 You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. You've written the Charter for Excellence. A Declaration of Interdependence. If it is understood and felt that we are an organization with integrity and of high ethical standards, it gets transmitted from one staff person to another. There is this special responsibility that's associated with the umbrella of the federal courts. And there's a special requirement for public service and for seeking fairness and justice. There is a tremendous need for an identity as a system. The Charter for Excellence will go a long way towards articulating what our values are and who we want to be. And will take us to the next level. When you know who you are and what you're trying to achieve, what your goals are, it helps you to do a better job. You can't help but do a better job if you have that strong sense of identity. He might be a good candidate for the HIP program. Tell me about the process. Did they just send you a letter of rejection? As part of the National Judiciary, I think that we have to remember that our mission is a common one. That is the Fair Administration of Justice. So there's more incentive for them to support each other and remain in the United States. I need to verify address at 5043 Woodhaven. Can the office do have your paycheck stamps? Yes, I do. People bring knowledge, skills and abilities and those are very, very important. But what is their character? What are the values that they have? Are they honest? Are they impartial? Are they tolerant? Do they respect divergent views? The federal judiciary is often the last hope for people who are seeking justice and I really believe that our probation and pretrial services officers have a significant role to play in making sure that people have access to that justice. Welcome to professional responsibility in U.S. probation and pretrial services. At their national conference in 2002, chief U.S. probation and pretrial services officers endorsed the creation of a charter for excellence that articulates the shared professional attributes, goals and mission critical values of officers. Since that time, the charter has been drafted, printed and distributed to the field and several of its elements refer explicitly to the responsibility of officers. The purpose of this program therefore is to explore the meaning of professional responsibility, not in a way that asks you merely to consider the differences between responsibility and irresponsibility, but rather the connections between responsibility and excellence. To get the discussion going, I'm joined by Matt Roland of the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services. Matt, welcome. Thank you, Mark. You've worked at virtually every level of the federal system from line officer to now deputy at OPPS. What's your conception of professional responsibility, particularly as that term relates to the core role and duty of officers? Well, my view of professionalism and professional responsibility took shape even before I joined the probation and pretrial services system. Like many people in our system, I'm a big fan of sports and sports and professional athletes sort of define professionalism. A professional athlete is expected to perform at an exceptional level, not just be mediocre, not the average Jordanic block, but to be exceptional day in and day out and to prepare themselves to be able to perform at that level. In my mind, that was the view of professionalism I had when I started my career and the longer I've stayed with the probation and pretrial services system, that definition I think applies in our system as well. Now, why apply a standard of excellence to probation and pretrial services work like we've done with the Charter of Excellence? Certainly, I think an officer can reasonably argue that me, an officer, look, I've adhered to my constitutional mandate, to the statutory mandate, to the mandate as expressed in the monographs that are relevant to my work, and that should be good enough. So in your view, why isn't good enough good enough? In our case, I believe we're a profession. We're not just merely a job or an occupation. We're a calling, we're a profession. And what sets a profession apart in my mind is that, again, that expectation of excellent performance, not just aiming for the middle, not just mediocrity, but exceptional performance. That's why we just can't, as officers or support staff in the probation and pretrial services system, try to dissatisfy the minimum, why we have to go for the higher goal of excellence. Okay. Now, coming back down to earth, let's talk a little bit about the daily grind. And my question is, do you think that the daily grind in probation and pretrial services work presents an obstacle for officers and managers who are out there trying to achieve excellence? And if you do, do you have any advice for officers and managers who are out there every day in the field trying to do the right thing? Absolutely. The daily grind is a major obstacle to professionalism and excellence. It has a cumulative effect that day in, that day out, and going back to the analogy of professional athletes, they usually have the advantage of performing once a week or having shortened seasons. Probation and pretrial services officers and support staff have to perform every single day. They have to get that game face on every day. Okay, so how do you get the game face on? I think it's extremely important to keep in mind why we joined this system in the first place. Most of the people I'm familiar with join to make a difference. It's not just merely for a job that has security with it or a salary, but it's a true profession to make a positive difference. And that constant reminder, the reaffirmation of the importance of our work is what's necessary. That's why I think the charter is such an excellent resource. It embodies what we hold important, why we're doing what we do. And it's very important to take the time to review that, and I think the charter, again, is an excellent resource to keep people motivated. Matt, thank you. Thank you. Now, let's join a distinguished panel as they debate, consider, and explore professional responsibility in U.S. probation and pretrial services. Welcome, panelists. I'd like to welcome you to the Southern District of Sunnyville. The district has both the U.S. probation and pretrial services office. It's a Thursday morning and our pretrial services officer, let's call him Officer Mason, is having a fairly easy day of it so far, but it's early and things could change. His supervisor, for our purposes, let's refer to her as Supervisor Phillips Williams, heads down the hall, knocks on the door of Officer Mason's office, sticks her head in, cheerily greets him, and alerts him to the fact that a new defendant has been brought in, Mr. John Fisher, he was arrested earlier this morning after he had not responded to several summonses. Supervisor Phillips Williams hands Officer Mason a copy of the indictment and asks him to interview this new defendant and to prepare the bail report. Officer Mason reviews the indictment, which relates the story of how Mr. Fisher, a plaintiff's attorney, has allegedly stolen over a million dollars from three clients. And what makes the alleged offense particularly troubling is that all three of the clients are severely physically disabled juveniles. Officer Mason makes his way down to the lockup where Fisher is being held. He sees Fisher and Fisher appears to be disheveled, despondent, shaken. Clearly something is amiss. Officer Mason, you're going to introduce yourself to the defendant. What are you going to say and why are you going to say it? Well, Mark, I'm going to tell him my name. I'm going to tell him I'm Charlie Mason. I'm a United States pretrial services officer. I'm going to explain my role for being there. My role is to get information regarding this defendant's background so that the judge will know something more than what they're charged with. That information will assist the court in making a decision regarding release or detention in this case. Then I would read them the notice of the defendant which explains to the defendant their rights involved in the pretrial services aspect. Okay, now Mr. Fisher has already had or has had a contact with law enforcement when he was brought in and now he's had contact with you. How is your role different than that of law enforcement and what are you going to say or how are you going to say it in order to help differentiate your role? I would tell Mr. Fisher that I'm an objective party in this case. I'm there to get background information. I do not work for the prosecutor nor do I work for the defense. I work for the court and I'm only going to talk about their background, not the facts of the case or what they're charged with. Now you're a public official and you worked for the court. Do you view yourself as having power over our defendant here? Let's talk about that a little bit. I would not view myself as having power over the defendant. I would say that I have a tremendous impact on what happens to that defendant in the system as well as an impact on the community that they may return to. Okay, now what if Mr. Fisher says to you, you know, I have a lawyer but he doesn't need to be here. Let's just get the thing over with. What do you do? I want to make sure that I understood Mr. Fisher correctly and that that's his intent. I would also want to make sure that he is aware that if he cannot afford an attorney, one would be appointed. At that point, if I've understood him, then I would continue or begin the interview at that stage. Okay, I want to go to our criminal defense lawyer, Greg Poe. Could you tell us how a pretrial interview might be different if you were present? Well, if a lawyer is present, I mean, the goal, of course, is to provide accurate information to the court. Defense