Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good. All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to tonight's PAVE candidate forum for the District Attorney's race. My name is Deborah Waterman and I will be serving as your moderator this evening. Tonight's forum is brought to you by the Pottawatomie County Advocates for Voter Education, also [snorts] known as PAVE, and is a non-partisan organization that has been serving and educating voters in our community for over 20 years through volunteer work of dedicated local citizens. Our mission is to promote voter engagement and education by providing opportunities for the public to hear directly from the candidates, learn about important issues, and encourage active participation in the election process. Forums like the one being held tonight, along with other community events, are part of that ongoing effort to help make voters informed decisions and to get out to vote. We want to remind everyone that May 22nd is the deadline to register to vote ahead of the upcoming primary election on June 16th. If you are not yet registered to vote, have recently moved, or need to update your voter information, please make plans to do that do so before the deadline. In addition to the primary races, voters will also see State Question 832 on the ballot. Because state questions appear on all ballots regardless of party affiliation, every registered voter has a reason to participate in this election. We encourage everyone to get informed, make a plan, and get out to vote on June 16th. PAVE is also always open to adding to its volunteer team. If anyone is interested in helping support voter education efforts in our community, please speak with one of the identified volunteers following tonight's forum. Before we begin tonight's forum, if you are able, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Attention. Salute. Pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Tonight, we are joined by the candidates for District Attorney, incumbent Ann M. Punter and Daniel McCart. I will now go over the procedures for tonight's program. She's handing out the straw to decide who gets to go first. Each candidate will have 2 minutes for an opening introduction. After introductions, we will move into the question portion of the forum. Each candidate will have 3 minutes to respond to each question. Candidates will be able to track their time by keeping an eye on our signal system, which will light up yellow when they have 30 seconds remaining. The red light indicates the candidate is out of time, and we respectfully request that they conclude their remarks at that time. This helps ensure adequate time for additional questions to be asked throughout the evening. All audience submitted questions are screened for duplicate topics and appropriate content. However, we make every effort to preserve the original wording and intent of each submitted question as much as possible. Each candidate will be asked the same questions, and the order of response will alternate with each new question to ensure fairness throughout the forum. At the end of the forum, each candidate will have 2 minutes for a closing statement. As a reminder, this is a forum, not a debate. The purpose [clears throat] is to give voters an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates about their experience, priorities, and approach to the office. Candidates should use their time to explain their own positions and qualifications rather than personally attacking another candidate. We appreciate both candidates for being here and for their willingness to speak directly with voters. Do we know who's going first? I think I drew the short straw.

[laughter] Yes. I think is this Is that the short straw? He's got the short Okay, we're going to begin with Mr. Panter tonight. And again, these questions will be to both of you and if you need me to repeat a question any point in time, just let me know. We'll start with Mr. Panter. Are we doing the openings first? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm muted so yeah.

if you want. You want to skip that? Well, you can just pass that on. Say, "Hi, I'm Adam." Moving on. But, please start. Um it's been an honor to spend past 3 and 1/2 years serving this district as district attorney. Um I'm hoping I've done David, my friend, proud. Uh and I want to thank PAVE and Ms. Waterman here for putting on this uh service for us. I think it's important that we're able to come in and speak with you with our own voices and not written down on a piece of paper, but um I am a career prosecutor. I have spent nearly two decades um in the courtroom. Most of that serving this district as as a prosecutor. Um I came here right out of law school in 2008 and began my career as an assistant district attorney serving this community. Um I raised my family here. And over time, I became one of the most successful and experienced prosecutors in the state of Oklahoma. Um I have tried hundreds of jury trials successfully. I've only lost two in my in my nearly 18-year career. Uh during that time, I I rose up to first assistant district attorney. I led this office from the front lines during that time in the courtroom fighting. Spent another 4 years in the Oklahoma County DA's office as a team leader. Uh while I was there, prosecuted mainly homicides and major crimes. Um after during that same time, I was appointed as a special assistant United States attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma where I prosecuted helped prosecute domestic violence-related gun crimes. Um after successfully prosecuting thousands of cases in Oklahoma County in and this district and putting hundreds of murderers and rapists prison, um I agreed to come back. I agree with David Hammer. He reached out, asked me to come back and help him turn this office around. The office was in a nightmare condition. And I agreed to come. Governor Stitt appointed me. I came. I I was committed to righting the ship. And at this point we've built the best DA's office in the state. We've gone from the worst to the best. And June on June 16th, I'm going

to ask you for your vote so that I can remain in office and continue doing what we have started. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Daniel. Yeah, thank you so much. My name's Daniel McClure. I'm obviously running for District Attorney. Thank you again for putting this on. This is a great event. I'm currently serving as the mayor of McLoud and blessed to have been doing that. I'll tell you a little bit about myself. I am really proud of the work we've done in McLoud. And my priorities in the DA's office, first and foremost is justice for victims and safe communities. I think that's the vital focal point that we have to have when making decisions in the DA's office. Second, what's really important to me is is transparency. I think that not just in our community, but really across the country, we have a great distrust of government. And I think the only way we fix that is by having a transparent government. And as I've been speaking to voters across our district, a common theme that I've been seeing is we don't know what's going on with our cases. We we want to know what's happening next. And I want to help comfort those victims and those families by having a completely transparent system and being honest and upfront all the time. The third priority that I have is I really want to focus on accountability for political corruption. Where I serve as mayor, we've had a number of political corruption issues. And to date, we've had no accountability for those issues. In spite of turning those issues in, trying to work through and find a resolution for those. That that saddens my heart. My community is out taxpayer dollars just under $100,000 for political corruption-related issues. And that's not okay to me. And as I've been campaigning I've been getting calls from all across the district. I got a call this morning from a mayor that said, "Here's all the corruption issues I have. I'm really excited to hear that you're running on that issue." and and it's important to people. So, look forward to sharing more with you about the campaign and what I have to offer and I thank you all for being here. Thank you very much. All right. And with that we will begin with the questions. And again we will start with Adam. Um

