Guideline 3 for Evaluating Pretrial Intervention Applications
Contents
Guideline 3 for Evaluating Pretrial Intervention Applications
Introduction
Pretrial intervention programs, sometimes called diversion programs, provide an alternative to traditional criminal prosecution. Defendants who are accepted into these programs have their criminal charges dismissed after successfully completing supervision, classes, community service, or other requirements.
Guideline 3 relates to evaluating whether defendants are good candidates for pretrial intervention. Prosecutors consider factors like criminal history, offense type, victim input, and likelihood of success when deciding whether to allow diversion. This article will break down key aspects of Guideline 3 and how it impacts pretrial intervention eligibility.
Overview of Guideline 3
The New Jersey Attorney General’s Statewide Pretrial Intervention Guidelines lay out 9 factors for prosecutors to weigh when considering diversion program applications. Guideline 3 states:
“The applicant’s criminal record does not indicate that pretrial intervention would be inappropriate.”
This means prosecutors should look at the defendant’s prior record to gauge if they are too high-risk for diversion. Those with lengthy rap sheets or serious offenses in their past may not qualify.
However, Guideline 3 also says minor offenses like disorderly persons convictions or municipal ordinance violations should not automatically disqualify someone. So a limited record does not necessarily preclude intervention.
Criminal History Factors
When reviewing a defendant’s criminal record under Guideline 3, prosecutors will consider:
- Number of prior convictions
- Severity of prior charges
- Length of time since last offense
- Pattern of escalating offenses
- Outstanding warrants or charges
- Prior diversion program participation
- Prior failures to appear in court
- History of probation or parole violations
Defendants with only minor infractions like municipal tickets may still be good candidates. Those with lengthy violent felony histories would likely be denied intervention.
Much depends on the totality of the criminal record and whether it shows likelihood of reoffending. A few isolated misdemeanors committed years ago would not have the same impact as a string of recent disorderly persons offenses.
Offense Type Limitations
Guideline 3 also restricts pretrial intervention for certain serious or repeat offenses. These charges require prosecutors to get approval from the Criminal Division before diverting:
- Death by Auto or Vehicular Homicide
- First or second-degree drug distribution
- Gang criminality
- Any first or second-degree offense
- Second-degree eluding police
- Assault on law enforcement
- Repeat domestic violence
- Certain bias crimes
- Certain sex offenses
- Crimes with presumptive prison terms
This list indicates defendants charged with these crimes are riskier candidates who need extra scrutiny before admission. However, prosecutors can still allow diversion if they justify reasons it would benefit the public and justice.
Victim Input on Pretrial Intervention
Another key aspect of evaluating criminal history is contacting victims under Guideline 3. Prosecutors must notify victims of violent crimes when the defendant applies for intervention. The victim can provide input on whether they object to diversion.
Victim opposition is not definitive, but it is an important factor. Prosecutors can still grant intervention over a victim’s objections if reasons exist to justify that decision. However, victim input adds insight into the defendant’s past crimes and impact on the community.
Balancing Rehabilitation and Public Safety
A major purpose of pretrial intervention is rehabilitation. Guideline 3 seeks to identify defendants who are likely to benefit from diversion programs rather than traditional prosecution. Factors like minimal criminal history and victim support indicate good rehabilitation potential.
However, prosecutors must balance rehabilitation against public safety. Defendants who appear high-risk, violent, or have extensive criminal histories may not be suited for community-based supervision. Guideline 3 helps prosecutors weigh these competing concerns when evaluating past offenses.
Exceptions to Criminal History Restrictions
While Guideline 3 excludes many serious or repeat offenders from pretrial intervention, exceptions exist. Prosecutors have discretion to allow diversion even if the defendant’s record has:
- Prior felony convictions
- Juvenile delinquency adjudications
- Multiple disorderly persons offenses
- Multiple municipal ordinance violations
- Multiple diversion program admissions
If prosecutors believe intervention would still benefit the defendant and community, they may get approval to divert certain higher-risk individuals. However, the defendant would need to clearly demonstrate rehabilitation potential.
Conclusion
Guideline 3 serves as an important screening tool for identifying candidates genuinely suited for pretrial intervention. While prosecutors retain flexibility, scrutiny of criminal records helps target diversion resources to offenders likely to benefit. Excluding high-risk defendants also balances rehabilitation with public safety. Consideration of Guideline 3 factors like offense severity, recidivism risk, and victim input allows prosecutors to make informed diversion decisions.