attorneys certainly don't dispute that goal. The real issue is protecting, from my perspective in most cases, probably all cases, the real issue is to ensure that while pretrials objectives are met on behalf of the court, the defendants' rights in connection with the prosecution are met. Because one thing that is easy to forget is pretrial might be focusing on getting information to the court, treatment of a defendant who needs treatment and so forth, but this is in the context of a criminal prosecution with very, very severe consequences, even in the simplest case. Okay, so Mr. Mason has said his role is to sort of be objective, to be impartial, to represent the court. Your role is different. My role is to protect the interests of my client. I have a duty of zealous advocacy on behalf of the client, loyalty on behalf of the client, certainly a duty of candor to the court at all times, which overlays everything. But the duty of the client is the fundamental duty and therefore pretrials goals, my goals, might conflict in particular case, although what I do as much as possible is to try to facilitate the interviews so that my client's interests are protected, but pretrial gets what it needs to get for the court. Okay, stop right there, Officer Mason. Mr. Poe, are you going to make your job more difficult? Mr. Poe may make my job more challenging because the information that I need to make an appropriate recommendation of the court, I may have to look elsewhere to get that information. So it may make it more challenging. Okay, and you're going to rise to that challenge. Yes, I hope so. Let's say just for the sake of argument here that our interview proceeds. Let's just say that maybe there are even no visual cues that led you to question whether there may be the need for the attorney here or whatever that the thing is going to proceed. And you obtain the following information over the course of the interview. Mr. Fisher tells you that he's 38 years old and he's a resident of the Southern District of Sunnyville. He was born in Munich, Germany, and is a German citizen, but he moved from the United States into Sunnyville when he was 14 with his parents. He's a permanent resident alien. He's divorced and has custody of his four-year-old daughter. He has a law degree and has practiced law in Sunnyville since 1991. His income is approximately $200,000 a year. He has assets of approximately $600,000 and liabilities of about $200,000. He says he has no substance abuse problems and he reports that he's generally in good physical health, but he does alert you to the fact that several years ago in 1996, he had a severe automobile accident where he sustained a head injury, and while he hasn't really had any lasting effects from that, he does occasionally suffer from severe headaches, especially at high periods of stress. He says he's never been before arrested or involved in any juvenile or criminal proceedings. I want to move on, but before I do, Mr. Poe, any problem with that information? Would there be any difference if you were present? If I'm present, let me just pick out a couple of examples in the interest of time. One is this is a financial crime that's alleged and in that sort of a case, and in many other cases as well, questions about a defendant's assets, finances, and so forth, he could very well be incriminating himself. If I'm there, I'm going to be very, very careful about letting anyone answer those sorts of questions. Another issue would be inquiries about criminal history. If I'm there, I am very wary about that sort of an inquiry because it could have an ultimate effect on a defendant's sentence under the guidelines if a defendant, for example, talks about various criminal history episodes that might not otherwise be detected by a probation office, and it's not my job on behalf of my client to help him get a higher sentence. Okay, so you're not trying to, you know, prevent information from coming to the fore as a way of making Mr. Mason's job more difficult. You are carrying out your responsibility to your client by trying to control that information. Right, and that's a, those are constitutional issues that I'm discussing, and those are serious ethical obligations that I have to my client. It's a role-related, I think, system in which when it works best, it works organically, and everyone plays the role, they play it with integrity. Things hopefully work out well in the end. Very good. All right, let's move on. And Officer Mason's investigation prior to the bail hearing confirms a few things. In terms of employment, Mr. Fisher has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law. In terms of his family, we find out that his parents, several years ago, relocated back to Germany, but you were able to conduct a telephone interview with them. And they said that Mr. Fisher had a stable upbringing, middle-class upbringing, nothing unusual. However, they noted that in the past several months, perhaps the last year, he had been expressing in some extended periods of unhappiness. They attributed that to his relatively recent divorce, the fact that he was transitioning to single parenthood, and the fact that he had a very busy law practice and he was trying to juggle all of this. To them, it didn't seem unusual or strange. A check of the criminal records databases doesn't turn up anything unusual. No arrest or criminal records on this defendant. You need to prepare the bail report, assess the risks presented by Fisher. Okay, after the investigation, I believe that the risk that I would have identified, the first risk would be the defendant failed to respond to a summons that was sent and was arrested. That would certainly be of concern to me. Further, the defendant's ties to Germany, his parents now living there, as well as his citizenship status. And thirdly, I believe that I would also be concerned about employment simply as a danger issue for potential third-party risk. Okay, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about sort of the thinking ahead that you're going to have to do. And let's talk about some of those issues. Is there potentially employment? Are there any other issues? You know, that may not be front and center right now, but where you may, you know, just sort of may raise some hunches or just concerns on your part. Absolutely. This defendant's mental health information is not enough for me to believe that it will go to non-appearance or danger at this particular time, but it is certainly a part of the puzzle that I will tuck away, and I may need that information and that may have an impact on non-appearance and or danger. Okay. I want to go to Bonnie Phillips-Williams and Bonnie, get your perspective, you know, on things that have been said thus far, perhaps the differences between the role of the officer in carrying out his function versus the role of the criminal defense attorney in carrying out his function just to sort of elaborate on what we've been talking about so far in terms of professional responsibilities, differences in roles, that kind of thing. I think Gregory described the difference in the roles very well. The defense attorney is an advocate for the defendant. We are to be objective officers of the court. But it was interesting listening to Gregory talk as well. As pretrial officers, we are very cognizant of the Constitution and it's actually part of the Charter for Excellence that we uphold the constitutional principles of the presumption of innocence, the right against incrimination, and the right against excessive bail. So I know that Charlie is thinking of all those things and we actually dovetail with the defense and of course the government as well in that area. Okay. Let's move on and talk about something that I know is of concern to the officers on this panel and certainly to officers in the field and that is collateral requests. Okay? Let's go back a minute and talk about arrest history since that's such an important part of an investigation in terms of assessing risk. What if Fisher had lived for part of his life in another state and you, Officer Mason, needed to request assistance from another district? What are your expectations and how do they relate to your responsibility and to the responsibility of the system as a whole? Well, I think that first and foremost, I would expect that that other office where I would be calling to request this information would be just as busy as we are. And I realize that it will be an imposition on that office because they've got to stop their investigation process at that point and help myself or another officer who would be calling in at that time. But I do expect that they take the time to provide me with the information that I need because they work under the same guidelines. They know that we are trying to provide the objective information to the court, all the information that the court needs to make an informed decision. I have recently requested a collateral from another district and they went above and beyond the call of duty. It's very easy to run a criminal history in your district and send it to that particular requesting officer. However, there may be abbreviations, there may be dispositions you're not able to read from the faxed report or a telephone report. And this officer took the time to actually type out a criminal history and made sure that I understood it. They followed up with a phone call, said, did you get the information? Is there anything else you or your court needs at this time? And that was really a great thing for them to do. It helped me in fulfilling the obligation of giving the information so that they can go towards non-appearance and danger issues as well as excessive bail and protecting the community. All that information is part of that puzzle that I mentioned about earlier. Okay, so an officer in another district has a responsibility to help you carry out