We're going to jump right in. All right. Recently former cop Shawnee uh Shawnee cop Gary Moore was fired for selling cocaine. What are your feelings on prosecuting people in positions of trust who violate the law? I hold people that are in positions of trust who violate the law to a higher to a higher standard. Um they're in positions of trust. Uh whenever we have persons out there in the field and we give them this this trust and and not only just my office but the public gives the the police officers trust, we have to be able to to believe that they're doing the right things uh with the power in the positions that they hold. As it was with the officer Moore, my office was actually the one who led the undercover investigation to be able to nab uh officer Moore. My undercover officers from my task force spent a couple months uh doing undercover buys from him in a bar until we were able to develop a solid enough case that led to a search warrant and led to his arrest. And currently we're awaiting sentencing on his case where we will be asking the judge to give him uh prison time on the on the case. So, um I believe it is in very important to hold those persons accountable. Um it's paramount to our system that whenever we have persons in positions of trust and authority over us that those persons uh are willing to come in and do the job and do a job honestly and ethically and that that's or else our whole system falls apart. And hold not hold them accountable uh will just it leads to chaos. Thank you. Absolutely. I'm glad that individual officer is is going to be facing justice. I represent a number of cities across the state and we've come across that issue number of times where police officers or public officials are engaged in inappropriate or unlawful conduct. Every single time I've experienced that issue, we are prompt, we're honest, we're transparent, we tell everyone what we're doing, and we hold them accountable. Our system breaks down when we don't do that and I think there's there's too much of that in our community and our society and absolutely

tough on crime and they need to be held to the highest standard and every single time. Thank you. All right. Along the same similar lines, if someone you personally knew or considered a friend was found to have committed a crime, would you be able to set aside that friendship in order to carry out the job voters elected you to do fairly and impartially, Daniel? So, the ethics rules have processes for that. I don't think we're talking about that, but generally, yes, absolutely. It doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter how important you are, how powerful you are, if you're close to the seat of power or not, you have to be held to the same standards that everyone else is have to follow. It shouldn't matter who you know, it matters what the law is and we should apply the law and protect the community every single time. So, absolutely every single time. Madam? Agree. I have prosecuted judges, I've prosecuted police officers, I've prosecuted business owners, community leaders. I prosecute them all. People I know, people I've respected at one point and I've done it because that's what the law requires of me to do. Whenever you do this job, you have to do it with neutrality but a passion, but it has to be a neutral passion. You have to be able to seek justice and take away the face that's on the other side of the the aisle. It's really important very important that Let me take a step back. The purpose our role as a prosecutor isn't to seek justice. So, whenever you're seeking justice, we're not just wanting to punish somebody in a certain way or this person the other way. What we're wanting to is seek accountability for that person's actions based on those actions. And I don't care about a person's job, I don't care about their last name, I don't care about their socioeconomic status, nothing. I treat everybody the same based on the crime they committed and the best way to seek justice for either that victim or on behalf on behalf of the community for that offense.

Thank you. Okay. Daniel, do you need me to Yeah, if you would one more time. Um if someone you personally knew or considered a friend Oh, yeah, I answered that one. Okay. I thought there was a different one. Yeah. That one answered one. We're good. All right. And I'm sorry, I should have I got confused there. Trying to keep track here. All right. Um this will be for Adam to start. What conflicts of interest do you currently have if any with any Pottawatomie County elected or non-elected officials, including uh in the town of Pottawatomie County, anywhere in the town of Pottawatomie County? Uh So, conflict of what? Do you currently have with any Pottawatomie County elected or non-elected officials? I don't believe I have any conflicts with them, but DA's offices, by law, are required to provide legal representation to all county elected officials. Uh so, naturally, if we're the something comes up with an elected official, that's something we have to take a step back and see if our civil representation of that official will conflict with any type of criminal action, if any. Uh but to to to basically give the answer nobody likes to hear, it depends on the circumstances. Uh but generally, if it doesn't conflict with whatever we are advising an elected official of civically, then it shouldn't affect what we do criminally. Okay. So, I guess my answer is no, I don't believe I have any conflicts. Thank you for that. Yeah, I don't think I have any conflict. I presume mean conflicts of interest is what I think they're meaning there. I I don't have any conflicts of interest. I guess I just generally don't have any conflict either way I guess. I just try to do the right thing all the time but no I don't have any conflicts of interest or conflicts during that I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. All right. The prior administration consisted of defense attorneys who were not good at giving proper and just punishments. What are your views on being able to switch the defense attorney mindset to continue to hold defenders accountable with prison sentences and not compliance dockets. That'll be you Daniel. Yeah, I think first you need to look at

the world view and what our goal is. Our goal is to seek justice and like I said earlier to protect the community. So absolutely first and foremost we have to administer justice to protect the community. And if the the person engaged in conflict and engaged in unlawful conduct is a danger to the community they need to go to prison. We need to protect the prison every single time. I've engaged in a lot of defense work I've only I think had a handful of cases on on that side of things so I have no problems with that. I've served as a prosecutor and I think and we should uphold the law and administer justice. Okay. Thank you Adam. I think the problem with the prior administration wasn't so much an inability to understand the law. It was an inability to prosecute. They they knew criminal law. They practiced criminal law on the defense side and they walked into an office and none of them had any criminal prosecution experience and what happened is we they turned one of the best DA's offices in the state into the absolute worst within a period of months. Um about hundreds of thousands of dollars missing from budgets, victims getting zero justice, murders and rapists literally walking free on our streets. Um the moment I walked into that office this that changed. The moment we walked into that office that changed. I brought in experienced prosecutors who knew what they were doing. We know how to handle cases. We know how to put people bad people in prison. We also know how to recognize those people that need help for their mental health issues or their substance abuse issues. I'm a huge proponent of mental health court, and of drug courts, and those alternative courts for the people that we can help get the treatment and stuff they need to recognize that they can be a a productive member of society at some point if they receive that proper help. But at the same time, be able to recognize those people out there that are just going to continue to be leeches on society, or hurt people, or uh steal, lie, cheat, you name it, to other people, we have to be able to recognize those, separate them out, and be able to prosecute, have the capability to prosecute, and send them to prison. Thank you. Well, and following in that vein, we will start with you, Adam, with this

