DA Mulroy Pens Op-Ed for the Tennessean

A recent op-ed by Sen. Brent Taylor reveals more about his attention-seeking congressional aspirations than his actual concern for Shelby County public safety.  He assails our office’s supposed non-transparency without mentioning that we’ve been complying, to the letter, with the very data reporting bill he’s talking about.  His criticisms only underscore his lack of respect for the voters of Shelby County who elect local officers. 

The “Make Memphis Matter” Senator from Eads, who showed his concern for Memphis by carving it into three different congressional districts in a gerrymander designed to further his own ambition, recently criticized me for “suing to kill … before it even takes effect” a data reporting law that unconstitutionally targets Shelby County (only) with burdensome, data reporting requirements which siphon off staff time from real public safety work.   

What he doesn’t mention is that our office has been providing the exact case disposition reports at issue, on the schedule at issue (every 10 business days), like clockwork, since the effective date of that statute.   

Here are some other things he didn’t tell you:  

The law’s unnecessary.  A different law passed two years ago already requires all Tennessee DAs to provide this exact data about case outcomes, for all cases.  We’re complying with that law.  The data is, after all, public record, and has been so long before Sen. Taylor ever grandstanded his way across the Senate floor.  

The law’s unconstitutional.  Only the Shelby County DA office is being required to do these reports, which violates the Tennessee Constitution’s ban on “special legislation,” like the Nashville-Memphis-targeted school voucher law struck down a few years ago.   

The law detracts from public safety.  It requires us to treat federal task force cases differently from other cases, separate them out by hand, and compile reports on just those cases every two weeks, in a burdensome process that takes staff time away from real law enforcement work.  This drain on regular staff work makes us less safe.  

This is typical Taylor.  For years, he’s garnered press, attention, and fundraising from his far-right base by harassing our office.  A bill to remove me from office, which never even got a legislative hearing.  Five meritless ethics complaints, all dismissed. False charges of office finance problems rebutted by multiple independent audits giving us a clean bill of health.   

There’s more at stake than just data reporting.  Though he glosses over it in his op-ed, Taylor brags about a second bill with Rep. John Gillespie targeting my office, and says it “doesn’t tell Mulroy how to prosecute.”  But that second bill (which I’m also challenging in court) goes far beyond data reporting, and is even more problematic. 

Again targeting only Shelby County, this second law authorizes the unelected Attorney General to second-guess every prosecutorial decision we make, on all cases, not just federal task force cases; to access sensitive confidential information; and to turn it over to any or all of the 132 politicians in the Legislature.  If he doesn’t like what he sees, he can ask the State Supreme Court to appoint a shadow “pro tem” DA to take entire categories of cases away from the DA---in effect, to partially overturn a local election.  That goes against the plain language of the Tennessee Constitution, which specifies the need for local control over the DA.  

There’s more to public safety than the federal task force.  Taylor touts at length the work of the federal task force. That task force has certainly helped, but the welcome reduction in Memphis crime started two years before the task force ever got here. Taylor knows this, but fails to mention it, in a slap in the face of local law enforcement and local government.  

Transparency doesn’t require surrendering local authority.  I’ll continue to work for both.

Steve Mulroy is the elected District Attorney of Shelby County.   

DA Mulroy Pens Op-ed for "USA Today" : Your local police may be trained for violence. They shouldn't be.

Even when officer-involved killings are non-prosecutable, they're often preventable, which highlights the importance of proper training. Good training can reduce the need for police use of force.

Apparently, the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis was justifiable. So was the police killing of Eric Garner in New York City. 

I learned these surprising conclusions during a weeklong use-of-force training for law enforcement by Force Science, a private company hired by many law enforcement agencies across the country. I was there in my capacity as the elected district attorney of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee. 

As DA, I often have to make decisions about whether to prosecute police in officer-involved killings. So I could better evaluate those cases, I wanted to get educated firsthand on what kind of training law enforcement officers receive.

I went in expecting a fairly neutral discussion of the law, with a series of practical dos and don’ts, with illustrative examples of when force was and was not appropriate. I got nothing of the kind.

It was only afterward that I looked up the company and realized it has long drawn criticism from academics and police reform advocates, has been shunned by several police agencies, and yet is a widely used and influential source of training for police.

What does 'I can't breathe' mean? Depends on who you ask.

The overall tone of the sessions was siege mentality. In the training, we were told: “We don’t punish people anymore, so we’re creating moral psychopaths.” Therefore, police should always be afraid of violence from citizens, because “the psychopaths are watching us.”