your responsibility and should look at it that way. Is that accurate? Definitely. And also, let me ask the chiefs and Craig Sy, let's hear from you about how you think that this interaction regarding collateral requests affect inter-district relations and sort of the responsibility of the system as a whole. Well, the collateral request problem, and it was addressed as recently as about a year and a half ago in a News and Views article, but it did discuss the problems and the deterioration of the process, I think was the term used, and that's unfortunate, because one of the things the charter captures is a critical mission value is that we work together and to have officers, for lack of a better expression, feud about the collateral process. It doesn't seem consistent with that value. I think you expect the kind of response you would hope to get in the response as a professional one, but I think sometimes we forget because we mail it away or email the request, we forget there's somebody at the other and another officer that has the same goals and objectives, same concerns and same expectations. And time crunch. And time crunch. Okay. Getting back to the facts of our case, we're talking about defendant Fisher, and let's just jump ahead to the initial appearance. And let's say that the bail report recommends that Fisher be released on bond with the following special conditions. That he report to pre-trial services as directed. That he actively seek employment and provide proof of such to pre-trial services. That he surrender his passport and not obtain a new one during the pendency of the proceedings. And then he not travel outside the district of Sunnyville unless permitted by the court. Now let's go to our prosecutor, Barbara Catté. You're the prosecutor in this case. What's your responsibility? Generally, but at this and at this bail hearing specifically? Well, I actually think on these facts that this defendant is a flight risk. I'm realistic enough to know that as a nonviolent offender my chances are kind of slim of having him detained. But I think he's a flight risk because he hasn't responded to those summonses. He has just lost perhaps his most powerful tie to the community. He's lost his job and he's lost his license to get another one. He not only has very few family ties in the area. He has a daughter who he can take with him but he has no other family ties. But he affirmatively has family ties in another country. The notion that he can surrender a passport doesn't really protect us. He can leave the country on his green card as a permanent resident. The issue of these assets concerns me for two reasons. One, it means he has the assets with which to flee the country. But he also has the ability if he's left in the community to dissipate these assets and they might serve as a pool for restitution to the victims in this case. And so I'm worried about those assets. I'm worried about a lot of things about leaving him at liberty in the community. Although I'm realistic enough to know that what I really have to do at this point is figure out some more conditions of release to try and protect against those because it's unlikely that with a nonviolent offender I'm going to have him preventively detained. Very good. All right, I want to go to Officer Mason. Officer Mason, AUSA Catae has presented some pretty compelling reasons here, some pretty compelling concerns. Isn't your responsibility just to go along with us? No, it's not my responsibility to go along with those. It would be easy to go along with that recommendation. However, it's my professional responsibility and the charter again reminds us to uphold the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence. And the court, particularly the magistrate judges and the district judges, they want to hear what my recommendation is. And I've got to do my objective investigation, get all of the information that I can gather, verify that and present it to the court, and it needs to be my recommendation. And if I can articulate those reasons well, then I believe that the prosecutor who may not agree will certainly respect me and know where I'm coming from on those issues. Okay, well, funny that you should mention our magistrate judge. Judge Blake, I want to take you back to those days of yesteryear when you sat on the magistrate bench and ask you how does Officer Mason's responsibility relate to your role as the magistrate judge and what are you going to expect from Officer Mason in this case? Well, he's articulated a lot of what I would expect and it sounds as though he'd be doing a very good job. In many ways, the pretrial service officer's role is very similar to mine. I have to know that his boss back in Texas will be very happy to have heard you say that. Good. Well, my district has an excellent pretrial service and probation officer, so I have good background here. But it is a role of impartiality. It is a role of objectivity and independence. I certainly hope that that is what I am doing and it is certainly what I would expect from the pretrial services officer. The other point I would make, however, is that the highest part of that professionalism, it would include flexibility and alternatives because I need to listen to the pretrial services officer. I also need to listen to the prosecutor and the defense attorney and it's possible, for example, not this particular case, but pretrial service might have recommended detention. The defense attorney has persuaded me that that's not necessary. I expect that the pretrial services officer, being objective, independent and professional, will have some alternatives available for me and then I can turn to them and say, well, if I do release this person, then what do you recommend? And that they will have anticipated that, brought their knowledge and experience to bear and be able to give me some alternatives within their independent framework. Very good. All right. Let's skip ahead a little bit more to the decision and the court satisfied with the report's initial recommendations and releases Fischer on bond with those conditions. I want to go now to some of the concerns of the community and talk with Cleopatra Jones, your Fischer's neighbor. How do you feel about having him come back on pretrial release back at home and let's even take it a step further, all right? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have a different kind of a defendant here. Let's say we have a defendant who may be one accused of a serious drug or weapons offense, presents a different type of a danger perhaps to the community. How are you going to react to that and what are you going to expect of the court and of Officer Mason? From the court and as well as from Officer Mason as a victim, directly or indirectly, and part of the community, we would expect to have a open dialogue where we can focus on the issues at hand, to have the pre-service officer come forward to the community and talk to us about their concerns, what plans they have set forth in securing the release of this person and how they are going to be able to adjust to the community and as well as the community adjusting to them because understanding that the community has fears and our fears need to be addressed and it's important for us to be able to dialogue with you on every level as well as to victim the defendant and the ones that are all involved in this so that we have a sense of idea of what is going on, what services you're going to provide for this defendant. In other words, what have you done about jobs? What have you done about counseling? You know, different types of things. How are you going to keep him away from his peers and the events and the problems that cause him to get into this problem? How are you going to ensure that he does not fall right back into the same pattern and to understand that you're going to have an open door policy directly around the clock so that when we need you we are able to reach you, not just by a number but we want to be able to identify you by a face, someone who's directly involved with us and feel comfortable that you're working in our best interest because we have to take the interests of the seniors, the youth, the businesses and everybody in the community and basically we don't want to make him a victim again. We want to be able to feel that he can come back into the community and adjust to changes and move forward because this is a new life and set for different things. Bonnie Williams, is that a fair expectation? Yes and no. Okay. Pre-trial has strict rules of confidentiality at this part of the proceeding and the charter, one of the goals that matter most is getting out the community, community-based supervision to make sure that our offender, whoever he is, Mr. Fisher, this other person is being compliant with the conditions. So the expectation that Charlie go out in the community that he is out there with a face is absolutely a realistic expectation of the community at large. Whether he can discuss anything more than he's coming back, these are his conditions of bond, he probably can't talk about whether he's getting treatment, not getting treatment, but he can talk about, now we're going to help him get a job. So it's kind of a balance and Charlie as a professional and most officers as a professional or all officers, hopefully, know that tight walk they have to walk with the confidentiality versus answering to the concerns of the community. So in other words, there are things you can do to try to allay the concerns, anxieties, of fears of folks in the community. Absolutely. The best one is getting out there. Okay. Clay Patrick, did you have a response? I understand that and I think primarily the biggest thing is dealing with fear. Fear is something that everybody addresses in a different way. And taking the circumstances for all of the crimes or the things that came