next question. What prosecution experience do you have? Well, I think I went over a lot of it in my opening statement, uh but I've done this for nearly two decades now. Um I have prosecuted everything that a DA's office can prosecute. Um I have specialized at points with child abuse homicides, complex homicides, uh death penalty cases, you name it. I have uh I've had experience in the federal system as a special assistant United States Attorney. I have probably more jury trial experience than any other district attorney out there, and I and that's not to speak ill of anybody else, but that's just the reality. I have spent my career in a courtroom, uh putting on evidence, and holding people accountable. Thank you. Thank you. So, I have served as an assistant district attorney for uh a short time. I've served as as a municipal prosecutor as well. Um I also bring to the table um a a broader array of experiences. I've represented local governments, county governments, fire governments, a lot of those uh governmental affair work that will impact uh county representation that Adam mentioned earlier. Um I've also represented children and family in uh deprived cases. And so, I think I I'm bringing something a little different to the table. It's a a a broader brush of experience, and a different way of looking at things, and I think that equips me well for the job. Thank you. All right, we'll kind of start with you, Daniel, on this next one. It appears that some cases in Pottawatomie County involving fentanyl have gone without charges or prosecution. And as the DA, how do you plan to approach cases like these? So, I've heard anecdotally some of these things as well. Fentanyl is a terrible, atrocious thing. It's a plague on our community. If you're selling fentanyl in our community and you're trafficking drugs in our community, I'm going to send you to prison for the maximum amount of time. That substance kills families, breaks breaks the bond of families and parents and children. It kills people on a regular basis. So, I'm not going to let that slide, and I'm

there's going to be max punishments on that. Fentanyl's dangerous, and we have to get it out of our community. Thank you. Do you need me to repeat the question? Uh fentanyl and lack of prosecution?

Yes, basically. So, I I I would tend to So, one of my first priorities of coming in the office, because I knew the the scourge fentanyl has. I had I know people personally in this community, friends of mine who have had who have lost children due to uh fentanyl over overdose. And sometimes it's due to fake pills or something that it's a one-time occurrence. It's an awful thing. So, one of my first priorities was establishing my drug task force. And one of their top priorities is eliminating the scourge of fentanyl and methamphetamine in this community. And when we have targeted fentanyl to the point where we have put dozens of dealers in prison for life. Um we show no mercy to a fentanyl dealer. And we have tracked down dealers in Oklahoma City. We have tracked down cartels in Texas. We are shutting those things down. At this point, the word on the street is that you cannot find a fentanyl dealer in the city of Shawnee or in Pottawatomie County, because they know that if they get caught, they will go to prison for life. Dealers are scuttling back to Oklahoma City, because they're afraid of what we are doing. They they see us around every corner, and I intend to keep it that way. Uh fentanyl overdose deaths have dropped exponentially since we since I made it in office. Uh every day they they go we get less and less and less. We see fentanyl fewer and fewer and fewer times. Uh and I hope to get to the point where we don't see a single single possession of fentanyl case in this district at all. Thank you. All right, we'll start here again, Adam. What are your feelings on DUI and alcohol offenses, and should anyone receive special treatment or dispensation in the prosecutions of? So, I People who drink and drive need to be held accountable. Um absolutely. It's a It's a very selfish crime. It's something that can lead to tra- tragic consequences. I've put on enough jury trials for uh DUI manslaughters and DUI murders uh for that I've talked to I don't know how many families of victims

um going through the court process, explaining it to the loved ones of the consequences and how we're going to try to achieve justice uh for them and for their loved ones. Uh so, every time we get a DUI case, we treat it absolutely seriously. It's something that we look at all the factors involved. We look at somebody's history. We look at um whether somebody has addiction problems. We look at the totality of the picture, and we try to determine, "Okay, is this again somebody that we need to be harsher on? Is this somebody that we need to make sure they get into drug court and they can get clean?" Um so, it it's handled on a case-by-case basis, but it's absolutely something that we take seriously in this district. Danny? Yeah, can you read me the the last part that I think there's a cut out at the bottom?

anyone receive special treatment or dispensation in the prosecution of a DUI? Okay. Yeah, I thought that's what the question was. So, absolutely not. There's no special treatment. Um I think it goes to one of the first questions. It doesn't matter who you are, who you know. Everyone gets treated fairly, and we're seeking justice to protect our community. So, um I agree with what Mr. Payne has said there. Some people need uh programs, some people are uh repeat offenders, and they're a danger to our society, and they should go to jail. Um but to answer the question directly, no, everyone is going to be treated the same. Uh our our pursuit of justice will be the same no matter who you are. Thank you. All right. Daniel, start with you. Do you believe it is the responsibility of the District Attorney's office to review all available evidence, including information provided by the defense that may support dismissal prior to moving a case forward into court? Well, I mean, I think initially when you file the case, you're not going to have everything [clears throat] from every piece of evidence. You're going to charge a case based off of having sufficient evidence to charge the offense. Uh but of course, I'm open to looking at all of the evidence uh that's available. The last thing that we want to do is convict someone who is innocent of a crime. So, uh certainly, we'll look at all the evidence, uh weigh it, and give it its appropriate weight, and make the appropriate decision uh in that pursuit of justice. Thank you. Madam? Um I agree, it'd be absolute malpractice for a prosecutor not to look at all pieces of evidence that are available to them. In fact, the law requires that we do that. Um and I will tell you as in my 20-year career prosecuting, anytime somebody has come forward and they a defense attorney, whether it's another witness, or if you name it, they come forward and they offer up a legitimate piece of evidence or uh a reason or something that raises our mind there's a possibility somebody's innocent. You press the brakes immediately, full stop, you investigate it, and you make sure because the last thing any prosecutor ever wants to do is put an innocent person in jail or punish an innocent person, period. Because the not only are

we taking away somebody's constitutional rights in those cases, uh you're also leaving potentially another suspect out there to hurt other people. So, absolutely, you know, if somebody comes forward with that, we look at it. It to do otherwise would be malpractice. Okay. Adam, we'll start with you on this one. When citizens submit complaints involving public infrastructure projects, grant funding, utilities, land development, or municipal decision-making, what standards should the public expect your office to apply before determining whether a matter warrants criminal investigation, ethics review, recusal, referral to another agency, or no action at all? Well, in I think this raises a an excellent point when it comes to why experience is important because whenever you get information like that that comes in, you don't automatically just make decisions based on what's in front of you. You got to you have to review it, but then you also have to talk to the appropriate law enforcement agencies because things like that need a proper criminal investigation. Because if they're not properly criminally investigated, you could end up with charges on somebody, and with a stroke of a pen, the district attorney can change somebody's life for the worst. Uh even if it's a something that gets dismissed down the line, it changes their life because that's going to follow them for the rest of their lives. So, you have to be sure whenever you file that charge that you know you know that that is something that is worthy of of a criminal charge if so there's some some sort of violation. So, whenever we get that almost everything is always looked at in the vein of is there something criminal here? And if so, we refer it to the proper law enforcement agency to do a proper investigation. And then once they do the criminal investigation, we review it with them, and then we make the determination if charges are appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Read that one more time for me.

