Draft recommends weighted‑caseload study and interim per‑diem agreements for DA staffing in municipal concurrent courts

Commission staff presented a draft report examining district attorney (DA) staffing implications of municipal courts of concurrent jurisdiction and proposed a path for resolving funding disputes without imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate.

Staff said 21 active municipal courts of concurrent jurisdiction exist in Tennessee and that only about half of those cities currently provide funding for DA staff. The draft recounts a 2022 example in which a DA advised two cities (Milan and Trenton) that his office would no longer prosecute in their concurrent courts because of lack of DA staffing support; that dispute led to litigation now on appeal. Staff noted the courts of concurrent jurisdiction do not create net new cases statewide (cases would otherwise go to county general sessions), but they can create scheduling and presence strain because ADAs cannot be in multiple courts at once.

Given variability in frequency and caseload of concurrent courts, the draft recommends a statewide weighted‑caseload study (statutorily required work the commission has been unable to complete for DAs because of data limitations) to define staffing needs. As an interim practical measure, staff recommended that cities without funding agreements negotiate per‑diem arrangements for DA coverage similar to voluntary agreements used in several jurisdictions; the draft cited Smyrna’s per‑diem approach as an example. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about data collection and the scope of weighted‑caseload metrics; staff said they would consult the Administrative Office of the Courts for details and continue work toward a final report.