Instructors mocked the idea of “de-escalation,” and of using “trained mental health officers” to accompany police in mental health cases.

The prosecutions of the officers accused of killing Floyd and Garner were “witch hunts.” The choke hold used to kill Garner had nothing to do with his death, despite medical examiners' conclusions that called that into question.

Indeed, the instructors said concerns about choke holds were overblown. If a suspect says “I can’t breathe” repeatedly, that means he can breathe – otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to say anything.

'Put them in an ambulance and let them die there'

More troubling was the reliance on what some critics have called pseudoscience to justify fairly broad justifications for police force – for example, shooting at unarmed civilians from 21 feet away is justified because a civilian can rush a cop quicker than the cop can unholster his gun and fire.

The company's own self-published “studies” supporting its conclusions have been criticized by scientists for lacking methodological rigor. (Force Science disputes such characterization, leading to a debate within the law enforcement community.)

In my training, I was told that positional asphyxia, a cause of death of suspects improperly restrained by police that is recognized by the National Institutes of Health, was a myth. On the other hand, “excited delirium” ‒ a condition where agitated suspects are supposedly impervious to pain, possess “superhuman strength” and can die inexplicably, thus justifying lethal force and in-custody deaths ‒ was not a myth.

Never mind that "excited delirium" as a medical condition has been debunked by studies and experts and is not recognized by the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

The instructor acknowledged that some states have banned the use of the term, but joked they’re now simply using a different term to get around criticism from the political left. This same instructor jokingly suggested, to great laughter, that police should “just put them in an ambulance and let them die there.”

Perhaps most troubling was that of the dozens of real-life situations involving use of deadly force described in detail, none was ever deemed improper. Always, the police officer was justified.

At worst, in controversial situations, the instructor would simply say, “The optics are bad.”

More than 1,000 people are killed by police each year in the US

According to the lead instructor, police should be held to a more lenient standard than civilians. For example, police should be able to view the body camera video before giving a statement about an incident, which is a privilege we don't usually afford civilians accused of acts of violence.

Even when the trainers made arguably valid points – for example, in the adrenaline rush of a deadly encounter, it’s understandable that a frightened officer might continue firing multiple rounds even after the immediate danger has apparently passed – our justice system is less willing to give such grace to accused violent offenders who don't wear badges.

More than 1,000 people are killed by police each year in the United States, with roughly 80,000 seriously injured. The vast majority of such incidents are justified, but each incident erodes public trust in police.

This makes the community less willing to give police the kind of cooperation we need to enhance public safety. It’s been my experience that even when officer-involved killings are non-prosecutable, they’re often preventable, which highlights the importance of proper training.

Good training can reduce the need for police use of force, increasing safety for the officers, the suspects and the wider community.

My own experience with the training, sadly, did not give me confidence.

What to Know: Memphis Safe Task Force Accountability Act

-March 24, 2026-

-Part of our “What to Know” series—created by the Public Affairs Division to provide clear, fact-based information on issues that impact our community.-

Frequently Asked Questions (Facts & Process)

We’ve received questions about how Safe Task Force cases are handled and what this proposed legislation would do. Below is a clear explanation of the process based on law, policy, and current practice.

1. Are Safe Task Force cases already being prosecuted?

Yes.

Cases connected to the Memphis Safe Task Force are:

• Prosecuted using the same legal standards as any other case

• Reviewed based on evidence, applicable law, and ethical obligations

• Handled alongside cases from local law enforcement partners

2. Does the District Attorney’s Office already track and report case outcomes?

Yes.

Under Tennessee law, District Attorney’s Offices already:

• Maintain detailed case records

• Track case outcomes

• Provide required reporting through established systems

3. Does every arrest result in prosecution?

No.

An arrest does not automatically mean a case can move forward in court.
For prosecution to proceed:

• There must be sufficient admissible evidence

• The case must meet legal standards required for prosecution

• Prosecutors must follow ethical rules that prohibit pursuing cases that cannot be proven

4. What would the Memphis Safe Task Force Accountability Act require?

If passed, the bill would:

• Require additional reporting on certain Safe Task Force cases

• Require that information to be submitted within a defined timeframe
  (currently amended from 24 hours to one week)

5. Does this bill change how cases are prosecuted?

No.

The bill does not change:

• The legal standard required to charge or prosecute a case

• The burden of proof in court

• The ethical responsibilities of prosecutors

It focuses on reporting requirements, not prosecution decisions.