about, remember that the community has a pretty good knowledge. You know, we take for granted that community is not aware of things. We are very well educated into what's going on and some of us know the law just as well as the professionals. So we're not asking you to break any confidentiality. We're asking you to be just totally honest with us, to work with us and give us the same respect. Do empathy. Realize that if this was your neighborhood and you lived there, what would you expect from us? So equally, we want you to take and look at the issue and focus and give us as much information as we need so that we can dialogue. So I think Clay Patrick will be encouraged to note that the Charter for Excellence does task us or remind us of our obligation to positively impact the community and be considered of the community's concern. So I think that's consistent with the Charter. Okay, let's move ahead to supervision and let's assume now that Mr. Fisher's been on supervision for several weeks. One day he arrives at the pretrial services office for his regular appointment in a particularly agitated state. Officer Mason has been called to court unexpectedly, being the responsible officer. He has let the receptionist and other folks in his office know that this has happened and that he has a client coming in for an appointment. The receptionist tells this to Fisher, who becomes even more agitated when he hears that Officer Mason isn't there to see him. Bonnie Williams, Craig Sy, what should happen in this situation? What's the correct handling imply for support staff, for officers, for management? What should happen? Since it's the pretrial services officer we're talking about, let Bonnie go first. Sound familiar? Yes, exactly. What should happen is, and this is how professionalism goes all the way down through the office or we're all the same basically, what should happen is the defendant, Mr. Fisher, should get taken care of. He shouldn't have to wait until Charlie returns. The receptionist, the person at the front desk, should know we need to get him in, we need to get him spoken to, whether it's by a supervisor, by another officer, by someone, and just let him, we need to be flexible and everybody needs to act. Just get it done, I think, is what we decided yesterday was the appropriate term. It is the, I mean, the support staff has to support the officers in what they're obligated to do by statute or by charter, and they have to be on the same page with the goals and have the same value as we have to be truly supportive of what we do. As an aside, I would think, though, the officer being the professional he is does not just simply walk out the office and respect the schedule of the offender. He's scheduled the conference and so I would think the professional prudent officer would certainly try to make arrangements for that offender to be seen and his problems addressed before he left for court. So, responsibilities all the way around. Alright, that sounds good but let's do a reality check. Mr. Coates, does that reflect your experience? No, that doesn't affect my experience at all. I was listening carefully and I didn't hear how you would deal with that situation. It's been my experience if you come into the office and you're upset, they'll put you out of the office and that is not counted as a visit. Even if it was a scheduled visit any time you cause a problem or they perceive you're causing a problem, then you don't get any service. You are forced out of the building and you're penalized for it. That's been my experience. I'm just curious to see what would the person do? I mean, how would what would a staff person do that would be any different from what you've always done? Well, with the person what my receptionist would do would be to call one of the people in the office. I mean, we've had this happen. There's an offender out front he seems very upset. Somebody will respond immediately will take him or her inside and set them down. You're going to be late to court. You've got to meet a lawyer. You've got to do a UA and you've got to do it now. Whatever it is the officer in the office will just respond to it then. I mean, our goal is to not have you be penalized because you're having a bad day. I mean, these people have bad days every day unfortunately. And there will be days that we can't I mean, what you're upset about we can't help you with but we'll at least not leave you out there and then turn you away because you're having a bad day. Excellent. All right, let's move on. The situation. Another thing I think could be useful in a lot of instances would be for the lawyer to be contacted. Lawyers frequently can be very useful. That happens in the district of Columbia the office that I just left the federal public defender has an excellent relationship with the pretrial services office and with the individual officers some of these problems can be averted and some of the consequences from a sentencing perspective that we discussed earlier can be avoided some of the adverse consequences to the defendant is perhaps to bring the lawyer in to try to calm things down a little bit and work things out and sometimes I think that's something that I would ask pretrial officers to do if they're not otherwise focused on that. Very good. Raymond, I want to come back to you that sounds reasonable to you is that something in terms of the interaction with defense counsel and sort of to try to get a handle on the situation and sort of get things settled down? Yes, it certainly does. And the charter again calls for us to work in a collegial environment working together we all bring a different piece of the puzzle together and together hopefully justice is served and it would certainly be beneficial to let the defense counsel know and discuss some of those matters with them so they are able to talk to the defendant and together if there's something that needs to be responded to together we can do that hopefully. I mean the defense counsel has developed a relationship with your client and therefore can be helpful in calming matters down and strategizing on what to do next and how to handle it. I think frequently it's just a matter of going into a private room with the client discussing what the concern is at that point particularly if there's a good relationship with the defense lawyer and there's a relationship of trust the problem might end at that point and then if it doesn't it can be addressed and probably worked out with the officer immediately after that. Mr. Coates, I know you had a response, go ahead. I just want to turn back to the point where you have a distraught person but I want to take it somewhere into one of my own personal experiences what happens if we have a scheduled appointment and he missed that appointment and had to go to court called in sick whose responsibility is it to be scheduled? That too has not been my responsibility. Well, depending on the circumstances of course if the officer left sick and it was at the last minute I would hope that a professional officer would treat you as a professional would treat you if it's, you know, if you're going to be out next week and you're supposed to come in on Tuesday either arrange with another officer to see you if you have to come in every Tuesday which pre-trial you may have to or arrange for you to come in on Wednesday when you're actually going to be there. No, this is kind of dear to me because it's happened to me on several different occasions. Since I've been out what I've learned what professionals do if you are the cause for the meeting not taking place then you call and you set up a mutual date to reschedule in my experience I've never gotten that call I've always had to call and whenever they say come I've always had to come regardless of my professional personal responsibilities I had to reschedule and reshape my schedule because my parole or my probation was primary that's it buddy you do this, this is what you do everything else has to come after this and I just wanted to know how does the charter speak to that kind of situation The charter has several values which we call mission critical and one of them is to treat everyone with dignity and respect and to me treating a person like dignity and respect is to treat you like I would want to get treated But I agree it probably that isn't your experience and you're not believing in spite of the language of the charter but I think a better practice is always if you're going to have an individual come into your office a scheduled appointment and your responsibility is to be there as scheduled and I think our professional responsibility is certainly if we can't be there no we're not going to be there to take the initiative to reschedule it and I do, I think we owe you that and I hope you have that experience at least in the federal system in the future you come to the district in Nebraska we'll make sure Rob Teller I know you wanted to interact go ahead well it should be noted Mark that in terms of probation there's a re-emphasis on community-based supervision so hopefully that whole come into the office thing is going to be de-emphasized certainly we've got to respect the offender's time and what it takes to get down to the office the fact that they may have to try to find some place to park they may have to take off from work which is certainly inconsistent with what we're trying to do with supervision so hopefully there'll be less of the types of situations that he's talking about well I think isn't that why we're all here I mean to talk about you know what the reality is what we aspire to and maybe talk about some of the ways in which we can get to those things that we aspire to that may be next time next time right 90 minute program here don't want to be too ambitious much more ambitious anyway moving right along let's talk about let's just say the situation is diffused but