In Black America; Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy

Thank you. From the Longhorn Radio Network, the University of Texas at Austin, this is in Black America. Of course, if you're a practicing attorney and you've been doing this long as I have, there's certain things that you know and certain things are natural, but the law is ever-changing. And so we have people in our office, very great, and as a matter of fact, by the name of Tim Boffman,

who keeps the office of the staff informed all the latest changes. But it's still up to us to make sure we go and read the cases and we know them and we're familiar with the statutes, and we know what that ever-changing law is. We're not supposed to keep every case in our head. We go look it up and we don't know. We have to go research a lot of times, but we can't put our hands on it. But of course, if your practicing attorney is going to be a good one, you should have a good working knowledge in your head about what the law is, and what the cases are, and what the decisions are on certain issues. And you do know that. Former Wayne County Michigan prosecutor, and now recorders court judge Kim Worthy. Ms. Worthy is the prosecutor who scored her biggest victory in the summer of 1993. When she won a jury conviction of two white Detroit police officers, charged with second-degree murder in the beating death of Black motorist Malice Green. That victory boosted her win ratio to 90 percent of the 100 jury cases she's tried since during the Wayne County Michigan prosecutor's office some nine years ago. The highly skilled prosecutor has a special knack for getting her message across

to juries by using simple language and vivid illustrations. Ms. Worthy is no stranger to high-profile cases. Her other victories include the conviction of Michael Cato, who was charged with murder in connection with the death of his brother-in-law, Anthony Riggs. I'm John L. Hanson Jr., and welcome to another edition of In Black America. This week, former Wayne County Michigan prosecutor, and now recorders court judge Kim Worthy, in Black America. I cannot tell you the number per day, and this is over a year later, even after that trial was seen if we're going to use that as some kind of indicator. I cannot tell you the amount of children. I'm talking with seven and eight year olds that come up to me and tell me they want to be lawyers, or even prosecutors. I didn't even know what a prosecutor was when I was seven and eight. Women, men, teenagers coming up to me and telling me that they want to be lawyers and prosecutors, coming up to me saying that. I think it's a tribute to the positive side of television, seeing people on television that aren't just in our TV sitcoms, that aren't just in our athletic arenas, not that there's anything wrong with either one of them,

or not that just are seniors and dancers and entertainers and actors. All I did was go to school. That's all I did. I don't have any talent singing, acting, dancing, any special athletic talent, but I went to school and that's it. I wasn't the valedictorian. I mean, I'm not, I consider myself to be bright, but I wasn't the best and the brightest of the brightest and the best. So, I just used the skill I had and I have a very high degree of stick to it in this, and I work hard. So, anybody can do that. As long as you have access to go to school and you can do that, you can do what I'm doing as far as I'm concerned. As a University of Michigan and University of Notre Dame law school graduate, Kim Worthy has been calling her own shots in an ultra conservative, white, male-dominated legal system. Although Ms. Worthy was well known around the Detroit area, it was the Malice Green Police brutality case, which was broadcast nationally on cable television's court TV channel, that the nation got a chance to see her assertive manner and personal style. Some interpreters herself confidence as arrogance.

She attributes that interpretation to sexism. She blames the lack of women trial attorneys for the public's misunderstanding of her courtroom demeanor. Ms. Worthy is clearly the one to come to when prosecuting high profile cases. She won a murder for higher case, and which an elementary school teacher was fairly shot by Hitman in front of her sixth grade students. In Black America, Travitu Detroit to speak with this dynamic attorney. I just knew from a very early age I wanted to be an attorney, it wasn't the influence of anyone, because no one in my family was an attorney, and my parents that I know of didn't have really have any friends that were attorneys. So I really don't know where it came from. Was law school difficult once you decided to make that decision? Was law school difficult once I got in? It was very difficult. But my attitude is now, if I can do it, anyone can basically. So it is a very difficult school. I found it difficult anyway. Once graduating from law school, did you come straight here to Detroit to become a prosecutor? Yes, I did.