Okay. When citizens submit complaints involving public infrastructure projects, grant funding, utilities, land development, or municipal decision-making, what standards should the public expect your office to apply before determining whether a matter warrants criminal investigation, ethics review, recusal, referral to another agency, or no action at all. Yeah, I mean you just have to review the facts. I largely agree with Adam there. It depends on the facts. The facts matter in our world. So, uh you could have something as simple as open meetings violation. I'm not going to send that off for 3 years of investigation. That was pretty straightforward. We have the minutes. Um if it's something more complex, of course we work with our law enforcement partners to to get the information correctly. But I think from a broader perspective that goes to how we're addressing um issues in the community. Those corruption issues that we have uh that I think are are prevalent and a lot of times not being addressed fully. I think that leads our communities to have trust issues and they see it and I understand at times they're not as big as a murder case and sometimes they maybe they don't get charged as quickly as as someone would like. But for me that's a priority. It's a priority because it's a trust issue. It's an accountability issue and we have to get to the bottom of that. We have to fix government because government without ethics is is not government at all. Thank you. Adam or Danny, we'll start with you on this since then we're going to get into a series of similar questions. Uh child abuse cases are often difficult to prosecute due to delayed disclosure, trauma responses, or limited physical evidence. How would you ensure these cases are still taken seriously and thoroughly pursued? I'm first one on that one, right? Yes, you are.

Okay. Yeah, absolutely. We have a number of these cases I've worked in on our our DHS cases. They're called child maltreatment cases, but everyone else in the community calls them uh DHS cases. Um you have to work with your investigating partners on that. Um we have great forensic interviewers in the community and they do a great job working with those children. And sometimes it does take time um for the children to process their trauma and to work through it to where they're comfortable enough to communicate that with um with someone. And so, top priority of mine, protecting children is is so important. Um and so, we have to we have to be thorough, we have to be diligent, and we have to work through that evidence as it comes. Thank you. Adam, do you need me to reread it? Yes, if you don't mind. Child abuse cases are often difficult to prosecute due to delayed disclosure, trauma responses, or limited physical evidence. How would you ensure these cases are still taken seriously and thoroughly pursued? Well, as an experienced child abuse prosecutor, there's there's a multi-step uh way you have to handle this problem. Um first off, you have to have people that can identify um ways to get admissible evidence to be able to prove a case. So, it all it all boils down to whether uh we have enough evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. And in some of those cases, it's very difficult to prove due to the reasons you've explained. Um so, that's why it's important that we do it what's called a multi-disciplinary team approach. Uh those are the protocols we have in place right now. As the district attorney, I'm the head of the multi-disciplinary team in this district. And what we are is a group of law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates in the community, mental health providers, um child welfare, you name it. All these groups are together, we review these cases, and we discuss them, and we look at uh what can we do to get justice for this child? Or what How can we help uh this person? How can we build a case that's going to be stronger? And then you have to have a prosecutor that is capable of taking that information

that you can gain from a child and being able to present it in a manner manner that's effective in court, in a manner that can, you know, it convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened to the child. And it's not always an easy thing. Um for example, uh my my main child abuse prosecutor, uh she teaches at forensic interviewing school. So, she actually teaches other forensic interviewers how to speak with children to be able to do uh learn and elicit evidence or you're locate evidence from children who are uh talking to them. Um and you also have to be familiar with um it anatomy even. Uh there there's so many scientific you break it down to so many scientific levels sometimes on uh how just because you don't see a visible injury doesn't mean there's not an injury. So, that's where a lot of the expertise comes into into play and that's why um it's really important to have all those other agencies looking at it together and doing the collaborative effort. Thank you. This will be a follow-up question. Um we'll start with you, Adam. What specific steps would you take to reduce additional trauma to child victims during the investigation and prosecution process? Okay, great question. So, uh we have what are called child hearsay laws. Um in fact, my office in my my child abuse prosecutor, we were part of the the state uh we authored and helped get past legislation uh the other year to increase the age from 13 to 16 years old that would allow child hearsay into courtroom proceedings. Um and the reason for that is we want to lessen the amount of trauma, lessen the amount of times a child has to repeat the the testimony or the story they've given. And to do that, we also have to be able to utilize effective um child advocacy centers doing forensic interviews. We have to be able to properly um question those witnesses to elicit the the evidence that they provided. We also have to be familiar with um other type of hearsay laws and exceptions that

allow us to get in the evidence uh that's been elicited from that child through different source to lessen the amount of times or lessen the impact that child would have to testify. The goal ultimately is that child would have to testify once at trial if we get to that point. And we think is the we keep it at a minimum, we lessen that trauma, and the better the better that child is in the long run. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I largely agree with that. The less number of times we have children on the stand protects them and re-traumatizing them is is terrible. So, largely agree with the hearsay exception requirements and put them on the stand as as little as possible is the best we could do. Okay. Thank you. This is a little bit long. We may need to break it up a little bit. Um we'll start with you, Daniel. The Court of Criminal Appeals in the State versus Green case where the court held that unborn children can be victims of child neglect. If you were elected prosecutor, would you hold those who harm unborn children criminally responsible? Such as would you prosecute women women who use methamphetamine, fentanyl, and other illegal drugs that end up harming their unborn children? If such child dies after being exposed to the drugs while in utero, should that be prosecuted? And what would be a just outcome for that case? Yes, prosecute them for that. Huge believer that birth begins at conception, so all the instances you described obviously um unacceptable and would would charge for that. The last part I didn't hear on the last part of the What would be an outcome for that case? Like I guess if you did prosecute What would be a just outcome for that?

