Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecutorial Review Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County delays vote on Prosecutorial Review Board after extensive public comment
Summary
After hours of discussion and more than a dozen public commenters — including prosecutors, law enforcement leaders, victims and civil-rights advocates — the Utah County Commission voted to table a proposed Prosecutorial Review Board without a return date to allow further drafting and stakeholder consultation.
The Utah County Commission on Thursday tabled, without a date, a proposed resolution to create a county-appointed Prosecutorial Review Board after an extended public hearing that divided prosecutors, law-enforcement leaders, victims and civil-rights advocates.
County Attorney Jeff Beeman urged caution and offered an alternative he said would remain within the county attorney's authority: a conviction-integrity or advisory unit housed in his office. "I believe it is unconstitutional that we have a system set up with publicly elected prosecutors that answer to the electorate and to the courts, but not to the county commission," Beeman said, arguing that a commission-appointed review board would risk "pitting" the county against the county attorney's office and could create additional liability for Utah County.
Supporters of some form of outside review pushed back. Jason Growth of the ACLU of Utah said prosecutors hold unusually broad power over charging and plea decisions and that an oversight committee could help address disparities and provide an avenue for complaints to be assessed independently. "Prosecutor's job is tough," Growth told the commission, arguing an independent review body could increase fairness in the system.
Many speakers urged the commission to pause and refine the proposal rather than adopt it as written. Prosecutors and law-enforcement officials, including Sheriff James Tracy, argued the board could chill prosecutions in difficult cases and harm victims. "There's just a slippery slope," Tracy said, adding that additional layers of scrutiny could consume public time and resources. Prosecutors also described heavy caseloads: "The typical attorney in our office handles a caseload of 360 cases a year," prosecutor Randy Kennard said, warning that added review obligations would sap time from casework.
Other members of the public described instances they said showed a need for independent review. Former defendant Steve Turley gave a personal account of prosecutions he said upended his life and asked commissioners to consider safeguards for people who say they were wrongfully charged.
After hearing from dozens of speakers and debating procedural and legal concerns, Commissioner 5 moved to table the resolution without a date; the motion was seconded and carried. Commissioners said they will continue discussions with stakeholders, including county attorneys, law-enforcement leaders, victims' advocates and legal experts, before considering a revised draft.
The commission did not adopt any new policy at the meeting; the motion leaves open further work by staff and commissioners to refine the proposal or consider alternative approaches led by the county attorney's office.
