Case Study
Brady Johnson is a 6-foot, 2-inch White male who weighs approximately 260 pounds. He has openly
admitted to having a drug problem. During previous prison stays, he attended Narcotics Anonymous
meetings, although he claims that he sniffed heroin while in prison. He has been arrested many times
for burglary, assault, robbery, and drug possession. In 2008, Johnson went to trial for attempted murder
charges but was found not guilty. Eventually, he was imprisoned in the Viking Correctional Center after
being convicted on burglary, assault, and possession charges. His sentence was four years. At best, he
should be released in October 2012.
Recent DNA advancements linked Johnson to a sexual assault involving a five-year-old female in
Bardolph County. An indictment in that county was issued, and the judge in that case ordered him to be
held without bond. However, after only 15 months in prison, Johnson was released from the Viking
Correctional Center.
According to the prison, a record of the indictment was placed in Johnson’s file by an office clerk but
went unnoticed by releasing officers prior to his release. The releasing officers claim they were only
provided his personal property information. They have stated that they did not have the opportunity to
review his entire file. This is the second offender released after being indicted by the Bardolph County
State’s Attorney’s Office. Two months ago, a four-time-convicted rapist was released as a result of
miscommunication between the two agencies. Approximately two weeks after his release, he allegedly
raped a woman at a bus stop. He is currently being held without bond as he awaits a trial in that
incident.
Court records show that the Bardolph County prosecutors had difficulty communicating with the state
prison officials about Johnson. The prison had failed on two previous occasions to bring him from the
prison for hearings on the sexual assault charges. The district attorney’s office had gone so far as to
write a formal letter of complaint to the prison warden. The warden did not respond to the complaint,
and as of yet, the correctional facility has not acknowledged receipt of the letter.
Questions for Discussion
1. What is/are the communication barrier(s) in this case? Why do you believe these occurred?
2. Who is at fault—the prison, the prosecutor’s office, the process on which indictments and
release procedures are based, or all of these? Are any other agencies at fault? If fault lies with
the procedures, how can these be changed or enhanced to allow for better communication
between the agencies?
3. Liability is always an issue in corrections. If Johnson harms someone else while free, who is
liable? Why?
4. How could service quality be built into the responses of the prosecutor’s office and the prison?
Who are the customers that they serve?