NCJ Number
92030
Editor(s)
S T Letman,
D W Edwards,
D J Bell
Date Published
1984
Length
12 pages
Annotation
The growing number of court cases challenging the constitutionality of aspects of pretrial diversion procedures indicates a need for more detailed legislative, judicial, and administrative definitions of the rights of pretrial diversion participants.
Abstract
An analysis of the pretrial diversion concept initially reveals a well-intended and fair alternative to formal prosecution which results in a number of advantages for the accused. Since the pretrial diversion agreement is not a conviction, the accused is not obligated to indicate a criminal conviction on employment applications. Further, there is no public hearing with attendant embarrassment for the accused. Also, diversion is less time consuming than the traditional processing of cases through the courts, and the accused is also given the opportunity to avoid the possibility of pretrial detention. Still, legal issues bearing upon the rights of the accused in pretrial diversion processing continue to be raised in the courts. One legal issue concerns whether the due process clause of the 14th amendment entitles a pretrial divertee to an evidentiary hearing upon revocation of diversion status. Another legal issue focuses on whether a pretrial diversion potential participant should be required to enter a formal plea of guilty as a prerequisite to being enrolled in a diversion program. Whether there is a right to counsel in diversion revocation hearings is also a legal concern, as is whether the criteria, as stated and as applied, for eligibility constitute 'arbitrary or capricious' deprivation or withdrawal of protected interests. A number of New Jersey court cases that examined some of the preceding issues relevant to pretrial diversion procedures and legislation are discussed, and 19 notes are provided.