I came. This is my first and only job that I've had, and I would have been in March of 95, or would have been a prosecutor for 11 years. So I've been doing it for a long time. Why a prosecutor versus becoming a defense attorney? First of all, there's so many talented African-American criminal defense attorneys. That's what it seems that if they're going to do the criminal law, that's what they always do. I kind of fell into it. I met someone who had been a prosecutor. My boss, Mr. O'Hare, had recently been appointed. He had been there for exactly about three or four months before I started. I flew in and met him at the assistance, or not the assistance at the encouragement of a friend of mine who's now a judge in our district court here. And I talked with Mr. O'Hare. I met him. I came back when the interview any hired me. So I kind of fell into it, actually. Are the other female prosecutors within the Wayne County's prosecutor's office? Our office is probably about 25 or 30 percent female. And there's probably about another eight or nine of us that are African-American females. You've gained a lot of notoriety,

particularly from the Malice Green case and the Michael Cato case, was life somewhat easier before court television? Well, you mean before I was fairly well known in the city already. But even a lot of people in the city had not heard of me. But I think a lot of people had. And it was televised. But since the advent of court TV, a lot of lawyers are getting to be much more well known. I have been on the local broadcasts in the newspaper quite a bit, but still not nearly as much as the exposure that I got on that particular case, the Malice Green case. And the Tony Cato rigs was not really filmed, but everybody knew about it. And I think it's good. I think it's good that we're getting an exposure to our criminal justice system. And we know what we're really doing, and really the eye is kind of on us now that people are watching us so closely and keeping us honest. But it does bring some difficulties. For the most part, people have been overwhelmingly positive in this city. It's been wonderful. But there are some bad things that come with it. People will feel they can say anything and everything about you. People will start rumors about you and gossip about you.

Things are just totally untrue. And I don't know where that comes from. But for the most part, I would say probably 90% of it has been very, very positive. With the cameras in the courtroom, does it have a difference on the way that you try a case or the way that you present it before a camera versus when cameras weren't allowed in the courtroom? I can honestly say it has not. I mean, you are aware that they're there, but if you're really doing your job and you're really focusing on what you're supposed to be doing, you really forget about them. And nobody believes that because there's all these cameras blaring all over the place. But you really forget. These I do, I can always speak for myself. And I forget that they're there. And I'm a very visual prosecutor anyway. So I prepare charts and everything that I can think of to get my point across to the jury. And so it really has not affected how I've done things. Now, it may have affected some of the things I have said in open court as opposed to approaching the bench if I know it's being recorded. But other than that, it really has an effect of the way I've prepared my cases at all. Being in a prosecutor's office for nine years or so,

has there been any change in the type of cases that you've tried or the cases that has come before Wayne County, Michigan? I can't say there's been a change in the type of cases that we see in the prosecutor's office. Other than they've been more violent and the offenders are getting younger and younger. And I'd have to say, actually, it has nothing to do with cameras in the court when I have to say that with the advent of crack cocaine whenever that was. I don't know in the late 80s, whatever it was that came around in mid 80s or whatever. And the crime has gotten much, much more violent. And much more, and you see a more, a callousness toward the criminals now and a very strong, well, a very strong sense of remorse really has nothing to do with the drugs I don't think. But those are the things that have changed. And you see so many defendants that just don't care what they've done. They don't let you know. They don't let the victim know that they are even sorry for what they've done. And they're very, very young. I mean, they're getting to be my first homicide when I was in juvenile court