Officer Mason has done some more investigation work things out with Mr. Poe in terms of the situation for Mr. Fisher and it becomes clear that Mr. Fisher has some pretty serious mental health issues and Officer Mason asks Judge Blake to impose a mental health condition and Judge Blake does so after several visits the therapist informs Officer Mason that Fisher has major depression and generalized anxiety disorder and that he also has observed symptoms of bipolar disorder a psychiatric evaluation concludes that Fisher's bipolar and lithium is prescribed now in terms of the disposition of the case moving moving head a bit Fisher pleads guilty to one count to one charge of wire fraud and the non-binding plea agreement includes two terms Fisher accepts responsibility for the offense he'll serve 30 months in prison with a three-year term of supervised release he agrees to pay restitution subject to actual loss the sentence in the agreement includes a vulnerable victim related adjustment and the parties agree not to ask for any additional enhancements or departures so now we're talking pre-sentence investigation speaking of the good I like to take you back to your days of conducting pre-sentence and carrying out pre-sentence investigations and drafting reports you've been assigned the investigation of Mr. Fisher could any of the stipulations in the plea agreement what's your approach starting at the beginning of what's your approach going to be what's your mindset going to be what's your responsibility in carrying out this investigation and are the terms of the plea agreement going to play into that anyway was that just one question Mark yes let's talk about the plea agreement first the plea agreement obviously you can't be oblivious to it but at a point in I think you set that aside for the time being I think you honestly do I think sometimes that drives how officers approach their investigation and you don't want the plea agreement to do that because you are an impartial fact finder and you go about your business and in the obligation in such a manner so you really do as the impartial fact finder you try to determine the fact situation and then how that applies and reconciles with the plea agreement is another matter really for another time and is obviously addressed in a portion of the report as it relates to the plea was the other part of your question what's the obligation of the pre-sentence investigation report officer yeah but you sort of covered that with the impartiality and sort of carrying out that sort of well that's why I think the charter for excellence is such a good thing and this is not a dialogue on guideline applications it's not a dialogue on how to write a report and how to format a report but one of the goals of the pre-sentence report writers to write an objective report one that contains verified information and certainly assist the court in making a fair sentencing decision and the operatives there are its objective it's verified and it's fair and I think that's one of our professional goals and the charter speaks to that and to accomplish that an officer certainly has to bring to that process a host of professional skills communication skills investigation skills and certainly some analytical skills but the biggest thing they've got I think bring to the table and to the process is their impartiality and that's something an obligation of ours a professional obligation of ours that is sometimes ignored not truly appreciated or understood but it is that impartiality impartiality that distinguishes us from the other players in the process so I guess I encourage probation officers pre-sentence report officers to be impartial and professional Barbara Cotay do you fully understand that rule? Well let me say this the sentencing guidelines are in my view a compact among the players to sort of play fair I mean they took from the discretion of a judge most most value judgments as to conduct there the conduct is the conduct that's why there's relevant conduct you can consider all five charges if the conduct is there even if there's only a plea of guilty to one you can consider whether or not you should consider whether or not all of the enhancements should apply the one I guess that's most glaringly missing here is a breach of a position of trust which would be one that would obviously apply and yet it appears as if the lawyers have decided that neither side will ask for it that's something that that the probation officer should be identifying because they are actually the fact finder for the court they should be identifying that for the court so that everything is sort of out there and on the table and under the guidelines the conduct is the conduct and the enhancements are the enhancements and the court is not permitted because of the guidelines to sort of put some of them to the side or not consider them then neither can the parties manipulate whether or not that particular factor is considered and it's not a situation since we're talking about ethics where you can sort of with a wink and a nod say I'm not going to ask for it but then sit down in a pre-sentence interview with the pre-sentence report writer and say you know put the facts separately to suggest that they go around the back and ask for the enhancement for breach of a position of trust if you're not asking for it you're not asking for it but I think what you need to do in the context of a plea discussion is to say to the probation officer who's writing this report you know it's not in there we've agreed not to ask for it but I want to defend this plea agreement even though it looks to you as if there's certain things missing for a variety of reasons I want you to know what these reasons are just as I'm going to tell the court what these reasons are we have vulnerable victims who are vulnerable now just as they were then they don't particularly need to or want to participate in a long drawn out court process they don't want to have to come to court and face a cross-examination about something about which they were vulnerable to begin with we want to see if we can spare them that there are reasons why if it's the case it's not really here but I can remember cases where it was where we're somewhat sympathetic to the defendant's situation and this is why we sort of are trying to get this to a point where this can be resolved by a disposition short of trial it yes these other factors are out there but we want you to understand why though they could apply we're asking that they not apply so that we can resolve this with this disposition but I think we have to be up front about it I mean I don't think we're trying to sort of get the enhancement through the back door or sort of say we agree to a set of facts different than what reality suggests is true we have to sort of stand up to what the facts are and stand up to why it is we're asking for this plea agreement nevertheless. Craig? Reactions? I was going to wait for the judges reaction. Good, all right. Judge White? Well I think I'm going to agree essentially with all of that but it's certainly true that I'm looking for an impartial and objective investigation but I think that what prosecutor has just said points up the importance also of recognizing roles and recognizing what is going to be of most assistance to the court and I heard those words assist the court quite frankly in Maryland we rely very heavily on the probation officer for an analysis of the guidelines for their expertise and things like criminal history calculations and grouping and all those arcane things that I really need help with we rely on them I do very heavily for that special expertise in human behavior and mental health the drug problems the recommendations that they're going to come up with on those fronts that is of much more significance to me in what I am looking for from the probation officer then to review as was suggested by this hypothetical that we all had to look at to go back and redo the FBI agents work for example I will live with relevant conduct as it has been defined by the people whose roles are the defense attorney and the prosecutor absent something obvious now if you see something that just really seems egregious I want you to bring it to my attention on the guideline stipulation if you see something you think that's obvious that's been left out yes bring it to my attention and it is something that we should discuss openly and publicly but you've got to recognize there are reasons why that may not have been asked for so what I'm looking for that is of most assistance to the court is not revisiting all the facts but concentrating on where your expertise and your role makes the most difference can I just say one more thing there though of course that's nice I have to say though that there are some of these issues that are close calls I mean it's not always black and white and where it's a close call I actually consider it to be good lawyering on my part to see if I can't at least make the first cut and get the probation officer on my side because I think if the pre-sentence report recommends something then it's more likely that I'll have the judge looking favorably at that then if I have to climb that hill in court without the pre-sentence report on my side so I really unlike I'm sure you get a lot of you write a lot of pre-sentence reports and I've read a lot where it says try to contact, try to contact, try to contact and the assistant was in court was in court and there's never been an interview there I mean I know you know ideally there's always an interview there and what I'm saying is I'm always trying to make myself available because I want to make the first cut and be persuasive so that the pre-sentence report takes my position I recently had a case where it was an extremely complicated calculation it was so complicated that the probation officer called the