substantial jail time prison time rather. The idea and we've seen that in a number of cases uh recently where you have someone who who keeps having children and they keep having babies that they're harming. That's not okay and if they're in prison, we can prevent them from keep reproducing and keep harming additional children in the womb by keep using harmful drugs and keep having babies. So, absolutely. Thank you, Daniel. And Um I'm one of the few DAs in the state that we have a policy we aggressively prosecute anybody that uses drugs while their child is in utero. Um I am a lifelong Christian. I believe strongly in um protecting infants and babies and I agree with Mr. McClure. I believe um life begins at conception. So, whenever I see a parent or a mother come in and they're consistently using drugs while pregnant with a child, that tells me exactly all I need to know about that person is that they're they don't care about their baby. They care about themselves. Um I have cases right now. I have we've we've charged multiple multiple women with uh with doing that. We've charged their um spouses or partners for providing those drugs. We've sent people to prison. In fact, there's a case right now where we have a mother who um had had one baby with had drugs in his system, then had another baby who died because of drug overdose while in utero had meth amount of methamphetamine in the fetus that could kill an adult. And I've caught a lot of criticism from the from some in the community for prosecuting that case hard, but I believe that we need to treat that uh we need to treat it harshly or else it doesn't stop. We keep seeing it. If there are no consequences to somebody's criminal actions like that, it doesn't end. So, it's something I take very seriously and you know, it is something that track record of doing. Thank you. Okay, and we're going to start with you

on this next one. How would you, if elected district attorney, address the current handling of juvenile sex offenders, particularly regarding gaps in supervision and long delays before court-mandated outpatient treatment begins? Would you support changes to the current protocol and if so, what changes would you advocate for? Okay, so just want to be clear. Sure. How would I change juvenile sex offense laws to quicken the process? Essentially, the current handling sees there's gaps in supervision and long delays before the court-mandated treatment begins.

Okay. So, our juvenile delinquent system is is vastly different from the criminal system. The criminal system is about punishment. Um juvenile system is entirely about rehabilitation. Uh the the goal is for a juvenile that that comes in and has offenses charged against them if they are they somebody that we can rehabilitate? And there's a lot of services out there that we send those juveniles to, a lot of experts that specialize in treatment of that. Now, obviously, you have to be able to identify ones that are not able to be rehabilitated. Uh but the reality is because they're kids, we have a lot of rules in place uh to ensure that um those children are not just uh kept away from others so other children may be safe around them, but they're also safe themselves and receiving the help that they need. The law requires that those children uh be given the help that they need. Now, I'm not really familiar I My experience with the system there's not many gaps involved in the supervision. As soon as an offense comes in, it's reviewed by law enforcement, it's brought to our office, we file a petition, um they they immediately get supervised by the uh office of juvenile affairs. Um and if it's something that requires them to go in some type of uh lockup facility, that's where they go. If it's something that requires them to immediately go to a treatment facility, that's where they go. We look at what the best option is for that kid based on their needs at the time. So. Thank you. I think generally the question's about the the expediency of the cases I took the question. Um of course, we need to work expeditiously to get those juvenile children evaluated and into the appropriate place. That might mean detention. If they're repeat offenders and a danger to the community, that may mean uh services and programs to uh deter their behavior, correct it, and prevent future victims. But John, I think the question is about the timeline. I think we need to we need to move quickly. I agree with Adam. I think this cases I've seen seem to be working pretty quickly. I mean, there were a lot

of those cases go through and um that's really important. But I think identifying I know that that question may be timed at some of the other other counties. There's a lot of juvenile uh sex cases that are all over the the news right now and um you have to seek justice for those victims and you have to get the about the proper evaluations done. I'm down to about two more questions. Do it's anybody else in the audience going to be wanting to submit anything? Now would be about the time to do it. I'll She has a whole stack it looks like there. She's kind of all we could we go here for a while but I want to respect everybody's time. We have tons of email questions. That's great. Awesome. Okay, well we will continue on and we will start with let's see when we look at what we got. Um, I'm going to go ahead and answer or ask this one that I was working on here a little bit. Uh, Daniel we'll start with you. If elected DA, what steps would you take to address the ongoing issue of pedophiles being allowed to roam free in the community such as holding jobs around children. What would you do to ensure our children in schools, parks, churches, and shopping are all protected in our community? Yeah, pedophiles are are the just the scum of the earth or let's just call it what it is. Um, children are so vulnerable and special and a blessing from God and we have to protect them. So, um, number one, maximum incarceration every time. Uh, we need to address, um, the bond process. I think the question may be going to that a little bit as well. There's a number of those individuals in the community that get, uh, very low bond amounts and they're right back on the street with the opportunity to re-offend. Uh, I've seen cases, uh, in our community where, um, those individuals may get probation, um, and are back on the streets and um, it depends on on on the offender understand the circumstance but we have to do everything we can to keep them off the streets and keep them from being predators on our children. Um, that's just a top priority. Thank you. Do you need me to repeat it? Uh, no, I think I get it. I agree with with Daniel there. There one of the main issues is bond. Um, the

district attorneys do not get to choose what the bond amount is in a case. That's up to the court. Um, I've been critical of judges and I've vocally, uh, even with judges for setting very low bond amounts. One of the things we fight in court all the time is trying to increase bonds, largely unsuccessfully. Um, but we still make the effort because I feel like that if we don't try, even if we're going to know we know it's going to be unsuccessful, then we're not doing our jobs. Uh, but we're one of the probably one of the most aggressive child predator prosecution teams in the state. We we put people in prison over and over and over. We have a track record for it. Um, Now, obviously every case has its fact different facts and different issues, but we also have a policy we do not do anything ever in my office without uh, the victim's input. And we follow their advice on these cases because I believe it is extremely important to include them in the in any type of plea agreement process. Uh, but but the walking the street and the being in the parks, that raises a good question. Um, the Shawnee PD, I'll actually give them a shout out. They have an excellent excellent sex offender registry program. They're very aggressive. Um, they communicate with us frequently and they're going out and and if the sex offenders are a day late or they're in the wrong spot, they are arresting them, bringing them to us and we're sending them to prison. Um, and we want that. We want to stay on top of them because we don't want them going to our parks or places. In fact, um, me and my first assistant, Miss McConnell, uh, got legislation in into the um, I think it's maybe it passed the house and the senate by now, uh, to increase zone of safety laws. Basically right now, it is not illegal for a sex offender to go hang out at a water park where a bunch of children are swimming. It's not illegal for them to go hang out by themselves at a roller skating rink. Unattended unsupervised around a bunch of children. We're trying to spread those laws to try to include any place where children