was a 12-year-old, the Hakeedal cab driver. But that was an exception. It was a rarity when I was over there. I started in juvenile court two years before I came to Recorder's Court. In Recorder's Court, for those of you who don't know it, are our felony court here in Detroit in Wayne County. But now, that's, you know, while a 12-year-old is not commonplace but certainly 14 to 15-year-olds are just very commonplace. And it's not even unusual when you see it now. That's very sad. Does it touch home when you see the severity of the crimes that are being committed? But also the number of young African-Americans, male and female becoming before the court and you're having to prosecute them. Well, of course it does. It really does. And it really does. I'm not going to say it pulls its your heartstrings because they, because what pulls it my heartstrings to the young victims that they're killing. I mean, other African-American males generally, young men, and realizing about the court and court shortage that there is now and where they're supposed to be and that kind of thing. But I don't have any problem honestly prosecuting them because they have killed,

in my case, because I do almost all homicides, they have killed another young African-American male. And I feel sorry for them. I feel very sorry for the families of these defendants because a lot of them are going through as much anguish as the victims' family is going through. The difference is, though, is that the victims' family will never see their loved one again and lose the defendants' family will come and visit them in prison. But that, as an African-American, it's very extremely depressing, extremely depressing to see this firsthand. And to see what they've done, I mean, you know, I see the pictures of the victims after they're killed. And I see the, you know, with their bodies riddled with bullets and multiple stab wounds and be heading people and cutting up bodies and horrible, and what they do to children and children that get caught in the crossfire and get killed when all they've done is go to the store with their parent. And so it's very depressing. And I don't know what the solution is. We've got to be tough on them and we cannot use the excuse that because they look like us, they shouldn't be punished.

So I don't, if I knew what the other answer was, I'd be very rich because I would definitely sell it and market it. And I suppose I'm going to keep our African-Americans from committing crime. I just don't know. That was another question. Should we as a society look at the way that we deal with youth offenders and the punishment of both crimes? I think we have to, here in Michigan, we have a rule that changed, and I rule a law, that changed recently where you have to be 15 or 16. The age of majority here from crime is 17. And you can be tried as an adult if you move it over from juvenile court. And then the judge has the option after the guilt phase, so for lack of a better word, after the fact-finding stage, after the jury or the judge finds them guilty, whether they should send them back to the juvenile court and keep them in the adult system. And for example, here in Michigan, it's a life in prison with no parole

when you have first-degree murder. So if you have about a 15-year-old, it's been convicted of first-degree murder. The judge has to decide whether they go back to the juvenile system where they can conceivably stay into their 21 all they never do. They're always released earlier. Or they go into the adult system for the rest of their lives. And it's very difficult for a judge to send a 15-year-old even if they've killed someone to prison for the rest of their life. So there has to be some kind of a median system, for example, if you're a juvenile, you have to do at least 15-20 years. And that's mandatory, or something like that, and maybe it would help with our juvenile crime. Because juveniles now know that if you go back to the juvenile system, basically, it's just a holding place until you get to be a certain age. So they've become astute and as they know the punishment of a crime and the likelihood of being a juvenile of them spending time in juvenile home versus being classified as an adult and being tried as an adult. Oh, sure they know what it is. I'm not going to say they factored in to their decision before they're going to commit a crime.

And I'm sure the realities do not sit in until after maybe you were sent to the adult system and you may have thought you were going to the juvenile system. But there's got to, I mean, we say this all the time. There's got to be something done with prevention. And I think what we have to do is we have to take the offenders seriously the first time they commit a offense. Because most people don't come out, most people don't come out of the box committing a first to be murdered. They start out possessing a gun or possessing a small amount of drugs. And then we put them on probation and put them on probation. And the judge says, well, okay, I'm going to give you one more chance. And if you come back, I'm going to put you in jail when they come back to get probation again. And so there's got to be something established at the very beginning. They first get into the system to make them know that they're going to be dealt with in a very harsh manner if they come back. I think, of course, everybody should be given a first chance if it's a nonviolent offense. But we've got to do something about it. And I just don't know what it is. Do you enjoy the, I guess, celebrityhood of being a consultant to court television and the other programs of dealing with the high-profile case, particularly the O.J. Simpson case?

