Deceptive Spin: DA Handke's Statements to Media Lead to Alarming Discovery
Court Record Discrepancies Not Adding Up
After The Oversight Chronicles reported the District Attorney had hired an assistant to prosecute cases, who failed the bar exam, District 20’s First Female District Attorney, sat with KTEN News for a story headlined:
“District 20 DA: We need help”.
Although the interview avoided any mention of Alexis Benitez, who sources disclose is on PAID leave so he can study for his next attempt at the bar, one can reasonably believe this piece was an attempt to justify Melissa Handke’s hiring decision after the public learned her newest assistant was unqualified.
In a poor attempt to shift the narrative, Handke brought up caseloads, her difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, and, of course, blamed the SCOTUS decision that the State loves to hate… McGirt.
Let’s Fact Check…
Lowest Caseload in 2020 Due to McGirt
False
The McGirt ruling had no affect on District 20 until March of 2021 when the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt precedent to the Chickasaw Nation, so any drop in caseload in 2020 for District 20 could not possibly be attributed to McGirt.
The obvious explanation for a lower caseloads in 2020 would likely be COVID-19, as the Carter County’s courthouse was closed for nearly 2 months in 2020, by order from the state supreme court, reopening around May of 2020.
However, we decided to research district case filings a bit further to see if we could find any other reason for the “decline” DA Handke described in 2020.
Our first stop for locating data related to District 20’s case loads was the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s FY 2020 Annual Report. Every year, District Court Clerks must compile and submit the number of case filings by type in their county to the Oklahoma Administrator of the Courts for use in the Supreme Court’s Annual Report. The most apparent source of this data would be the system utilized for such filings by these clerks daily, the Oklahoma State Court Network [OSCN].
At first glance, Mrs. Hanke’s statements appear, by the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s data, to be only misleading and not false. However, after comparing a sampling of the two data sources, an alarming discovery was found!
The Supreme Court’s report is supposed to accurately reflect data and provides a table of “District Court Filings by Type”1. We decided to compare a sampling utilizing the reported number of felony case filings in the annual report with the public court records available on the Oklahoma State Court Network [OSCN]2.
We were able to get a count of felony case filings for only Fiscal Year 2020 from OSCN to ensure proper comparison with the Supreme Court’s Annual Report.
What we Found…
It appears District 20 has significantly under reported the number of felony cases filed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, below is a chart comparing the data from each source.
Carter County omitted 417 felony cases from their reporting; Johnston County omitted 101 felony cases; Love County omitted 184 felony cases; Marshall County omitted 76 felony cases; and finally Murray County omitted 120 felony cases from their reporting.
We do not pretend to know why these discrepancies exist, however, the discovery leaves us to question:
Would these low numbers indicate a loss beneficial to the district for securing federal COVID relief funds?
Was the under reporting an attempt to artificially lower crime rate statistics?
Why do you think these cases were under reported?
Rising Caseloads Because of Concurrent Jurisdiction
False
First, let’s clarify, McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S.(2020) also did NOT grant Oklahoma “concurrent jurisdiction”. The legal holding that Handke references that allows for State Courts to adjudicate cases involving Natives American victims is NOT McGirt v. Oklahoma. Her statements to the media misrepresented caselaw, and were simply a divisive regurgitation of anti-tribal political posturing. The legal holding that Handke references in her interview is Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S.(2022), decided nearly two years after McGirt. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Castro-Huerta that “the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.”
So What Does “Concurrent Jurisdiction” Mean?
In Oklahoma, concurrent jurisdiction means that certain offenses can be prosecuted either in state courts, or federal courts within the state. Both state and federal courts have the authority to handle these specific criminal cases. It gives law enforcement and prosecutors the flexibility to choose whether to pursue charges at the state level or the federal level for criminal cases that involve Native American victims. This allows for a more efficient and flexible legal system in addressing these criminal matters.
Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion For Context
Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of prosecutors to make decisions about whether or not to file criminal charges, pursue a case, or negotiate plea deals. This discretionary power is essential for the effective functioning of a District Attorney’s office, and has a direct effect on the caseload.
When this principle is omitted from conversations surrounding concurrent jurisdiction, the public is mislead to believe that District 20 is somehow obligated to file cases with Native American victims, although there is no legal requirement to do so. Castro-Huerta actually makes the opposite quite clear, that cases with Native American victims can be tried not only in Oklahoma courts, but also in federal courts.
The truth is, Handke’s office is under no obligation to file charges in a case with a Native American victim simply because a case gets to them “first”. In fact, a responsible prosecutor, could and should determine if their office can take on these cases without any adverse affects on their staffing, caseloads, or responsibility to prosecute cases they have sole jurisdiction over.
Simply put, if these “Castro-Huerta” cases cause a strain on the office’s resources, the responsible action to take would be to refer such cases to federal prosecutors who are equipped to handle the caseload and retain the local court resources for the cases that are subject ONLY to District 20’s jurisdiction.
The exercise of prosecutorial discretion should be done with a commitment to fairness, transparency, and the pursuit of justice. Handke’s 1st Chair Assistant, Jacobi Whatley, made the office’s motivation of “competition” with “the tribes” and “other state agencies” quite clear.
The prosecutor’s purpose “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”- Kyles, 514 U.S. at 439
All competition is based in “winning”. For prosecutors, a “win” is a conviction. Holding out an office culture or mentality of “competition” with the tribes and other state agencies, in a race to depart Oklahomans from their liberty is not only abhorrent but also contrary to the special duties of a prosecutor [ORPC 3.8].
Lack of Funding? Or Lack of Ethics?
It appears District Attorney Handke needs to acknowledge there are other factors likely contributing to her difficulties recruiting new attorneys. Most candidates preform at least a simple google search of the employer prior to submitting an application. Such a search could reveal working for the District 20 Attorney’s office may pose ethical challenges for individuals who prioritize honesty, integrity, and adherence to ethical standards.
Many qualified attorneys may choose other offices to avoid working with unethical colleagues, such as Fern Smith, due to concerns about damage to personal and professional reputation, legal risks, adverse effects on well-being, challenges in professional development, erosion of trust, and the potential for retaliation. Engaging in or witnessing corrupt practices can create moral dilemmas and discomfort for employees who value ethical conduct.
It is time for Melissa Handke to stop peddling rhetoric to the media and clean house before she tries to sets more seats at the table!
starting on page 25 of Supreme Court of Oklahoma Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020.
searches narrowed by case type for cases filed only in FY2020 [07/01/2019 -06/30/2020].