gather for any type of entertainment purposes to include a a prohibition against sex offenders uh, being loitering, residing near, or being at period those places. So, we're being proactive with our efforts to try to eliminate uh, sex offenders being able to freely roam our streets and uh, have access to easy access to children. Thank you. All right. We're going to swing back around to some family court issues here again. And this will be for Adam. How do you balance protecting children from genuine abuse while also safeguarding families from wrongful accusations that may permanently damage relationships, reputations, or parental rights? Absolutely. That That again falls back when I spoke about the NDT earlier. So, all the professionals in that room including uh, prosecutors from our office, we're all trained to be able to identify uh, times where a child may be coached or evidence may be manufactured. Uh, that's some one of the first things we look at in cases. But also the reality is false reporting by children is very rare. False reporting by children is a very low percentage. And that doesn't mean we blindly follow, but what we're doing is we have experts in investigation and the other fields and we're able to look for other evidence. And that other evidence what we're looking for would be to corroborate what the child is saying. And if you find evidence to corroborate what a child is saying, that tends to tell you that what they're saying is the truth. Because one of the sayings we have in in prosecution is that people lie, physical evidence or scientific evidence doesn't. Um, so those are little things we try to look at to ensure that we are not charging somebody uh, wrongfully or we're not removing somebody's child wrongfully. That is a very important thing that we look at as a team to ensure that that doesn't happen cuz the last thing we ever want to do is uh, violate somebody's constitutional rights

by taking away a child unjustly. Thank you. So, I agree to the extent that we have to um, protect children. We have to look at the evidence, apply the evidence, and get the children out of those houses that are dangerous to them. I think the second part of the question is really important about how do we protect from children being taken from homes unjustly. And just to be super blunt with you all, I've been really discouraged in a number of cases that I've seen where I see witnesses lie on the stand. I see DHS workers say things as truth and fact, and either it's a bold-face lie, or they did a really poor job investigating and put inaccurate information into the record. So, to your second part of that question was how do you prevent against that? You you have to hold DHS accountable and respectfully, I don't see a lot of that. I saw about a month ago we had someone lie on the stand. That's not okay. And if we start holding those people who lie on the stand accountable and we charge them for lying on the stand, they will stop lying on the stand. And I'm just really passionate about that. We we have to protect kids, and that they're our first and foremost priority. But ripping children out of homes and re-traumatizing them because we have lying witnesses and and lying DHS folks, that's not okay. And I'll provide a caveat here before someone sends me a message. We have some great DHS workers. We have some really top-notch folks in our community. And we have some that really probably should go to prison. And I think that's going to be a priority of mine is to hold those individuals accountable to tell the truth 100% of the time. Thank you. Okay, now follow-up question, and we'll start with you, Daniel. What standards of integrity and evidentiary review would guide your office in ensuring accusations are thoroughly investigated before prosecution, particularly in cases where conflicting family dynamics may exist? Oh man, that's a that's a great question. You have so many cases where one side says this happened, one side says another happens.

We have to take children at their word, but we have to work the the and and weigh the evidence. And that's where our experts come into play and they can help through that process, but evaluating that evidence is really really important. Um cuz the last thing we want to do is take a child from a house unnecessarily, but I think just you have to weigh the evidence, you have to um be ethical and apply those ethical standards. Thank you. Well, the law requires us to be ethical. Um so, whenever we get a charge packet, and we call that a charge packet, it's when the police officers either come in and screen a case with us or provide police reports and photographs and other pieces of evidence. The first thing we do is review that. And sometimes we review it and talk talk about it amongst ourselves as prosecutors. Uh but the goal is is to can we prove with admissible admissible evidence that a crime occurred beyond a reasonable [clears throat] doubt? If we don't have enough evidence to prove a crime has occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, but we think there could be further investigation, we contact that detective or that police agency. We send it back and we give them follow-up instructions. Go talk to this witness, please gather this, please do this. And the the goal is to be able to get a prosecutable case, but also we it's not only do we have to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we also have to disprove all reasonable theories of innocence. And that is one of the main goals we look at. So, when a police officer or law enforcement makes an arrest, they make an arrest based on probable cause. And probable cause is a low standard. It's basically is it more likely than not that this person committed a crime. So, you can make an arrest on that, but actually convicting somebody we have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So, even though we can make an arrest and charge somebody on that, we have an ethical duty um as prosecutors that we do not charge any case that we do not believe we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And if any point in the process we run into an issue that says, "Hey, you there's a reasonable theory of innocence here that we can't overcome." Then again, like I said before, we you hit

the brakes, you stop, you take a step back, you re-evaluate, and if that calls for dismissal, it's dismissal. If that calls for uh renegotiation of of plea agreements or whatever, it that's what we do. So, it's highly important at the outset of a case to be able to evaluate the the reports and the charges and the witnesses and the evidence and be able to determine, can we prove this or not? Thank you. Okay. We'll start with you again, Adam. What specific steps can you take as district attorney to facilitate a grassroots approach that encourages collaboration between community members, city and county law enforcement to effectively address and solve crime in our neighborhoods? That's a great question. So, um it historically whenever I back before I went to Oklahoma County, I I admired a program that Sheriff former Sheriff of Lincoln County, Charlie Dougherty, had. Um he had a monthly um police chiefs meetings where he met at a restaurant, him and any law enforcement that wanted to come. Chiefs, assistant chiefs, detectives, you name it, they came. And we sit down and we would talk, we'd go through problems and that we're having, we'd discuss cases, we discuss issues. And so, whenever I came back and and um the one of the first things I did is reach out to to Counsel Police Chief J.R. Kidney, and I said, I want to start this program here. So, now for the past 3 and 1/2 years, we've been we have uh nearly every monthly meetings with all the chiefs of police here in uh Pottawatomie County. And and in addition to that, so not just the communication with the law enforcement agencies, um I've also trying to expand communication with um having regular meetings with the area superintendents of schools, because I I believe that proper crime prevention doesn't necessarily occur at our level. We we are here to yes, get crime, try to eliminate it from the streets, but also if we don't attack the root cause of the issue, we're never going to fix the problem, we're just