sentencing commission to make sure that she was right before she completed the report and what I had done was I tried even to share with her some of the drafts I was preparing of the memorandum I would file with the court because it was that important to me I had to have to be first making those arguments against the pre-sentence report in court and I wanted to see if I could be lined up with it before I went into court. Greg Poe, yeah please. Somehow I had a feeling you were going to want to jump in I don't know. There are four or five feet between us so everything's okay but the thing I wanted to note is I think transparency in the process because ideally I think everything should be done in writing. The first disclosure of the PSR should be the point at which the views of the government are known ex-party contexts in any sort of environment are very very hazardous and so I think transparency in the process letters to the officer letters to the pretrial I'm sorry probation officer copying the prosecutor are essential. I think the interview of the client is sort of sui generous. I mean the defense lawyer hopefully is sitting in on that probation interview pre-sentence report interview with the client but otherwise I think it's extremely important to have transparency in the process because there can be very subtle influences depending on the judgments of individual probation officers and pretrial services officers in different contexts that I think have to have careful attention paid to them because otherwise a lot of these adverse consequences that I think we've talked about before can result. That's always a concern of mine is how much transparency in the process is there. Two seconds and I think we get back to the impartiality that was spoken about in the charter that if the prosecutor comes to an officer and gives her side my hope is the officer would then turn around and call the defense attorney and said look you know if we don't have it in writing this is what I'm being asked what is your position so at least we have the impartiality so if it comes up at court the officer can be examined and be a professional and tell the court we've done due diligence on both sides and this is where we stand. That ability to communicate seems to be one of our professional responsibilities. Judge Blake did you have a response or reaction? No I think that's been summarized very well and to say I think that there are special expertise that the probation officer can bring it is I will just repeat the point that I made about the pre-trial services officer though part of what you're doing is identifying these issues and you may feel strongly that a particular enhancement should apply again it may be that in listening to what the defense attorney and the prosecutor have to say about their reasons for not requesting that enhancement I'm going to go with them that does not in any way reflect poorly on the probation officer I will appreciate it having been brought to my attention right or wrong I made the decision that I felt was right but that flexibility I think one of the things in the charters is fostering a collegial environment you're going to see that prosecutor again you're going to see that defense attorney again you're certainly going to see the judge again be professional move on it's the same for me I go into court and make a decision half the people don't like me when I'm done you got to go on You are the decision maker we're the impartial fact finders and as long as we all agree that we're not bridled by the plea agreement you want as much information as we can possibly find out and verify and that's our professional role and then what you do with that information is of course we hope you follow our recommendation usually usually but in all seriousness I mean couldn't it what's the effect or impact Craig on officers I mean to the extent you can generalize about you know going into a meeting officers have worked hard put together this pre-sentence report have really sort of left no stone unturned in terms of the investigation they go in and perhaps the judge does not agree with the recommendation or goes a different way or whatever I can't say that that doesn't impact on officers and it impacts adversely they're busy a lot of things going on and a lot of things going on to complete a pre-sentence investigation report they think they do a thorough job they think they verify everything they think they're on solid ground and they recommend things and analyze things and it comes as hard words when when that is discounted in court or the court decides to go another way but I think the true professional can go beyond that quite frankly I mean I think that's the professional challenge if we want somebody to respect our role that we play as an impartial fact finder and we certainly and I don't think this should be lost we've got to respect what the AUSA does for a living and what Greg does and what the court decides and I think it's hypocritical to say respect us for our role and what we do but by the way if you don't do what we tell you to do then we're not going to respect your stake in the process now chances are there's going to be at some point a meeting between the pre-sentence officer and the judge what's the mindset of the officer what does that need to be going into that in terms of the connection to that officer's responsibility and how you know in terms of carrying out the process and making sure that the officer does his or her job effectively and with integrity and all these values that we talk about in the charter well I don't think the meetings with the judge are necessarily standard I think that's all over the board you would hope if an officer does have opportunity to dialogue with the court they're prepared and they're well read and researched on the case but I'd like to think also that the pre-sentence report partly going to Greg's notion of this transparency you would hope the report speaks for itself and that's the professional challenge again I think it's always good to go in and talk with the court in case the court wants clarification but again I think the report primarily speaks for itself this gets back to what Greg was saying about transparency and I think there has been some change perhaps over the years even while I've been familiar with the process I think the meetings with the judge used to be a lot more common there was much more of a personal back and forth between the court and the probation officer I think it's a good thing to be a little more sensitive to the need to involve all the parties absolutely now it can happen from time to time and I've certainly had times when I've had a question that's something I want clarified and I'm comfortable picking up the phone and calling the probation officer or maybe that the probation officer will want to come to me about something in some way that should be transmitted to the other people in this process who have an important role just as we do and need to not have something hidden from them that may be important that they may need to respond to the relationship we have with the court is slightly different in that we are your impartial fact finders so the communique might be a little bit more justified because of that relationship that the other two parties wouldn't have and it may be a clarification of the kind that again will call on your expertise I'll say well you've recommended drug treatment I would hope that I could call and say that the probation officer can you tell me a little more about how that 500 hour program works that somebody is going to be recommending that's a good segue because I want to move forward now officer Sy has conducted an excellent investigation he's left no stone unturned and some of the things he's discovered are the following about Mr. Fisher the records provided by Fisher's current psychotherapist which is the psychotherapist he had been seeing during pre-trial supervision first we know that Fisher has been diagnosed as bipolar we also find out that Fisher had seen a psychotherapist when he was experiencing marital difficulties and that diagnosis indicated that he was suffering from major depression he was referred to for a psychiatric evaluation and a prescription for prozac was recommended he had been about through the investigation that Fisher had also visited a psychotherapist while attending law school at that time his complaints had been about depression, panic attacks, insomnia fatigue and difficulty in completing daily tasks also reported that he had not wanted to go outside of his apartment that he had a fear of being around others and again diagnosed as having major depression a psychiatric referral was made and there's no further information beyond that point in terms of his family Fisher's parents have temporarily returned to Sunnyville to help him take care of his daughter as he goes through this process an interview with his former wife indicates that she has had little contact with Fisher since their divorce that she sees her child every few months and that she splits the expenses for childcare with the defendant the defendant also employs a full-time housekeeper who also serves as the child care provider and an interview with her indicated that Fisher was a good employer and a dedicated father but she did say that she noticed over the past several months, perhaps the past year that she would sometimes discover him when she reported to work having sleeping in his own home office fully clothed or that he would spend evenings at the office and not return that would require her to stay at the house with the child and that these were behaviors that were a relatively recent vintage and the presentation also points up that Fisher graduated from law school in the top 5% of his class we know from the pre-trial report that he's presently unemployed that Fisher's former employees