County hears proposal for advisory commission to review closed cases alleging prosecutor misconduct

A Libertas Institute representative told the Utah County Board of County Commissioners on the work-session agenda that an advisory commission could provide an independent review for people who say they were harmed by prosecutorial misconduct in cases that have already been closed. "What happens when the justice system becomes a tool of injustice?" Connor Boyack asked, urging a narrowly scoped body that would consider only closed, fully adjudicated matters and recommend whether individuals should be made whole.

Boyack framed the proposal as a deterrent and a remedy rather than a punitive or prosecutorial mechanism. He cited high-profile national cases and said the commission would not intervene in active prosecutions: "The commission may only review and consider allegations pertaining to closed cases that have been fully adjudicated," he said, noting supporters had edited language to avoid interfering in pending investigations.

County Attorney Office chief deputy Tim Taylor responded that the office prosecutes thousands of cases a year — roughly 3,500 felony matters annually — and outlined existing checks: internal screening, an open-file discovery practice, the Utah State Bar conduct process, and referrals to the attorney general when appropriate. Taylor warned that immunity and judicial precedent limit the county’s ability to impose disciplinary or monetary liability on prosecutors and cautioned against reforms that could chill prosecutorial decision-making.

Commissioners focused on several practical questions: Is creation of a commission the county’s role or a legislative matter? How would the county pay for any administrative costs or potential awards, and could insurance or an insurance rider cover payouts if the commission recommended restitution? Several commissioners suggested a time-limited pilot or sunset review to evaluate value and fiscal impact before committing long term. Others raised concerns about any retroactive process that might be perceived as targeted or personal rather than policy-driven.

Supporters said the commission could operate with volunteer members and modest per-diem costs and stressed safeguards such as narrow remit (closed cases only), advisory authority (final decisions remain with the commission), and a clear evidentiary standard for "misconduct." Critics urged caution, pointing to the State Bar, appellate courts and the attorney general as existing oversight channels and warning of litigation risk.

The board did not take formal action. Commissioners asked staff and legal counsel to investigate fiscal implications, including whether county insurance could be structured to cover awards, and to report back with options and legal analysis. Proponents suggested a sunset clause and regular review if the board decides to move ahead.

The work session closed without a vote on a commission; the discussion produced clear next steps: further legal and fiscal research and a possible limited pilot or sunset-based approach.