going to get a new batch coming down the line. So, if my goal is to be able to be in the schools more effectively, provide education, provide advice, guidance, whatever that whatever that means, mentoring, to try to eliminate the problem as it's before it you know gets to that point of you know having to come to criminal court and deal with it there. Thank you. In my previous role in the city council, we had a program where we connected community members with members of law enforcement to increase awareness of issues in the community. That would be something I would definitely be interested in doing here. I think when you connect the community with law enforcement, number one, you gain that that collaboration, those efforts together, but the community also can learn from law enforcement what to be on on the lookout for, how to be a good community partner, and how to engage with law enforcement. So, that's something I've done before. I think it'll be very successful here. Another thing that I think we can focus on is working with our churches and community groups as well. There's a lot of people in our community that are engaging in bad conduct cuz they have bad friends in bad places. And so, if we can get as many people out of bad bad places and away from their bad friends, and we can do that with churches and community groups, then we can get ahead of crime and and get people on the right track. Thank you. And Daniel, what factors should guide your recommendations on bail for non-violent versus violent offenses? Yeah, there's there's a a number of factors under the law. Um To to to to essentially summarize it, we're looking at you know, if this is person a flight risk, is this person a danger to the community, community connections, things of that of that nature. For me, it's really really really really important to beat home the argument on is this person a danger to the community. I understand the entire list of factors are applicable in those proceedings, but it's really important to consider and address with the court this person's safety if we put them back out on the street.

And and we've seen cases where people who probably shouldn't be put out and who re-offend while on on bail. And that's that's why that's so important. We have to protect our community and you do that by really beating home those factors, but I mean for me first and foremost is this person dangerous to the community. And if they are, we need to fight like heck to keep them in jail. Thank you. Adam. And I agree. We we the very first thing we look at because the law requires us bail to be set based on two factors. Are they a flight risk and are they a danger to the community? Largely and and I'm sorry if I've offended any judges out there, but judges tend to forget the fact that they need to consider how dangerous this person is to the community. Now a non-violent low-level property crime, I can understand setting a lower bond, absolutely. But a violent crime where there's a victim out there that's probably scared for their life, absolutely there should be a much higher bond. We fight that all the time in the courtroom. Not only because we want to, but because Marcy's Law requires that and that's something we take seriously. I have dealt with way too many cases in my career of people that post bond, they get out and then they re-victimize somebody or they re-offend, commit another crime, victimizing another person in the community. And that makes me sick to my stomach. In fact, I dealt with a death penalty case in Oklahoma County where a guy judge gave a guy who committed a domestic against his ex-wife, judge lowered his bond to just a really low dumb amount. He's bonds out and she's dead within a week. And we fought like like hell in that case to keep that from happening because we knew it was going to happen because all of his behaviors indicated that this was what would happen. So I take that very seriously. When I look at a case, I think is this person going to get out and hurt another person? Absolutely, then we fight to keep that one keep them in jail. Thank you.

Adam, we'll start with you on this one. As district attorney, how would each of you define the difference between a direct benefit, an indirect benefit, an appearance of impropriety, or an actual prosecutable violation of Oklahoma law? Let's see. Say that again. The difference Define the difference between a direct benefit, an indirect benefit, an appearance of impropriety, or an actual prosecutable violation of an Oklahoma law. Well, I I I don't know if necessarily all those have a are connected really. I don't know that they are, either. I could say that we I as I said before, we have an ethical duty not to file anything that we do not believe uh we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Um so, uh just because law enforcement may make an arrest based on probable cause doesn't necessarily mean we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But, what happens is we get a report in, we go over it, we do follow-up questions if we can. Um is there probable cause there? Almost every time, absolutely. But, based on the facts and evidence we have, we comb through all the statutes, criminal statutes, and we try to think, "Okay, what crime is there present within this set of facts that we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt?" If we don't find one, then there's no charge that comes. Um and and that's it. There's not a lesser crime you can charge somebody with just because you have less evidence. It's all about how much evidence do you have, and is that evidence admissible, and does that evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime has occurred? Okay. Thank you. Well, I presume the question's probably focused on the constitutional conflict of interest provisions is I think what that is probably going to. So, um which is mirrored in the statute. Essentially, what I think the question's trying to target um if you have an a direct interest uh if you're on a city council or or you're on a county commission, you have a direct interest in a contract, that's illegal. You should not be engaging in that type of conduct. I think that's probably where they're going with that. Um, there are times where you have an

indirect interest. Maybe you funnel money through another person um, back to the elected official. Also not okay. Um, and there's different definitions. We won't bore everyone with the definitions, but I think the idea at its core is D Are are you getting a benefit from being a public official? And you shouldn't get a benefit from being a public official. And if you're depriving the taxpayers, I'm going to put you in jail. Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, you'll probably happy to hear we're at the last two questions for the evening, so then you can do your closing statements. So, Daniel, we'll start with you. Oklahoma voters often hear conviction rates. What metrics will you use instead to define success? Um, I would say Isaiah chapter 1:17 says, "Do good, seek justice, um, correct oppression, plead for widows and orphans." Um, I could care less about the conviction rate. Um, if I have a case and I believe I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm going to take it. And I'm going to I'm going to press that case forward. It It means nothing to me about conviction rates. I've represented some victims on a Marcy's Law case before, and they really really wanted that case to go to trial. And and it didn't go to trial like they wanted it to go to. And I think there was sufficient evidence to do that. Uh, admittedly, um, sometimes those cases are hard. Sometimes there are evidentiary issues. Sometimes you look at the believability of the witness and how they're going to look on the stand. Um, my matrix is um, I'm going to seek justice and and plead for widows and orphans. And if I have enough evidence to take it that I think I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm going to take the case and and do the best that I can to to provide justice for victims. Thank you. Adam. District attorneys are what are referred to as ministers of justice. That means it is our job to ensure that justice is done, whether that means making sure that a defendant's constitutional rights are protected in spite of maybe what a defense attorney wants, to ensure that the rules are being followed for everyone and not just for the state, but also for the defendant. We have a very sacred duty in that matter. So, when people ask me about conviction rates,