6. How would this impact the District Attorney’s Office day-to-day?

If enacted, the bill would:

• Add additional reporting requirements beyond current systems

• Require staff to compile and submit information within a set timeframe

• Increase administrative workload related to documentation and reporting

7. Who is responsible for public safety outcomes?

Public safety is a shared responsibility involving:

• Law enforcement

• Prosecutors

• Courts

• Community and state partners

The District Attorney’s Office plays a role within this broader system.

8. What should the public take away from this?

• Safe Task Force cases are already reviewed and prosecuted under existing law

• Not all arrests result in prosecution due to legal standards and evidence requirements

• The proposed legislation focuses on additional reporting, not changes to how cases are handled in court

“What to Know” is a public information series created by the Public Affairs Division to provide clear, fact-based information on issues that impact our community.

DA Mulroy Pens Op-ed for "The Tennessean" : Shelby County DA Steve Mulroy defends record, refutes Sen. Brent Taylor’s allegations

Politicians being political isn’t exactly a “man bites dog” story, but a respect for the truth sometimes requires that you point it out.

To raise his profile among his far-right base, Sen. Brent Taylor recently published in these pages a typically fact-free politicized screed falsely characterizing me as a crime-soft DA desperately in need of extraordinary legislative micromanaging. The facts say otherwise. He also proposed some misguided legislation.  Let me address both.

First, consider the source.  This is the same senator who promised the world he’d get the Legislature to oust me, even calling me “Interim DA” for a time.  Bereft of any real supporting evidence, the removal proposal gained no traction, even among the conservative GOP supermajority.  The same senator whose baseless complaints about supposed financial mismanagement were refuted by an audit by the Republican Comptroller which yielded no adverse ‘findings.”  The same senator who  is 0 for 5 for meritless ethics complaints against me, all dismissed by a state ethics board which could hardly be described as a left-leaning body biased in my favor. The same statesman who recently posted a video calling our county mayor “full of sh*t.”

His op-ed notably contains not a single specific fact to back up his general claims that our office fails to aggressively prosecute crime.  In fact, we prosecute over 40,000 cases a year, including over 3,000 violent cases, far more than any other DA office in the state.  We regularly publish a running tally of the hundreds of serious criminals we have convicted, and the thousands of years in sentences we’ve obtained (available at https://www.scdag.com/scdagdata).   We’ve laser-focused on violent crime with our “V11” initiative, which ensures that violent criminals, especially repeat violent offenders, are locked away from the rest of us. 

Anyone curious about the details should subscribe to our newsletter (https://www.scdag.com/newsletters), where each week we highlight just a few of the many, many just results we obtain on behalf of victims. That includes such high-profile cases as the tragic murder of Liza Fletcher; Ezekiel Kelly’s shooting spree; the two shooters in the hit on rapper Young Dolph; and a recent case involving a defendant who threw an infant into the river.

At the same time, I unapologetically discuss criminal justice reform, and emphasize the need for rehabilitation.  The senator may not like that, but my voters do; that’s why they elected me on a reform platform, with a 12-point margin, over an established incumbent.

 Senator 0-For-5’s latest legislative brainstorm is to require me to report to the local U.S. Attorney and General Assembly (within 24 hours no less) each time I dismiss or lower a charge stemming from the federal task force currently operating in Memphis.  There are a number of problems with this.

First, it’s unnecessary.  Every case disposition is already publicly available from a number of sources.  Second, it’s duplicative.  The Legislature already recently passed a law providing comprehensive reporting on case dispositions from all  DAs (without picking on a particular DA, which is unconstitutional). 

Third, it suggests that we should treat federal task force charges differently than other charges. That disrespects the preexisting and ongoing efforts of local law enforcement, who bring hundreds of charges each week independent of the feds.  I’ve instructed my prosecutors to treat all cases the same, basing each on the facts and the law, regardless of which law enforcement agency brought us the case. 

Finally, it’s administratively burdensome, requiring us to spend time poring over records to prepare unnecessary paperwork.  Over the past year, my staff and I have had to waste countless hours (i) responding to his baseless public attacks; (ii) replying to his meritless ethics complaints; and (iii) answering his repeated onerous document requests, which continue to the present day. This distraction and disruption has taken time away from the actual work of the office, and has in no way made Shelby County safer.  We do not need yet more busywork so that he can trumpet yet another meaningless legislative “victory” to his base.

