Durham County DA: No truancy court, jail census up; homicide and digital evidence slow trials

At a Durham County budget work session, District Attorney Deberry told commissioners the county has never operated a separate “truancy court” and said prosecuting parents for school absences has not been her office’s chosen response.

Deberry said the county’s approach had relied on attendance staff and an automated letter that previously carried the district attorney’s signature; she reviewed and removed her signature when she became DA because, she said, the letter was inaccurate on the law. “Durham has never had a truancy court,” Deberry said. She recommended that the school superintendent, rather than the DA, send any informational letters and said her office is unlikely to prosecute most truancy referrals.

Why it matters: Commissioners told Deberry absenteeism is a system-level problem that affects school success and can be an early indicator of later criminal justice involvement. The board said it wants better data and coordinated solutions involving the schools, the DA’s office and other partners.

Deberry outlined several related issues commissioners raised: a steady rise in the daily jail census, the size and status of the county’s homicide docket, delays between charging and resolution in serious cases, and resource shortfalls in the local criminal justice system.

Key facts Deberry gave to commissioners - Daily detention census: 440 people detained as of 8:30 a.m. on the morning she reported; Friday’s check showed about 407. She said the long-term typical census is about 275–300. - COVID-era low: roughly 75 detainees in 2020–21. - Homicide caseload: “fewer than a hundred pending homicide cases” but “more than a hundred homicide defendants” overall, because some cases have multiple defendants and not all defendants are detained. - Timing: An average homicide case takes about two years from charging to disposition; many longer cases are resolved by plea (Deberry said about 90% end in plea), and trials can take much longer—she said some cases can take up to four years to reach trial. - Office staffing and capacity: Deberry said her office has about 20 lawyers; she contrasted that with larger jurisdictions (she cited Wake County’s 45 ADAs) and with the county’s number of superior court judges (four).

Drivers of delay and higher jail counts: Deberry told the board the combination of more digital evidence (subpoenas to tech firms, cell-tower records), reliance on the state crime lab and state medical examiner (both described as understaffed), and the post-charge discovery process has prolonged case timelines. She also noted a reduction in a daily electronic “scraping” project that had helped prosecutors and the jail coordinate low-bond releases; that program has stopped and she said that has impaired some pretrial work.

On juvenile violent cases and the Durham Youth Home: Deberry described how North Carolina’s juvenile process focuses on diversion for nonviolent charges but that the most serious juvenile matters—murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, serious assaults—remain in the system and require transfer hearings to determine whether to try those defendants in adult court. She said Durham currently has juveniles detained at the Durham Youth Home on very serious charges and that transfer hearings are under way.

On schools, punishment and partnerships: Deberry said charging parents for truancy often contradicts broader public-policy goals and that school-based, problem-solving partnerships work better than criminal threats. She told the board she had proposed school-based court/partnership models in the past and volunteered her office’s involvement in community-based school programs that would not criminalize children or parents.

Board reaction and next steps: Commissioners asked for benchmarking and trend data (examples requested: 10-year trends for truancy, juvenile crime and jail population; comparison of homicide disposition timelines with peer counties). Manager Hager said staff will coordinate follow-up conversations with Durham Public Schools and seek a return engagement with the public defender’s office in the fall. Commissioners also discussed possible data-sharing and reinstating or replacing prior partnership efforts that had used community mediators.

Deberry also described operational changes in the DA’s office: implementation of the Odyssey case-management system improved public access and records but has mixed operational effects; traffic cases account for a large share of the office’s docket and the office has instituted management and low-bond strategies to limit detention where possible.

Ending: Commissioners said they want additional data and proposals that bring schools, courts, detention management and community supports into a coordinated, upstream strategy to reduce absenteeism and slow case-processing that drives higher detention costs.