    Well, how hard is it to cough up “At the pleasure of the prosecutor”?

  6. And let’s not forget that you see plenty of judges who were former prosecutors, not very many who were former defense attorneys. The idea that judges are fair and impartial and neutral and unbiased is laughable – you’re not very likely to be elected or appointed judge without the support of the cops and the prosecutors, nobody gives a shit what the public defenders office thinks.

    1. I’d like to see some real citations for that claim. It feels too truthy to be trusted, and even if true, by how much — 51/49, 90/10, 99/1?

      1. It feels too truthy to be trusted

        Fuck you, btw. Your biases are not fit for decent company.

  7. I’m all for transparency, public officials should be allowed no secrets whatsoever.
    But I’m more than a little concerned that this will drive us towards national standards for data collection and retention. At its very best, that’s an open door for cronyism and increased government expenditure. It is more likely that national standards and “best practices” will further enable the national security state.

    1. This is an often unaccounted for unintended consequence of these types of things. People largely talk about how we need to do a better job of collecting more data. Once that data is collected, the next rallying cry is that we need some kind of interface that allows that data to be linked to other data from another huge institution (e.g., IRS, FBI, etc.). What is essentially being created is a vast network of Big Data that can potentially be used in all kinds of ways that was no originally intended. This is not to say necessarily that such data shouldn’t be collected, but rather that I just wish more organizations thought about these types of unintended consequences.

      1. A real downer, but a good point.

      2. I don’t think that’s quite how it plays out. “Big Data” has already been brought about by explicit legislation with the overt and express purpose of doing exactly that, in the name of fighting crime, and such legislation never includes a transparency component. “Big Data” is already here, and it’s not going away. Might as well get some two-way street action going on.

  8. I healthcare we have many regulations regarding data interoperability and uniform reporting requirements. I’d like to see some of this come to law enforcement.

  9. The ACLU report includes a piece of model legislation that the organization hopes will be adopted by state legislators.

    Check it for hidden gun control language.

  10. Lord save us from Model Legislation.

    1. Naked Model Legislation might have some uses.

      1. Those aren’t pillows!

  11. I am making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people say to me how much money they can make connected so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my existence. This is what I do?.

  12. Is it worth listening to some bullshit I’d scan and bypass?
    Transcript or STFU.
    You $2 donation is falling fast.

    CLICK HERE…??????

  13. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here…… >>>>>>

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.