I’m happy to answer discrete questions about my office from legislators of good faith.  I sense the General Assembly has passed prior “DA oversight” bills at least in part out of professional courtesy to the good senator.  I respectfully suggest that the time for humoring his attention-seeking is past. I hope that my staff and I can continue to work undisturbed for public safety in Shelby County. 

Steve Mulroy is the DA for Shelby County.

Case of the Day: Judge Raises Bond to $100K After Defendant Rearrested for Assault:

Judge Raises Bond to $100K After Defendant Rearrested for Assault: During a bond hearing, Assistant District Attorney Anika Rush successfully argued that defendant Rodney Rogers’ history of violence against the victim and previous violations of the Court’s bond conditions made the original $10,000 bond insufficient. General Sessions Court Judge Greg Gilbert agreed with the State’s arguments and raised Mr. Rogers’ bond from $10,000 to $100,000.

On May 21, 2025, Mr. Rogers pleaded guilty to assault and violating bond conditions. Seven days later, on May 28, 2025, authorities arrested Mr. Rogers again after he assaulted the same victim. The court set the Preliminary Hearing for June 17, 2025.

Message from the DA: June 13

Last week was a powerful reminder of the important and tireless work our prosecutors do every pursuing justice and public safety.

 In just one week, we prosecuted five separate trials in Shelby County Criminal Court, with charges ranging from second-degree murder to theft of property. Each case reflects the dedication, preparation, and commitment of our legal teams.

Notably, a jury found Gena Kilgore—a home healthcare provider accused of defrauding TennCare—guilty of theft of property for forging timesheets and stealing between $60,000 and $250,000. Prosecutors Dan Buchanan and Daniel Woodford led this trial.

In Criminal Court Division 2, Prosecutors Kindle Nance and Shannon Mason secured a DUI conviction against Cindy Smith, reinforcing the serious consequences of impaired driving.

In a significant second-degree murder case, a jury found Randy Johnson guilty of killing Jazmin Jones in 2023, as well as tampering with evidence. Prosecutors Monica Timmerman and Regina Lucreziano called 17 witnesses, including one of the victim’s family members, to present a compelling case for justice.

Our Special Victims Unit also saw a verdict last week—Juan Sandoval was found guilty of criminal attempt rape and sexual battery, thanks to the focused efforts of our SVU team, including prosecutors, Karin Morris and Venecia Patterson.

And in between these trials were dozens of other critical proceedings—bond hearings, arraignments, and motions—each one getting us one step closer to justice for victims and accountability for defendants. It’s a nonstop grind that often goes unseen, but never unfelt.

These outcomes are not just case wins—they are reflections of our mission in action. With more than 120 prosecutors handling hundreds of cases at any given time, the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office remains deeply committed to enhancing public safety, ensuring accountability, and advocating for victims. 

To the public we serve: know that behind every court docket is a team of prosecutors, victim advocates, investigators, and support staff working hard to make our community safer and stronger.

Thank you for trusting us to do this critical work.

About the DA's Fast Track Violent Crime Initiative (V11)

Shelby County DA’s Office Fast Track Violent Crime Initiative (V11) prioritizes 11 of the most violent crimes with smart, tough, and accountable prosecution.

What Crimes are Considered Priority Offenses (V11)?

• First Degree Murder + Attempt

• Second Degree Murder + Attempt

• Carjacking + Attempt

• Aggravated Robbery

• Aggravated Assault (gun fired)

• Violent Sex Offenses

• Convicted Violent Felon Possessing Firearm

• Stolen Car and Simultaneous Possession of a Firearm

• Possession of a Glock Switch

• Retail Smash-and-Grabs

• New Violent Offense While Out on Bond

How Will Cases be Prioritized?

While the DA’s Office has always prioritized public safety, we are updating procedures that allow a laser focus on violent crime. This includes:

• Speed: Internal Deadlines

  • Get through General Sessions (preliminary matters) within 60 days from date that defendant obtains an attorney

  • Once ready for indictment, indict within 30 days

  • Get to trial or plea within 15 months

  • Contact victims within 48 hours of getting the case; impose certain internal deadlines for prosecutors to resolve the case

• Internal Procedures

  • Weekly docket of V11 cases in each court to go to each court’s Trial Team

  • Weekly docket of V11 critical reports (preliminary hearings, bond hearings, trials) to senior staff

  • Monthly reports to track V11 cases by Court Division

Additional Information

• Bail: When bail is granted, ask for monitoring (GPS, GVIP, etc.); prosecutors sign up for automated alerts regarding law enforcement contact; and immediately move to revoke bail if the defendant is rearrested.