Well, for court TV and other entities like BET and things like that, that I do commentary and sit on panels some of the time every now and then. I am retained at this point with NBC to comment on O.J. Simpson. I like, of course, everybody would like to be paid for giving their opinion. And I like that. But I think it's really performing a serious service. Because to give you an example, I don't think anything to educate is bad. If it's done properly and if it's not sensationalized, like this case has been totally sensationalized. And I don't think the major networks have been, I mean, I think they've been involved in their share of being sensational. But I'm talking about things that go to friends or friends or friends to interview. And they knew him five years ago and what he had for lunch and that kind of thing. I think that's ridiculous. But that isn't what I do. What I commentate on and the only thing that I will commentate on is what happens in court or what's going on in a hearing when it's going on. And maybe giving an opinion about how I would have approached this as a prosecutor. And that's my role.

My role is not to speculate or to say he's guilty or he's not guilty. I don't know that. And none of us will know until the trial has had. My role is to educate and to explain what's going on. Because the legal system can be unnecessarily complicated. And people have an interest. And I think they should have an interest. Because how many people do you know that we're going around talking about the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution? And when they were having the search and seizure hearing. And I think that's good people should know what their rights are. The judge and the judge and the players in that case are supposed to be ensuring that both sides get a fair trial. And I think that's being done. And I hope it continues to be so. I mean, from what I've seen so far, I think the appropriate attempts are being made. You know, I have a problem with the attorneys and the attorneys commenting on and pontificating when they're actually a player. And what's going on. I think that's totally improper. I would never as a player hold court on the courthouse steps every day and pontificate before the cameras, like what's being done oftentimes in this case. I think that's improper if you're a player.

I think, though, I think too much information is never bad, as long as it's proper, as long as it's being responsible. That's what I mean about responsible news organizations and news organizations that are irresponsible. But I don't think too much information is ever bad, as long as the defendant is getting the defendant and the people are being accorded their appropriate rights. In an article on you in every magazine, there was a statement that you had attributed to that there are basically two standards, one for male, one for female prosecutors and a lot of your colleagues. Some of them believe that you're maybe grandstanding, being over aggressive in your pursuit of prosecution. Do you still concur with that? My colleagues do not think I'm over, my colleagues are the people that work with me in the prosecutor's office. No, they do not think that.

Some defense attorneys do most do not, though. Some do. There's a couple of judges that think so. But they didn't like me before anyway, so I don't really worry about what they say. But I don't think I'm being overzealous. I think I'm doing a good job. I think that when you prosecute a homicide, I don't know what people are used to seeing. And I think that that's what it is. I think people are not used to seeing my particular style. And it's not unique. I mean, other people around have similar styles to mine. So I'm not holding out myself as some example of how it should be done. I think that you should be yourself and you should be natural. And I think when you are yourself and you are natural, it comes across as being so. And I don't know how people expect one to prosecute a homicide case if they're not a zealous advocate for their particular side. I mean, if you had lost a loved one, you would certainly want me to do everything that's within the realms of the law to make sure the person was punished for what they did because your loved one isn't coming back. I'm an advocate. I'm not supposed to be fair.

You know, fair mind on both sides of when I'm an advocate. What I'm supposed to do is a prosecutor, I'm supposed to be fair and making sure the justice is done. I'm supposed to do that. But being fair and worrying about, I'm supposed to protect the defendant's rights because prosecutors really do have a unique role. But I'm not supposed to not be zealous because I'm a prosecutor. I'm supposed to represent my side. That's what an advocate does. Judge on the other hand is not an advocate. And that's not supposed to be an advocate for one side or the other. So there's a completely different standard when there's a woman in a man. Because I don't think anybody would call me over zealous or aggressive if I was a man. Nobody would. You're currently running for a recorders court judge here in Wayne County, Michigan. Why the next step up? Why do you want to come and judge? I consider it a step up or a step down. What I consider it to be another role within the criminal justice system is a different role within the criminal justice system. Because I think all roles are equally as important.

