What, you didn’t have a chance to catch the debate hosted by WYPR’s Dan Rodricks yesterday between Baltimore City State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy and the man challenging her for the job, Gregg Bernstein?

Leaping lawn signs, don’t fret. We’ve got the high and low-lights right here, saving you the trouble.

Jessamy said statements by Bernstein were “lies,” called Bernstein out for “telling lies” and, pretty much called him a liar four or five times. Bernstein called Jessamy “ineffective” and chortled over her characterization of herself as “The Queen of Technology,” recommending that she use the budget for her communications office to buy her assistant state’s attorneys some Blackberrys.

Rodricks asked some sharp followup questions and did a good job of moderating this Godzilla-Mothra matchup. Known to his old Evening Sun colleagues by the nickname “Snookie,” Dan may have a new moniker after yesterday’s debate.

From their opening statements:

Jessamy: Well, Rod, I’m running for state’s attorney really to continue the progress we have made over the past 15 years. There has been tremendous progress, the progress has been made through partnerships with law enforcement agencies at the state, federal and local level, partnerships with community organizations, government agencies, non-profit organizations , as well as individuals. Although the population for the city of Baltimore has declined by 9 percent, violent crime in b city has decreased by 59 percent. That is the truth. That is progress…..We’re doing our job in the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office. I am tough, I am smart, I am truthful and if you elect me you won’t be going backwards, you will be going forward.

Bernstein: Well, as a lifelong Baltimore resident I have watched the present states attorney slowly concede many of our streets and neighborhoods to violent repeat offenders . Dangerous people continue to shuffle through the revolving door that the criminal justice system has become. Murderers, armed robbers , rapists and domestic abusers arrested by police are all too often let go without a true fight for justice, a fight in the courtroom by prosecutors on behalf of the victims and our citizens.

What Jessamy says in response to Bernstein’s favorite statistic: that the city has the lowest conviction rate of any jurisdiction.
(He bases that claim on a 2008 Abell Foundation study that found disparity in the outcomes of jury trials. In the city, Abell found, 23 percent of those tried were found guilty, compared with 53 percent in Anne Arundel, 41 percent in Howard and 40 percent in Baltimore County.)

Jessamy: That’s the study that he cites, if you recall, that’s the study the Abell Foundations said that because Baltimore City jurors were disadvantaged and poor and had a distrust of law enforcement that they could not be trusted to render a verdict against a defendant in Baltimore City. That study only looked at 134 cases. It was no t a true scientific study. And the conclusions and recommendations that they made were all questioned. . . . If you’re looking only at jury trial convictions, you’re way off the mark because most of the cases are never tried. They are plead out.

What Bernstein says in response to Jessamy’s favorite statistics: that the rate of commitments to the Department of Corrections in the city is better than the rates in the counties. (She noted that despite the fact that Baltimore is responsible for about 37 percent of the state’s crime, more than 60 percent of those committed to the Department of Corrections for terms longer than a year come from Baltimore.)

Bernstein: What Ms. Jessamy questions are the conclusions of the study. She hasn’t said anything to question the statistics themselves, nor has she offered any statistics with regards to the conviction rates. To dispute the results of the study. And I would also note that her own data from her own office reflects that, in 2007 and the first three months of 2010, her office had a 45 percent conviction rate for serious felonies involving firearms. 45 percent. And I think by any standard that’s not acceptable. And I would finally say the commitments that she talks about do not equal the convictions or the conviction rate. It’s a question I submit of quality vs. quantity. I mean it’s one thing to just throw out numbers but the whole reason why I’m run is because of my belief that the state’s attorneys office has been completely ineffective in focusing its resources on the most violent offenders and convicting them.

How Jessamy explains her recent comment: “We don’t want to have a police state in Baltimore City.” (She was referring to the relationship between Bernstein and Police Commisioner Frederick L. Bealefeld III, who had a campaign sign on his lawn for Bernstein. Jessamy has also charged that Bealefeld campaigned for Bernstein in uniform and called at one point for an independent investigation.)

Jessamy: There is always and I think a natural tension between a prosecutor’s office and a police agency. It should be there. And when there is no natural tension and when it could be perceived as a rubber stamp. The police’s job is to arrest individuals and their standard is probable cause. A prosecutor has to present evidence and prove to a court or a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual who has been arrested and charged is in fact guilty. So, there is a divide between probable cause more likely than not and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, you know, we can’t meet that burden and individuals may end up walking. But having a prosecutor who is a rubber stamp for the police should be something that the citizens of this city do not want.

Bernstein on whether he would be too close to the police department. (Responding to a caller pointing out that Bernstein’s wife, Sheryl Goldstein, “ has a close working relationship with works in the Mayor’s office” as director of the Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice.)