also noted that he would be out of the office for several days at a time over the past several months without notifying them that he would be out of the office and spend day and night preparing for court appearances and meetings with clients now Officer Sy, we know that Fisher is heading to prison for about 2.5 years and that mental health and emotional conditions are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range so why does it matter if you get so many details regarding his mental and emotional health presentation of the fact situation I did do an incredible job on that investigation I want that duly noted so noted thank you well the mental and emotional problems generally although I think they're dealt with when somebody's incarcerated they generally don't go away and it's a lifetime sometimes conditioning concern but and officers fall into this pitfall all the time they're writing the report for the court and that's where their obligation ends but there's so many downstream users of the information of the report not only the mental and emotional part but other information Rob will attest to the fact that supervision is dependent on our report the Bureau of Prisons is dependent on a report for classification and programming matters and designations and that sort of thing mental health people that will deal with our offenders depending on the report there's even a statistical dependency on the report so the officer has to realize again keeping in mind that their report has to be relevant and recent end germane to the issues at hand it does have considerable benefit for downstream users of the report so you've got a pretty significant amount of power here in terms of putting that information deciding what information to some degree goes into that report particularly because that report is going to be central to these downstream users that you've been talking about or the multiple audiences that you're writing for clear enough? Rob Taylor, you're one of those downstream users let's say you're going to be the supervision officer in this case we'll get the supervision in a couple of minutes talk about how this kind of information can help you do your job especially as the offender begins to reenter as a good colleague Craig certainly realizes the importance of that information to my particular role I've got a responsibility to gather facts also and certainly a big part of that fact gathering process is a review of the PSI so as far as I'm concerned the more information the better and it's my professional responsibility to analyze that information and to begin to formulate a plan that's going to help me get my needs met and hopefully meet the offender's needs very good I want to talk a little bit about before we get into supervision just sort of step back a little bit and talk about what the role of the supervisor and the responsibility of the supervisor is let's just for now talk about it in the pre-sentence context but let's just also talk about it more generally as well let's leave aside the Fisher case for a minute and let's say we have a case in which we've got an experienced pre-sentence officer who includes an enhancement that would result in a longer sentence for the defendant the defense attorney who is a well-known not our Mr. Poe but another defense attorney who is a well-known lawyer he's known to be excellent but aggressive thinks the enhancement is incorrect and visits the probation office to sit down with the probation officer and discuss it the officer in that meeting insists that the enhancement is correct and says that in his judgment it belongs there and that he's not going to remove it the defense attorney takes a bit of umbrage at that and decides on his own initiative to contact the probation officer's supervisor complaining about the allegedly incorrect application of the enhancement he tells the supervisor that he expects the enhancement to be removed um and that if it's not removed he's going to take the complaint to the sentencing judge Craig what's the responsibility of the supervisor and the situation and why well certainly not avoid the disagreement I mean that's all part of the process it's institutionalized through the providing the draft and then your final copy to the court then the process and the recommendations and that sort of thing so disagreement between parties is not unusual somewhat expected I would certainly if that came to my attention I would expect a supervisor or someone to at least address the issue give the warring parties if you will an opportunity to each say what they need to say but then to change it at the threat of I'm going to the court really wouldn't be persuasive matter of fact I'd almost encourage it because I can imagine and I don't mean to speak for the judge but I can imagine the court's response to attorney that felt that our application of the guidelines was maybe not consistent with their impression of the guidelines and of course that's why you have a sentencing hearing so I say that whole process is built into a problem of disagreeing parties is built into the system your perspective I agree with Craig completely but hopefully before it got to the supervisor or got to us listening to the supervisor talk about it as a chief the pre-sentence writer or if it's a supervision officer whoever it is has already staffed it with the supervisor that's the whole the new monographs that's what we're all looking to we all come from different knowledge bases we all come with different backgrounds we all come with different experiences in your own office you will find a wealth of information and as I said yesterday I myself have to go to people because I sometimes have knee-jerk reactions we all need to talk through them so when the lawyer comes in the office you're like fine go to my supervisor I have absolutely no problem because you've already staffed it and you're confident in your own report it's no longer just go there when you know you're in trouble or whatever we as professionals have to seek each other out but is it the responsibility of the supervisor and of management to send that message to officers so that they feel comfortable in doing that I think staffing is an important consideration here would you yes I mean you've got to have an open door can't be afraid to walk in and talk and not have your head bit off and I know that that's a change that the system is going through and I think we will get there just one other side is it relates to the professional responsibility of the pre-sentence report writer I think the true professional who's done a thorough investigation and has done his or her homework isn't offended by disagreement and I think lawyers by training learn to disagree it's an adversarial system but sometimes I think probation officers are offended that their judgment their analysis of a fact situation comes into question and rather than handling it professionally they take umbrage to it and you would want the true professional to handle it professionally not personally like a better expression so the responsibility of the officer would be to make sure that they staff it with their supervisor the supervisor should send the message that we encourage this that we want collaboration we want to make sure we're doing the right thing so that should such a situation arise it's a no brainer and we're going to deal with it but being a manager Bonnie and I would probably both prefer that the officer resolve it with the lawyer and it not go any further would be would be my ambition and my hopes yeah Raymond Cotel it sounds to me that this probation officer is really really has a tough job really you know and I I know I've said before I'm just amazed at the new thinking but with this new thinking it seems that the probation officer would need a lot of support from his other colleagues and his supervisor as he's go through these pushes and pulls and dealing with his own values and judgments keeping that impartial view and I just would I would really like to hear what a probation officer would think or how does a probation officer really deal with all the stuff because he had a lot of stuff about people's lives all the time everybody pushing and pulling how does he where does he go and is it necessary for him to sometimes just clean out and re-examine you know who he is after all this and so he can do the work with the kind of impartiality that you know as a as a person who may have been on probation I definitely wouldn't feel that you know but I wouldn't feel confident that that's what I'm getting if the prosecutor can talk to him when she feels like he's my lawyer can talk to him when he feels like and everybody got in his ear and there's no place where he can get to sort all this stuff out and kind of get it cleaned I mean I wouldn't feel confident if I just don't believe that that one human being given all this he has to do is see impartial without a place to clear yourself up does that make sense am I making a little bit of sense go ahead Bonnie I'm thinking there's tobacco road in Miami no no another hope is that they would feel comfortable going to their offices their supervisors or their chiefs or whoever and unloading if they needed to unload and when you do need to unload and Robert can probably I've never been a line officer I've never been a line officer but my guess is there are days that I mean I hear it in the afternoon around four o'clock in my office and sometimes early in the morning too but still you've got to have the communications and you've got to talk to each other because we also have things going on in our personal lives that are affecting our judgment and our points of view which is again well it's a good thing to staff whether it's with your next door neighbor go ahead Rob Taylor because I want to move into supervision I would respond that that's one of the challenges of being