As a prosecutor though, you work on your cases and you make sure that the right cases are in the system. And that's the key role of the prosecutor. You only put cases in the system in the first place that belonged there. There are many at times when police officers brought me cases and I have not signed that warrant because I didn't think it was there. So that's where you stop the injustice and being done also. But anyway, you get the case into the system. You prepare the case. You spend hours and hours and days and days and weeks and weeks and months working on cases. You get them ready. You present them before the fact partner, be it the judge or the jury. You get a conviction in this sense because the only way you can go to the sentencing phase is if you get a conviction. So I'm only talking about cases with their convictions. And let's say it's a murder in the second degree case. Well here in Michigan is any term of years of life in prison. I had to go back to more victims' families than I care to remember and try to explain to them why the person that killed their child or their loved one or their elderly person is only going to do five years in prison or six years of prison when the person's dead when they should have done 20 or 15 according to whatever the guidelines were. So I can recommend what I think is appropriate but I can't meet it out and I can't administer it.

And I think the only one that can properly administer it is someone that has experience in some form as an advocate within the criminal justice system. And I think all judges should come from the ranks of the criminal justice system. I have a problem with the appointment system in that they can appoint people that do not have any experience in that sense. So I think I'm qualified to do that and I think people around here know that I'm qualified to do that. And that's why I'm running because I think that's why I'm needed right now. I think I've done pretty much everything that I can do as a prosecutor unless I come back and run the office. Are you satisfied with obviously if you're running but the way that we select judges? I don't think there's anything wrong with the appointment system as long as certain basic standards are met. Where I have a problem with the appointment system which were those basic standards are not met. For example, if you have a situation where I'm not going to get political in this discussion but for example, if you have someone that had never practiced law and had never done a criminal case,

I just don't see how they can be a judge and they have never done it themselves. I mean we can all look at different professions. I can look at your profession and say all you do is ask people questions and it's easy. And you can look at me in court so I can do that as easy. But everything is always extremely a whole lot harder than it looks. You need the back line of the training and when you can make it look simple, probably the more difficult it is to do. And that just means you're prepared and you're in your qualified. But it's very difficult and I don't know how you can make those judgments if you've never done it yourself. I just don't see. If there was some kind of threshold standard that you needed 10 years of practice or experience using your degree before you ran, then I probably wouldn't have a problem with the appointment process. There might be people I didn't like. It might be people that maybe knew the governor or had a political favor, but at least I could not quarrel with their basement level qualifications. On the other hand, there's also no rule when you run. A person can get out of law school and run for judge if they have enough money or the right name or whatever they can also win as well.

So I think both for elected, for being able to run and being appointed, everybody should meet the same basic standard and then go from there. Because you have to have a combination of both. I don't think you can ever have an all appointment system because the people without the right contact would never have a chance to be a judge and you would be missing out on a lot of talented judges. A lot of individuals reading stories from my colleagues would think Detroit is probably one of the worst places you ever want to live or probably visit. They would assume it extremely dangerous. Of course, you see the downside, the cop side of what's going on in Detroit. But is Detroit still a livable and enjoyable city in which one could meet out of living and be somewhat comfortable and safe? Detroit's a wonderful place to live. In fact, I have been assaulted in South Bend, Indiana, where the University of Notre Dame was, not far from the campus. And that's the only time I've been a victim of violent crime. And so nothing has ever happened to me in this city.