there hasn't been a single time in my career have I cared about a conviction rate. Um because I don't care. I care about have we done right? It's a right versus wrong thing. Can have we done the right thing here? Sometimes the right thing is dismissing a case. Sometimes the right thing is putting somebody in an alternative court. Sometimes the right thing is going forward on a difficult case to trial and because that's what that victim deserves and that's what they asked for. So, it's it's not about conviction rates. I don't I frankly have never you've heard a single prosecutor in my career talk about brag about a conviction rate because I frankly I think that's something that's more from TV. I don't think true prosecutors care about that. True prosecutors care about justice and that's it. Okay. Thank you. Last question and we'll start with you, Adam. And this may roll into your closing statements. A big role in being the DA is managing the affairs of the office. Why are you the best person for this responsibility? So, I took over an office that was nearly $700,000 in debt. We were probably 50% or less staffed from the staff we had 4 years prior. We had thousands of unfiled cases piled on the floors. Um we had staff that were demoralized. We had law enforcement that were absolutely demoralized as well. And the first thing I did was bringing in some experienced prosecutors and try to remotivate people like this is the way you do things. This is how do it from the front lines. First day I was in after I was sworn in, I'm in a courtroom do putting cases on, putting people in prison that need to be put in prison. We've reviewed thousands and thousands of old cases that were in piles uh within just a couple months time and got through them all. We've contacted numerous victims. We worked with our

support staff and um helped provide guidance to them. We brought in more people to try to help. I was able to repay We were able to get that debt repaid um in full within a year and a half. We've passed all state audits since then. Um I have focused on getting in uh not quantity of personnel but quality. I focus on quality. Um I'm not going to hire somebody just because I need a warm body. I'm going to wait until I get somebody in that can do the job and do it well. And I think that's what a good leader does. I think a good leader is able to do every single thing they ask their employees to do. And I've done it all. I tell my people all the time, "I will never ask you to do something uh I haven't done or I wouldn't do." And and I mean that. I've sat at the front as a receptionist before taking taking phone calls from people. So, I've done it all and I think that's what the job requires because um if you don't know how to do the job, you can't lead people to be able to do the job. Thank you. Daniel. Yeah, absolutely. So, uh I currently serve as the mayor of McCloud and I think I've I've shown I have a track record of leadership and in leading. Um we have assembled multiple millions of dollars in grants, more grants than probably ever been had in our community. We put more cops on the streets. We fully outfitted our law enforcement. We did that without raising taxes. And I think leadership's at the heart of this office. Um one thing I'd like to specifically address in the DA's office uh should I be elected, um I want to really create a greater communication between the DHS side of the house and the criminal side of the house. I've seen a a number of cases where maybe the DHS side is is giving kids back and side trying to put people in jail or or prison time. And I don't want to re-traumatize children by having a lack of coordination. So, I'm going to put significant effort into organizing the office and and creating that level of communication where we don't harm children and I want to be more organized in that

area. Um I think last I'd say I've shown through my my history, my track record that I can build great teams. I want I'm going to assemble a great team in the DA's office and we will administer justice effectively in the community. Um I have a track record of that for over a decade of being a leader who quite frankly I've had to make nickels from rubbing two pennies together. So, I've I've proven that I can lead and I intend to do that in the DA's office. Okay. Thank you. And now we will go into closing statements. You'll get 2 minutes and we'll start with you, Daniel. Yeah, absolutely. First of all, thank you all so much for being here. Thank thanks to PAVE. These types of forums are so important. It's really the the last great thing of our republic to be able to talk about ideas and and and go back and forth and talk about that. So, thank you all for being here. Um I think I'd probably just just close with a case that I had last week. I had a DHS case and the case worker called me and they said, "Hey Daniel, I have a case with you that's coming up on the docket next week and I want to see what you thought about my case. I know that if I'm not perfect, you're going to really blow me up on the stand." Um and I laughed a little bit and she's not wrong though. Um I demand perfection. I demand perfection in everything that I do. I demand perfection by governmental officials and um that that that meant a lot to me. I don't think she necessarily meant it as a compliment, but it it meant it meant a lot to me. And so, I really want to have safe communities like I mentioned. I want to address these tough issues regardless of who you are and I want to have perfection in everything that we do because our community is important. I love this community and our community deserves that perfection that I intend to provide. Thank you. Adam. I echo what Daniel said about still again, I appreciate everything you've you've done for us today to allow us to come in here and speak to you and to the audience out. Um I I would submit that out of every single office on the ballot, uh not only in June, but in November, but since we're our our race is decided in the

primary in June, there is no other office on that ballot where experience matters the more. Um 4 years ago, we saw the conclusion of what happens when you put inexperience in the DA's office. Um everything you've heard from me today is gained by 20 years of nearly 20 years of experience in the trenches doing this job. Uh nearly 20 years. This is not a business or some entity where money's involved. The stakes in this line of work are people's lives. The stakes are people's lives. Um that demands competence. That demands capability. That demands experience. You know, you cannot lead people through the storm if you've you've never stood in the rain. It's one of my favorite sayings. You cannot lead people through the storm if you've never stood in the rain. So, I've led prosecutors, I've led teams of prosecutors, I've led homicide investigations, I've led nearly everything you could think of in this line of work. There's a reason why law enforcement staunchly are behind me. Uh they know that I'm in the arena with them. They know that I'm in the arena with them. They know that I'm fighting next to them. I'm not trying to show them up. I'm fighting with them. I'm trying to secure justice for our community. And on June 16th, I'm going to ask the voters to uh allow me and my staff, the best staff in the state of Oklahoma when it comes to prosecution, allow me and my staff to continue fighting for this community and for the people of District 23 as your DA. Thank you. Thank you. On behalf of PAVE, we'd like to sincerely thank everyone who attended tonight's forum, submitted questions, and participated respectfully, and took the time to become a more informed voter. Community engagement is essential to a healthy election process, and we appreciate each of you being here tonight. We would also like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to Ryan, our videographer, and for the tremendous amount of work he puts into recording, processing, live streaming, and

preserving these forums for public playback and voter accessibility. His dedication behind the scenes helps make these events possible and allows even more members of our community to stay informed. Finally, thank you to both the candidates for participating tonight, and to all of our volunteers who helped make this event possible. Please remember to get registered, stay informed, and make your voice heard on election day. This concludes the forum. [applause]