The Wyandotte Daily reached out to former District Attorney Jerome Gorman to get his thoughts about the Schlitterbahn case’s financial effects on Wyandotte County.
It was recently reported that the Schlitterbahn case could cost Wyandotte County an estimated $1 million, to be split up into two years under the Unified Government administrator’s proposed budget. The state attorney general is handling the case, and the bills for the prosecution will be sent to Wyandotte County.
District Attorney Mark Dupree told the UG Commission at a budget workshop on Thursday night, July 19, that his predecessor, Jerome Gorman, had written a letter in December 2016 asking the attorney general to review the case. Dupree said he was unaware of this letter for a long period of time. He also stated the $1 million estimate was on the high side. A story about that meeting is at https://wyandotteonline.com/da-explains-1-million-estimated-costs-for-schlitterbahn-prosecution/.
Dupree did not take office until January of 2017. The Wyandotte Daily asked Gorman if he had asked for the review of the Schlitterbahn case, and if he had a comment on the estimated $1 million cost.
Here is former District Attorney Gorman’s statement on it:
“The Schlitterbahn tragedy occurred in August of 2016. I had already lost the primary election for District Attorney. My term was to last through January 8, 2017. My office had worked with the police department through their investigation by obtaining search warrants and advising. It was clear that this matter was both complex and unique.
“On the day after the general election, the District Attorney-Elect informed seven of the most experienced attorneys in the office that he would not be retaining them when he took over as District Attorney. They immediately started looking for other employment. Two other experienced attorneys chose for their own reasons not to stay in the District Attorney’s Office.
“Because of the uniqueness and complexity of the investigation, the police department’s investigation went on for several months. I do not remember the day, but it was late November that I received a phone call from the Attorney General, Derek Schmidt. General Schmidt was inquiring about the status of the Schlitterbahn case. I told him that the police department had not yet finished the investigation and that my office had not yet received a prosecution summary from the police.
“General Schmidt knew that seven experienced attorneys were not being retained in the DA’s Office by the newly elected District Attorney. (General Schmidt hired one of them.) General Schmidt indicated to me that his office would offer to handle the matter. The police file arrived in the DA’s Office sometime in early December. Given the short time left in my term, the number of attorneys that had left for other employment already, and the complexity and uniqueness of the matter it was clear that any decisions on charging and trial of this matter would not be completed during my term.
“The Attorney General and I agreed that it would be best in this particular case to have the more experienced staff of the Attorney General’s Office review and make any charging decisions and then follow up with any prosecution that might result from his decisions. Under K.S.A. 75-702 and 75-704 county and district attorneys have the authority to request assistance from the Attorney General’s office in situations like this and many counties frequently request assistance.
“In regard to the cost of the prosecution I only have a few comments. First, I am not privy to the experts that may be employed in this matter. I am assuming that is what may be driving up the costs. Second, given what I’ve already stated about the complexity and uniqueness, it is not totally unexpected that some type of expert witnesses would be required. I don’t think this case could be prosecuted without some type or level of expert testimony. Thirdly, no matter who prosecuted this case (General Schmidt, Mark Dupree or even myself) there would have been costs as I have already stated. K.S.A. 22a-106 makes the county liable for all reasonable costs of any prosecution. That statute reads, in part:
“22a-106. Assistants, deputies, stenographic, investigative and clerical hire; appointment; compensation; district attorney and assistants full-time positions, law practice prohibited; office space; special counsel. (a) Within the limits of appropriations therefor, the district attorney shall appoint such assistant district attorneys, deputy district attorneys and other stenographic, investigative and clerical hire as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the district attorney’s office in such judicial district, and he shall determine the annual compensation of each assistant district attorney and other persons appointed pursuant to this subsection. The county commissioners shall determine and allow such reasonable sums from funds of the county for the compensation of assistants, deputies and other stenographic, investigative and clerical hire and for other expenses of such office as may be necessary to carry out the function of such office.
“Under the bold and italicized section it is clear that the county is responsible for costs. It would be up to the county (or the county administrator in this case) to challenge whether any particular costs were reasonable and pay only those that they determine reasonable. That is exactly what happens every budget cycle when the county administrator’s office and district attorney’s office determine what a budget would be. There is a line item in the DA budget for experts every year. I’m sure that these costs exceed that amount. So it wouldn’t be unusual for a prosecutor to go back to the county for additional funds to cover the expenses of this case.
“But as far as the actual amounts, I do not have enough information on those experts or other costs to be able to comment.”
When a City /Cities as to KCMO and KCK have such violence what’s a person to do? CCR (concealed carry requirements) be ready!!!