And I walk around and I don't have armed guards. I don't carry a gun. I don't carry a knife. I practice the same standards of safety that anybody should. I mean, but Detroit's no different than any other major American city. In any place where you have a lot of people of every race creating color, just a lot of people want to have more crime than someplace where you don't. And, you know, we have things happen in our suburbs that happen that are just like, you know, I get so tired on the news when I hear people, well, this kind of stuff that doesn't just doesn't happen here. It does happen here. It happens everywhere, even Union, South Carolina, and all these other places where these other things are going on. And people shouldn't be surprised. People are people. And everybody's going to do it. It's not one race that commits all crime or one sex that commits all crime. And so it's a very nice place to live. In fact, I think Detroit is probably the most progressive place in the country when it comes to African Americans. I don't happen to think that television has an awful lot to do with the incidence of crime. I think it has to do more with the influx of these, like I said, with the influx of crack cocaine,

and I saw a big change in what was going on. And I suppose television might have a bit to do with how creative people are, but I don't think it has an awful lot to do with it. I think if it did, we see a lot more copycat type of crime for what you see on television. And we all hear instances that happen, like I heard something about the power range and how someone the other day did something like the power ranges were doing or something. I don't know. And you're going to have some of that, of course. You would have some of that if it wasn't as much violence on TV. There'd be something from real-life crime stories or whatever. I don't think television has an awful lot to do with the crime being committed. I think it has a lot to do with the idleness and the fact that we aren't reading and we aren't perhaps studying as hard as we are. I don't think it has an awful lot to do with whether you decide if you're going to do a crime or not. Looking back over your career, that's far. If you had it to do over again, would there be any changes made? Oh.

That's a hard question, because if I had known some of that... Well, decision on cases. There has never been a case where I thought I should have brought to trial. In other words, where I thought there might have been enough evidence and I didn't issue... No, there's never been a case like that. I've never prosecuted a case where I didn't know absolutely that the defendant was absolutely guilty. I guess another way to say that is I've never prosecuted anyone that I thought was remotely innocent or not guilty. There are cases I haven't... I have a very, very good conviction rate, but when you consider that all the people I thought and the evidence showed were guilty anyway, it should be high. If I'm doing my job properly and I'm being dedicated like I should be. But there are some that have not gone the way I would like to have gone. Where juries or in more cases, judges have let cases go and some people are not guilty that have walked out of the door. Guilties, I don't know what. In those cases, with judges, there's not really a whole lot you can do.

But sometimes in jury trials, you think if you would come up with this other argument possibly would have changed. But I can honestly say there's probably only been about one, two cases in my career where I actually thought that I could have done something differently. And it would have changed the tide. But then you don't know. Because after you talk to the jurors, it's not what you think you could have done. It's totally something that just makes... That you don't understand how they got there, in other words. But for the most part, I found juries to be... And I will take this to my grave. They always absolutely try to do the right thing. I haven't had any that have made... I've had some come back very quickly, but the cases are overwhelming. I've had many that have taken a lot longer to come to the decision than I thought I was wondering what the problem was. But I've always found that they really naturally try to do the right thing. And most of the time, if I turn and do the right thing, and what I think of the conviction is, most of the time that they do. But they really do take it seriously, I felt. Very seriously. Former Wayne County Michigan prosecutor, and now recorders court judge, Kim Worthy. If you have a question or comment or suggestions, ask the future in Black America programs, write us.

Also let us know what radio station you heard us over. Views and opinions expressed on this program are not necessarily those of this station, or the University of Texas at Austin. Until we have the opportunity again for a production assistant, Stacy Greenstein, and IBA technical producer, David Alvarez. I'm John L. Hanson, Jr. Thank you for joining us this week. And please join us again next time. Cassette copies of this program are available and may be purchased by writing in Black America cassettes. Longhorn radio network, communication building B, UT Austin, Austin, Texas, 78712. From the Center for Telecommunication Services, the University of Texas at Austin, this is the Longhorn Radio Network. I'm John L. Hanson, Jr. Join me this week on in Black America.

I was told back in 1984 when I first became a prosecutor. It wasn't popular for prosecutors to be black because especially coming to a city like Detroit. Former Wayne County Michigan prosecutor, now recorded court judge Kim Worthy this week on in Black America.