Pre-trial diversion among key issues in Houston DA runoff

WARNER ROBINS — With the race for Houston County district attorney now in a runoff, George Hartwig is taking issue with the campaign platform of his opponent, Arthur Creque.

Creque, 44, chief assistant solicitor for Houston County State Court, was the top vote getter in the Nov. 2 general election, with 12,357 votes, or 37.33 percent of the vote, according to certified election totals. Hartwig, 51, an assistant district attorney for Houston County, came in second with 11,534 votes, or 34.85 percent of the vote.

Georgia law requires a margin of victory of 50 percent plus one vote to be declared the winner in an election. Rabb Wilkerson. 41, who was appointed to the post, was the odd-man out with 8,893 votes, or 26.87 percent of the vote.

Now in a runoff, Hartwig said he plans to continue to focus on his experience, while Creque said he plans to continue getting his campaign message out.

But Hartwig also said he cannot sit still any longer and let his opponent continue unchallenged in what Hartwig termed a three-pronged attack against the Houston County District Attorney’s Office.

Pre-trial diversion

The first prong, Hartwig said, is Creque’s plan to end pre-trial diversion. Pre-trial diversion is an alternative to prosecution of accused offenders based on Georgia law Section 15-18-80, in which a qualifying individual may serve a probationary term. If completed successfully, charges against the individual are dismissed.

Pre-trial diversion affords a person with no prior criminal record an opportunity to avoid a felony conviction, Hartwig said.

As a part of the pre-trial diversion agreement, conditions can be made that include drug testing, maintaining a job and earning a high school equivalency diploma, Hartwig said. If any of the conditions of the agreement are not met, then the person may be prosecuted for the original offenses.

But Creque, who noted using pre-trial diversion is at the discretion of the district attorney, said he believes the program rewards accused offenders for bad acts. He noted there are alternatives such as first-offender status, in which the person pleads guilty to the offense but after successfully serving the term of probation the person no longer has a felony conviction.

Creque stressed, however, that he would oppose first-offender status for an accused drug dealer or child molester.

Hartwig contends that Creque makes it sound as if pre-trial diversion, which he stressed reflects only a small percentage of the cases handled by the district attorney’s office, is letting drug dealers and child molesters go free. Hartwig said that’s simply not the case.

Hartwig said he doesn’t doubt that Creque has been able to go through the court records and find cases in which people accused of drug offenses or child molestation were given pre-trial diversion but there may be more to the story than Creque is presenting.

For example, Hartwig noted that it is not uncommon for all of the people in a vehicle in which drugs are found to be charged with trafficking. On further examination, it may become clear that some in the car were not trafficking drugs. Pre-trial diversion allows those individuals to have charges dismissed once they complete the conditions of the agreement.

But Creque said that Hartwig’s example of the drug trafficker is a good illustration of why he opposes pre-trial diversion.

“If a person is innocent, they shouldn’t be required to do anything,” Creque argued. “If the person is guilty, they should have to admit responsibility for the act.”

He noted that another attorney told him once that pre-trial diversion is “a way an innocent person disposes of a case.” But Creque said if a person is innocent of the charge, then the prosecutor should drop the charge.

Regarding pre-trial diversion for child molestation, Hartwig raised a hypothetical scenario of a 17-year-old accused of statutory rape and child molestation for alleged sexual acts with his 15-year-old girlfriend. Creque asked why police would have charged the 17-year-old in the first place and if Hartwig would inquire about that.

@BR Body Subhed:Bond and jail time

Hartwig claims the other two prongs of Creque’s campaign are juxtaposed. On one hand Creque has campaigned, Hartwig said, that felony offenders are free on bond that should not be, but at the same time there are too many accused felons sitting in jail waiting for their day in court.

But Creque said there are accused offenders charged with serious felonies who have been granted bond, and that there are also too many defendants in jail awaiting trial. He maintained that both situations can and do exist at the same time.

Creque said cases need to be tried in Superior Court with increased speed and efficiency, and he said the district attorney’s office needs to be more aggressive in opposing bonds, especially for people accused of child molestation, for example.

Hartwig contended that the district attorney’s office does aggressively oppose bond. Hartwig would not say that there are never times that a serious felony offender receives a bond in the 2,000 cases that move through Superior Court annually. But if there are, it is rare.

Creque said he stands by his position.

Hartwig also noted that Superior Court judges sign off on bonds and on pre-trial diversion, and as a result, Creque is not only being critical of the district attorney’s office but also of the judges. But Creque replied, “That’s a cop out.”

The runoff election is Nov. 30.

To contact writer Becky Purser, call 256-9559.

This story was originally published November 9, 2010 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Pre-trial diversion among key issues in Houston DA runoff."