Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility to suit the situation is claimed by the county’s chief prosecutor- Virginia criminal defense lawyer welcomes that if a reality

Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility to suit the situation is claimed by the county’s chief commonwealth’s attorney / prosecutor to be his approach to prosecution. As a Fairfax criminal lawyer, I have this mid-June 2025 short video of Steve Descano at the ready, in which he distinguishes gun violence, rape, robbery and murder from those criminal allegations enabling more flexibility by his office. I say I have this at the ready, because the Fairfax line assistant commonwealth’s attorneys are not automatically going to be in lock-step agreement about Steve’s approach to prosecution. If any of them declines to consider the individual merits of my client’s case and situation, this 80-second video can come in handy to play for them to underline why they should consider what the defense has to say when considering settlement negotiations, any defense interest to reschedule the trial date, and any defense request for evidence/discovery that is not necessarily required by the governing court rules and law.

How much will restorative / transformative justice expand, contract and become sufficiently flexible as part of Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility?

To a limited point, Descano touts restorative / transformative justice (RJ) (where alternatives to convictions or else more favorable dispositions otherwise, are pursued by having dialogue between alleged victims and alleged perpetrators and a mediated resolution, for instance community service and counseling) as part of Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility. My view is that an institutionalized restorative justice approach approved by the Fairfax commonwealth attorney’s office can be too narrow and rigid, where restorative justice can be accomplished more simply without needing to do that through a particular agency, for instance where the defendant is willing to pay out of their own pocket for a restorative justice professional. One of my expected upcoming podcast guests is sujatha baliga (who herself uses lower case letters for her name), a pioneer in restorative justice, who led the RJ project at Impact / Justice .  I plan to include talking with sujatha — a lawyer and child sexual abuse survivor —  for ways that Virginia criminal defendants can co-own the RJ process, rather than having it become an orthodox approach of prosecutors using take-it-or-leave-it rules developed by their offices or the organizations with which they work.

What can be done for the Fairfax prosecutors’ approach to restorative justice to be different from mimicking the Fairfax specialty treatment dockets?

Recently I have blogged about the Fairfax specialty treatment dockets for veterans, mental health, and drug issues. Certainly, it is preferable to have those outlets than not, but when they become approaches to institute and monitor compliance with agreements under the Virginia deferred disposition law — Virginia Code § 19.2-298.02  —  that raises the importance of having the specialty courts and traditional restorative justice path already okayed by the Fairfax commonwealth’s attorney’s office, while also having Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility for reaching alternative dispositions that are more favorable than § 19.2-298.02 (for instance general case continuances, rather than the waiver of one’s trial and appellate rights involved with that statute) and that do not necessarily need to go through the institutionalization of established guidelines (and established by whom, in the first place?). Just as plenty of arbitration agreements enable each side to choose an independent person who will together choose the ultimate arbitrator, good can come when the criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor craft an alternative solution (whether restorative justice or otherwise) that does not rely on any orthodoxy nor rigidity of already-existing alternatives, nor on whether any offices running such programs will or will not accept the defendant into the program, let alone dictate the terms and conditions of the defendant’s participation therein. 

How much should I be concerned about protecting my Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to remain silent if I engage in a restorative justice approach?

Restorative justice approaches often will call for you as a criminal defendant to talk about your perspective about and participation in the alleged criminal incident. How does that move forward if you deny committing any crime? How do you proceed if you do not have sufficient immunization of your words during the restorative justice process, from being used against you in court or elsewhere? Talk about Fairfax prosecutorial flexibility is only talk unless it has sufficient assurances behind it. Talk with your Virginia criminal defense lawyer about protecting your interests in these and all respects when you are making any efforts to settle the prosecution against you. Make sure that your criminal defense attorney gets you fully prepared for engaging in any restorative justice, diversion or alternative resolution approaches to your prosecution.

Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz welcomes prosecutorial flexibility in addressing how to resolve each criminal case on an individualized basis. Jon Katz does this while simultaneously pursuing a full-court press against your Virginia felony, misdemeanor or DUI prosecution. Discussing your case with Jon is a highly beneficial initial step in your pursuing a great defense. For your free in-person initial confidential consultation with Jon Katz about your court-pending prosecution, schedule your meeting with Jon via his staff at 703-383-1100, Info@KatzJustice.com and (text) 571-406-7268.