Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


I. INTRODUCTION In collaboration with state Board of Probation and Parole, the University of Missouri- St Louis, the City of St. Louis, and this circuit, this Court creates the following Armed Offender docket for the 22nd Judicial Circuit. The purpose of the docket shall be to devote two circuit divisions specifically assigned to only Chapter 571 cases (Unlawful Use of a Weapon, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, Flourishing, and Felon in Possession of a Weapon) and Robbery 1 st Degree cases. The goal of the Divisions is to use the availability of unprecedented resources and the influence of courts to decrease the use of illegal firearms. This Resolution does not include the use of mandatory minimums in sentencing, leaving to the discretion of each Judge the proper sentence. II. FRAMEWORK The jurisdiction of the two divisions begins from arraignment and ends at final disposition, whether trial or plea. These Divisions shall hold all pre-trial proceedings including, but not limited to: preliminary hearings, bond reviews, motion to suppress and pleas. The Divisions shall also act as trial divisions for cases assigned. The following shall be the responsibilities of Judges assigned to these divisions: a. Pre-trial

The role of the Judge in these divisions shall be much more encompassing and involved than a standard trial division. The Judge is expected to actively participate in the pre-trial supervision of defendant. This includes working closely with the private 3 rd party provider of pre-trial release provider, UMSL personnel and the defendant. For those defendants released on bond, the Judge will be expected to periodically review defendants conduct while on bond, and confirm whether defendant is adhering to the courts pre-trial release conditions. Court appearances by defendant may be in addition to regular call docket appearances. The pre-trial services provider shall have a system in place to immediately contact the division Judge if there is a pre-trial violation, allowing the Judge to take swift action on the bond or in setting additional conditions. b. Probation The State Board of Probation and Parole (the Board) has pledged the dedication of specific probation officers who shall be responsible for defendants in these two divisions only. As in the pre-trial situation, the Board shall develop an information system to quickly notify the Judge of a probation violation, again, allowing the Court to take swift action. If defendant is placed on probation, assigned Judges are expected, like pre-trial, to actively participate in Defendants supervision. This includes requiring defendant appearing in court for monitoring progress. In addition, the Judge is expected, upon receiving violation reports, to promptly set revocation hearings and quickly disposition the violating defendant. III. ROLES OF UMSL AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS

UMSL had pledged one faculty member and graduate student to the Divisions. They shall record, tabulate and monitor defendants and their response to pre-trial orders and the courts sentences. They are required to provide Such reports shall

feedback and reports to the court every six (6) months.

include but not limited to number of defendants in court, number of defendants on pre-trial release and the effectiveness of pretrial tools ie. GPS monitor, GED classes, and confinement. UMSL shall be in constant contact and communicate

with Judges, and the Judges are expected to communicate with UMSL representatives. IV. ROLE OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The City, namely through the Department of Public Safety, shall supply resources in retaining private 3rd party pre-trial services. V. PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURE AND FUTURE OF COURTS The two Divisions shall operate on alternating schedules for example: while one division is conducting pre and post trial proceedings, including all pretrial hearings and pre and post progress meetings with defendant, the other division will handle pleas and trials; then the divisions switch schedules for the next week. After six (6) months from its start, the Court en banc shall review to see if additional weapons crimes should be sent to Armed Offenders Court; specifically, armed robbery 1st and assault 1st. After two (2) years of operation of court, the Court en banc shall decide whether the Armed Offender Court should continue. 3


Jack Garvey

Judge, 22nd Judicial Circuit