I don’t know how you can possibly have a good relationship with a police commissioner when you don’t even bother to walk across the street to see him in his office except to deliver some silly letter about conducting an independent investigation. That is not effective investigation and prosecution. I think one of the fundamental reasons why this state’s attorney and her office has been so ineffective at prosecuting the most violent offenders is because of her inability to work cooperatively with this commissioner. I have been both a prosecutor and I have been a defense lawyer and I understand the need to maintain independence from all branches of government not only the police but also the mayor’s office and all branches of government.

Bernstein on what to make of fact that homicide and violent crime have been declining in recent years.
Bernstein: There certainly has been a decrease in the incidence of crime there’s no question about it. But that decrease in the incidence of crime can be the result of a whole host of factors. I mean criminologists have studied for years about why crime goes up and down. They talk about socio-economic factors, they talk about demographics. There’s just a whole host of reasons but what we have seen in terms of actual enforcement and the way in which these cases have prosecuted is really just a complete absence of and I would say frankly it’s been despite the inability of the state’s attorney’s office to work cooperatively with police not because of it that we have seen a decrease.

Jessamy, when Rodricks asked how her relationship with Bealefeld compares to her relationship with previous police commissioners:

Jessamy: Okay, Bealefeld working with Mayor Dixon I thought that relationship was outstanding.
Rodricks: I asked about your relationship-
Jessamy: I’m talking about my relationship with Commissioner Bealefeld did not change until this campaign began and I found that very troubling.

Bernstein, on what he would have done differently on earlier cases against the defendant in Stephen Pitcairn stabbing: (Rodricks noted that in the case of Pitcairn defendant John Wagner, charged with armed robbery in April while out on parole, the victim witness in the case did not cooperate.)
Bernstein: I spoke to the victim and I asked him the question ‘Why didn’t you come to court?’ And he said to me because I was afraid. And I said to him ‘Well, did anyone from the state’s attorney’s office follow up and call you?’ No, I just had one conversation with the assistant state’s attorney. ‘Did anyone from the victim-witness unit come to see you? No. ‘Did the detective come out and see you?’ No. ‘Did anyone talk to you further about why it is and how you could come to court?’ No. And so the case was dismissed.
(He also said “what I found out Dan, it was not the trial, it was the preliminary hearing (in which) the testimony of the victim is not even needed . . . hearsay is admissible. The State’s Attorney’s office could have proceeded on the video it cd have proceeded on the officer’s testimony. And what I would say Dan is that the state’s attorney’s office gave up on that case.”

The upshot of Jessamy’s response at this point seems to be that the police made the case harder for the state’s attorney’s office by not getting a taped statement of some kind from the witness. Readers are on their own here, about midway through the show. Your Brew transcriptionist was getting a bit bleary.)

Bernstein was asked to explain what procedures would you change in order to prioritize and imprison the 500 worst of the worst of the worst violent offenders. (Bernstein frequently faults Jessamy’s office for not prioritizing the most violent offenders and asking judges to give them longer sentences. He said yesterday they go before judges “without making any distinction between which case is more serious than the next.”)

Bernstein: John Wagner committed that robbery in the gas station within 24 hours of having been released from of prison.  24 hours! And that’s a case where I would submit that you ought to make sure that he is incarcerated and say we are going use all our resources to prosecute.

(There was a lot of back-and-forth about technology and whether or not Jessamy’s office informs other law enforcement, correctional and judicial entities about violent repeat offenders. Depending on who you believe, they’ve  either got an award-winning “best-of-the-best” set-up or a lame operation without smartphones or voicemail. Bernstein was pressed to get specific on the what-would-YOU-do question.)

Bernstein: Here is how you would do that. You start by establishing a more cooperative relationship with law enforcement. You would get assistant state’s attorneys to target the more violent offenders and say these are where we are going to focus our resources and you would get them working with law enforcement  and police officers at the very early stages, not on the morning of trial when the off icer comes up and says it’s time for trial. That’s how you do it and you do it by giving them the tools in which to present those cases in the most effective way.

Jessamy: Again it’s obvious he does not know what’s going on. Once an individual is identified as a violent repeat offender everybody knows it. There is a list that the department has of the worst of the worst. When those individuals come in to central booking, everybody knows it because my people. . .have set up a communication procedure that is the best of the best. We notify the US Attorney’s office, we notify the police department, we notify everyone relative to the individual’s arrest.

(They trailed off here, but Bernstein added that Jessamy is right, she does have “The War Room,” a unit designed to target  “the worst of the worst,” but he says that unit’s conviction rate is 35 percent. Asked by Rodricks where that figure comes from he said:  from Page Croyder, citing the former assistant-state’s-attorney  who now blogs bitingly about her former boss. )

They had to, as they say in radio, leave it there……

——–

((RECOMMENDED READING: The Baltimore Sun has a good analysis piece, truth-squadding each of the candidates’ claims. ))