a probation officer however that's one of the benefits the fact that we have so many different things that we've got to do so that's what really makes this job a great job and a great profession I would like to think that there are outlets within each individual office that an officer can talk with a supervisor talk with another colleague talk with a senior officer to get themself grounded to get themself re-centered I don't think that's as big an issue as Mr. Combs might think because we enjoy that challenge quite frankly very good we've institutionalized some of that process in the pre-sentence report process I mean it's just not our eyes on a report the writer writes the report the financial investigation specialist then all the parties including the defendant get to see the report respond to the report then it's revised and then the court and then there's a sentencing hearing and then an actual sentencing so that kind of concern I think is avoided by that process and on the supervision side the new monograph the new supervision monograph underscores all of that your relationship with your co-workers your reliance on supervisor as a mentor as a sounding board as a resource so I think we've got enough processes in place that would address your concerns I want to now get to supervision we've got only several minutes left in the program and Rob Taylor it's good that you're motivated to do this job because you get to supervise Mr. Fisher what's your responsibility to Mr. Fisher let's say two years, two and a half years have gone by he's been placed now he's coming back out he's been placed in a community correction center for a few months you're going to have to meet with him how's that going to work what's your responsibility to him how are you going to carry out that responsibility several different responsibilities initially based on the facts that we have in this case about his mental health needs and the fact that he may need some type of medication so initially I'm going to be trying to do some follow up with the BOP to find out what was going on in treatment and see what he needs right now number one number two what's important to me is relationship building this person's coming on to supervision I may be supervising him for three years I need to try to build up some type of report so that he's more invested in complying with the conditions it'll make my job easier and it'll make this whole situation less stressful for him Mr. Coates let's say you're Mr. Fisher just for the time being what are your expectations do people talk when they're in prison about probation officers and how great they are no no no no actually as I'm coming towards release he's the center most in my mind and how I'm thinking about him is he's my adversary as your adversary he's my adversary and I have to see how I can get around him so you're going to be scheming oh yeah I'm coming home even if even if I have determined that I'm going to change my life and I'm going to do the right thing I do not see my probation officer parole officer as an asset I see him as a liability and so it's my job to convince him that he don't need to bother me you know I should be on the least restrictive this and the least restrictive that and my whole my assessment is pushing him away out of my face and hold on hold that thought he wants you out of his face well my initial response is there's inherent conflict in that because it's my responsibility at least initially to see him more than he probably wants to see me number one but again going back to the whole relationship building thing I know how he's coming to me so I'm going to try to say look this does not have to be adversarial I've got a job to do you don't want me to play an active part in your life and that really the offender dictates how much I'm going to see him that's the way that I see it I mean if they're doing what they're supposed to they're complying with their conditions then I'm left to direct my energies towards someone who's less motivated to comply Cleopatra Jones you're the conscience of the community here how does that sound to you? sounds like they need to really sit down and talk that you know they have to be some barriers but they have to be some understanding because this is an adjustment for Mr. Coates as well he's coming back into a community where a lot of things have changed and I would hope that the supervision officer will be able to give him those guidelines and say okay I know you don't want me in your face you don't want me around but there are certain things I need to share with you and we need to sit down and start building that rapport where you establish an open communication because that's going to be the key for your freedom and for him doing his job in a positive way and that you don't become a threat to the community because we want to understand that whatever you need will be provided for you and that someone is there to make sure that these doors opens and things are available go ahead one of the reasons why my approach is the way it is is because you and the supervision officer maybe even my therapist all want to make sure I have the things that they say I need and that's fine but what about what I say I need well that's where communication comes in in order for you for them to understand what your needs are you still have to sit down and talk talking is a key process in all of this because if you're continuously holding things in and feeling that you have a monopoly on the world and you can basically do it all on your own and you come up against a brick wall it's going to lead to failure so then it's going to disappoint you and maybe lead you to doing something you don't really want to do so if you establish that communication between community your you know officer and not so much a supervisor but a mentor someone who is like a teacher because this is a new beginning for you so you need to have a certain understanding as to you have to take baby steps you're going to crawl because eventually you're going to get up and walk and you're going to walk away from all of this but you're going to walk away in a positive way that you can look behind you and say this is where I was this is where I am and this is where I'm going and I understand I understand that but now you're talking about trust that's what you're talking about and you're asking me to see this man as a resource in the system that in my mind has never been either for me one in the way that I will help me trust or see him as a resource is if I understood from the beginning that he understood something about what I thought I needed if that could be the opening conversation what is it that you think you need what is it that you think you want that kind of opening conversation allows me to think of myself as not only the center to be held back but the center to be pushed forward so I'm almost by gun point we have to participate I have to get involved because we're talking about what you say you wanted and that's what may make me become see him as a resource somebody I can trust to do this and do this and then the relationship might build and I'm encouraged that we're getting there simply by his response to the more complicated situations when he say it is both a benefit when when I can see that he sees that my complexity as a benefit then I'm encouraged let's say we're there let's say we're there but let's say and things have been going very well under supervision but things have been getting difficult in your life you got a lot to handle, you're a single parent you got to try to hold down a job pressure is getting to you you miss an appointment community based organizations community based organizations we're not going there we're running out of time all right you miss an appointment officer Taylor, how are you going to handle that you're going to bring the judge in at that point let's talk about that and then I want to talk with judge Blake very briefly we've only got a couple minutes left big part of our responsibility is decision making as a federal probation officer we've got a great deal of discretion and as a professional it requires me to analyze the situation and make a decision in terms of to what extent I get the judge involved in this particular situation it doesn't sound like the fact support me moving forward with some type of recommendation for sanctions that's something that I feel comfortable in handling in house and I will respond to that particular situation accordingly Judge Blake, that sound reasonable to you absolutely there I would expect a gradual progression I would expect the supervising officer to have his eye on what's happening make some independent judgments always be balancing what do I do to promote the offenders well-being reintegration into the community long-term change against protection of the community and if there's a real problem then I want to hear about it but I'd like to know that you've tried alternatives first and if you have to come into court you've got some suggestions for me because I'm relying on you very good I'd like to thank you so much for this conversation and this dialogue it's just the beginning I know we didn't get to a lot of the issues that we wanted to get to but hopefully maybe at some point in the future we'll be able to reconvene I want to also thank our audience thank you out in the field and certainly thank our studio audience for joining us this afternoon we hope the program will be able to spurs some dialogue in your districts about the meaning of professional responsibility particularly how professional responsibility relates to the attributes, goals and values articulated in Charter for Excellence if there's anything more at the Federal Judicial Center that we can do to help you do that please don't hesitate to contact us in the meantime it's been a pleasure thanks for watching and we'll see you later