Chapter III: Pretrial Issues, Adjudication and Sentencing

Policy Statement 9: Prosecutorial Review of Charges

Maximize the use of alternatives to prosecution through pretrial diversion in appropriate cases involving people with a mental illness.

Recommendation b: Ensure that the defense and the mental health community work together to provide, in appropriate cases, mental health information to the prosecutor for use in pretrial  diversion decisions.

When an arresting officer brings a case to the prosecutor's office, a prosecutor screens the case to determine whether to file criminal charges, and, if so, which charges. [1]     The police report, which describes the circumstances that led to the arrest of the individual, might note any overt behaviors that are indicators of mental illness.  (See Policy Statement 5: Incident Documentation)  That report usually is made available to prosecutors very early in the life of the case - sometimes within hours of arrest.  Often, however, prosecutors may have no indication of possible mental health issues when reviewing the arrest information.  The arrestee may not have exhibited symptoms of mental illness at the time of the incident, or the officer may have believed that the person was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Without such information, the prosecutor cannot consider special accommodations that the defendant might need to be successful in pretrial diversion or any specialized mental health diversion program that might be appropriate.  Procedures have been implemented in some jurisdictions to gather mental health information for the pretrial diversion decision.

Example:  Pretrial Services Program, Pima County (AZ)

In Pima County, Arizona, the prosecutor uses information collected by the pretrial services program for the pretrial release hearing to identify misdemeanor defendants who have a mental illness and who might be candidates for pretrial diversion.  Those placed in the diversion program undergo a 180-day treatment program.  Charges are dismissed upon successful completion of the program; prosecution resumes if the program is not completed.

In this example and others like it, the defendant has given prior written consent for the release of mental health information for the purpose of determining possible placement in a pretrial diversion program. The consent should be provided only after the defendant has consulted with his or her attorney.  (See Policy Statement 7: Appointment of Counsel, for more on consent issues.)  The consent provided should be in writing and explicitly specify what information the defendant is consenting to have released, who is being authorized to make the release, the parties to whom the information will be released, and the purposes for which the information is to be used.  Finally, the release of mental health information should be consistent with all applicable confidentiality and ethical requirements, as well as conforming to the principle that the information released is the minimum necessary to make an informed pretrial diversion decision.  All information collected through this process should also be made available to the defense attorney.

  1. According to the standards of the National District Attorneys Association, prosecutors should exercise that discretion using several criteria, including the strength of the evidence against the accused and the agreement of the victim to cooperate.  Two other criteria are undue hardship caused to the accused and the availability of suitable diversion and rehabilitative programs.  National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards, 1990.

    back
Explore the Justice Center’s Websites
CSG Justice Center Criminal Justice / Mental Health Consensus Project Justice Reinvestment National Reentry Resource Center Reentry Policy Council