• Investigation: Make extra efforts regarding (i) constant communication with law enforcement agents, (ii) monitoring jail calls, and (iii) using the nationwide NIBIN ballistic database.

FAQ: The "Drag Show" Law

Below are some Questions and Answers about SB 3/HB 9, the new law regarding drag show performances.

Q: What does the law provide?

A: The law bans the performance of a drag show (an “adult cabaret performance” involving “male or female impersonators”) if it is

(1) either viewable by minors OR on public property;

    AND ALSO

(2) “harmful to minors.”

“Harmful to minors” is defined by using a modified version of the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of “obscenity.”

Q: Does this mean that there will be no drag shows in Shelby County? Will people performing at PRIDE Fest, Atomic Rose Café, and other places go to jail?

A: Our office enforces the laws as written, so it is possible that there could be prosecutions under this law in Shelby County. But the law, as written, is fairly narrow. We intend to interpret it as narrowly as we can to try to avoid constitutional issues. Also, as a general matter, this office will not make enforcement of this law a priority. However, we can only speak to enforcement inside Shelby County. Interpretations and priorities outside Shelby may be different.

Q: When does the law go into effect?

A: The statute was initially set to go into effect April 1, 2023. However, a federal court has enjoined enforcement of the law until late May in order to examine its constitutionality at trial.

Q: How did the law’s enforcement get enjoined?

A: In late March, a local drag show theater group called Friends of George’s sued in federal court to get the law declared unconstitutional. Plaintiffs sued the Governor, the State Attorney General, and D.A. Mulroy. Plaintiffs sued D.A. Mulroy because he is the official who would be responsible for enforcing the law in Shelby County.

At a hearing held March 30, D.A. Mulroy, representing himself, stated that he would not oppose a temporary order restraining enforcement of the law. He stated that because there was much public confusion and concern about the law’s application, scope, and constitutionality, it would be useful to freeze things in place. This would allow the court to clarify those things before our office had to make decisions about enforcing the law. We hope to avoid having to make enforcement decisions until the court clarifies the validity and application of the law.

The federal court has temporarily enjoined enforcement of the law until May 28, 2023, in order to allow the case to go to trial. The trial is set in this case for May 22, 2023.

FAQ: Shelby County’s New Bail System

In August 2022 Shelby County announced the creation of a new bail process that will make the county’s system fairer.  This new system went into effect on February 15, 2022.  

The new system includes:

• New bail hearing courtroom

• Individualized bail hearings with counsel no later than three days after a person’s arrest

• Examination of a person’s financial circumstances prior to bail decisions using the Vera Institute’s ‘Ability to Pay’ calculator.

Why the need for an updated system?

In the prior system, the ability to pay was not a factor of consideration, leaving those who could not afford to pay detained indefinitely. This is unfair because those who faced the same charges but could afford to pay bail were freed until trial. 

Research shows that hundreds of thousands sit behind bars while awaiting trial simply because they cannot afford to pay bail. This number disproportionately affects Black people and poor people.

Spending even a few days in jail can have tremendous consequences on a person’s life, including loss of employment or housing and pressure to plead guilty. 

 Does bail reform threaten public safety?

Research has shown that releasing people pretrial does not threaten public safety.

Additionally, there’s no clear evidence linking bail reforms – which have been in place for years in some cities – to the recent rise in violent crimes. In fact, the majority of cities that have seen increases in crime have not eliminated cash bail. 

 A 2020 study by Prison Policy Initiative, looked at nine cities and counties, where there is existing data on public safety from before and after the adoption of new bail systems and pretrial reforms. All but one of the jurisdictions saw decreases or minimal increases in crime after implementing reforms. 

In Shelby County, only about 3% of persons on bail reoffend violently; compare that to the greater number of individuals who have been detained pretrial for months and years and eventually released without a conviction simply because they were poor and couldn’t afford the bail amount.

Does the District Attorney’s Office set bail? 

No. Only judges and judicial commissioners set bail. The initial bail/detention determination is set without the involvement of the DA’s office. At the bail hearing, the DA can (but does not always) make a bail recommendation, but it is a recommendation only.

Does the new system eliminate cash bail?

No. Cash bail remains. The difference is that before the bail amount Is set, the defendant is entitled to (a) a hearing and (b) an examination of his actual finances and ability to pay.