State Sen. Brent Taylor Responds to ‘Misinformation’ Claims over Push to Oust D.A. Steve Mulroy, Publishes Full Transcript of Interview

Tennessee State Senator Brent Taylor (R-Memphis) on Wednesday published his public response to the MLK50 article, which accused him of using misinformation about Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy and Memphis crime in his effort to oust the district attorney from office.

In addition to rebutting or providing context to the five alleged points of misinformation MLK50 reporter Katherine Burgess included in the publication’s report, Taylor also provided the full transcript of the email interview he completed at Burgess’ request.

Burgess previously reported for The Commercial Appeal, which reprinted her article as it appeared in MLK50.

“I always appreciate and welcome being held accountable for what I do and say as your state Senator; however, it is important for the media to do so accurately and with complete disclosure of the facts and positions,” wrote Taylor in his response.

Taylor explained, “Since my positions were not accurately presented in Ms. Burgess’ article, I wish to correct the record and provide my full responses that she failed to publish.”

The first instance of alleged misinformation raised by MLK50 related to Mulroy’s proposed gun diversion program, which would have allowed felons caught with firearms to receive smaller sentences, and was only dropped after Taylor raised the possibility of using the Tennessee Constitution to remove the district attorney from office.

MLK50 wrote that Mulroy’s program would have merely constituted prosecutorial discretion when district attorneys decide not to prosecute an individual case.

The outlet quoted Institute for Innovation in Prosecution at John Jay College of Criminal Justice Rachel Marshall, who explained “prosecutors are afforded wide latitude in making decisions about when, if and how to prosecute individual cases.”

In his response, Taylor noted the quote by Marshall included by Burgess in the MLK50 article proves his claim that Mulroy’s gun diversion program would have been illegal.

“Ms. Burgess fails to address my point that District Attorney Mulroy’s already-retracted diversion program abuses prosecutorial discretion by offering a sweeping pronouncement of how he will prosecute these crimes rather than looking at the individual facts of each case,” Taylor explained.

Taylor wrote Marshall’s quote, “states that prosecutorial discretion is for ‘individual cases,'” while Mulroy’s plan would have offered “diversion when the underlying felony was
non-violent.” The state senator added, “That is not how the law reads.”

The MLK50 article then raises Taylor’s criticisms of Mulroy over his decision not to prosecute aggravated prostitution due to an agreement it entered with the U.S. Department of Justice, which brought lawsuits against the State of Tennessee over its decision to enforce the law against prostitution while knowingly infected with HIV.

While Burgess, in the MLK50 article, raises the lawsuits as sufficient reason for Mulroy not to prosecute those accused of committing the crime, Taylor argued that Mulroy overstepped his authority and “severely weakened” the position of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti when striking the agreement.

Taylor also noted that Shelby County is now the only county in Tennessee that does not enforce the law, which he argued means the county “no longer enjoys equal protection under the law.”

The MLK50 article also raised Taylor’s reference to the LGBTQ theater Friends of George, which sued after the Tennessee General Assembly passed legislation that was aimed at prohibiting children from attending sexualized drag shows.

Burgess wrote in the MLK50 article, “The Court ultimately determined that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and permanently enjoined Mulroy from enforcing the statute. Mulroy, represented by Skrmetti, has appealed that decision.”

Taylor wrote, “I was merely using this case as an example of how quickly DA Mulroy acquiesces when he philosophically disagrees with a law adopted by the legislature,” but also noted a judge has since sided with the General Assembly over the legality of the legislation.

“Attorney General Skrmetti appealed the decision on behalf of the legislature, and since Ms. Burgess’ article was published claiming I was ‘misinformed,’ the 6th Circuit Court validated my position by upholding the constitutionality of the law on appeal,” he said.

Taylor questioned, “Does this amount to misinformation or disinformation?”

The state senator also wrote extensively about Burgess’ assertion in the MLK50 article that he claimed each county’s district attorney is responsible for setting bail.

“Of course, this is a strawman argument that has no bearing on my point. I have never argued that DA Mulroy sets bail. My argument has always been that DA Mulroy’s acquiescence toward low, or no, bail in court is the problem,” Taylor wrote.

He added, “Mulroy made it clear he is opposed to pre-trial detention and campaigned on his opposition to cash bail.”

Burgess, in the MLK50 article, claimed that “Taylor often omits context about how Mulroy’s responsibilities fit into the wider justice system” when it comes to decisions about whether to grant bail.

Taylor’s transcript, along with Burgess’, may not have included the breadth of his remarks in her article.

Before claiming Taylor “often omits context” about Mulroy’s position in the justice system, the MLK50 article quotes Taylor:

“The DA is the only person in the whole county who can argue with authority for higher bail!” Taylor wrote. “When he constantly acquiesces at this critical juncture of the criminal justice system, the adversarial nature of our justice system is eroded to the detriment of the community and, more importantly, the crime victim. This abdication of his responsibility alone should be grounds for removal from office for abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”

In reality, Taylor stated to Burgess:

Mulroy appeared before the county commission and advocated for it when the county was considering the funding necessary to fill the positions to comply with the standing bail order. I welcome him to hold a press conference and state very clearly that he believes the standing bail order is not making Memphis safer and advocate for its reversal. Moreover, our justice system is supposed to be adversarial. That is to say that one side (the DA’s office) presents an argument, the other side presents an argument (defense counsel), and then a decision is made by the judge. The DA is the only person in the whole county who can argue with authority for higher bail! When he constantly acquiesces at this critical juncture of the criminal justice system, the adversarial nature of our justice system is eroded to the detriment of the community, and more importantly, the crime victim. This abdication of his responsibility alone should be grounds for removal from office for abuse of prosecutorial discretion. As we saw in the Jaylen Lobley bail hearing, despite his initial statement, his office does not always strongly oppose the lowering of bail as it should. We know D.A. Mulroy is against cash bail because he continues to partner with multiple restorative justice schemers like Just City, Decarcerate Memphis, Vera Institute of Justice, and the Justice Innovation Lab. All of them have the stated goal of ending cash bail.

Burgess also addressed the collaboration or official partnerships between the restorative justice groups named by Taylor in the MLK50 article. The article noted the Vera Institute of Justice partnership with Shelby County but noted that Just City “does not have any partnership or formal agreement with the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office at all.”

In his response, Taylor argued that Just City receives “unusual access to crime data which is unavailable to other crime groups and the public.”

He wrote, “The fact Just City, who has a stated goal of ending cash bail, does not have a formal partnership, or agreement with the District Attorney’s office should be disturbing to any journalist because of the lack of transparency.”

In the final portion of his public response to Burgess, he addressed the MLK50 author’s claims the attempt to oust Mulroy is “part of a wider trend” that involves “conservatives seeking to – and sometimes succeeding in – oust reform-minded district attorneys.”

Taylor replied, “Ms. Burgess’ assertion that talking about crime is ‘fear-mongering’ is offensive and serves as an attempt to gaslight Memphians.”

In a post on the social media platform X, the state senator also suggested that Burgess and MLK50 have a financial incentive to keep Mulroy in office.

Taylor explained that MLK50 is a project of Muckrock, which he wrote “is an advocacy-based journalism outfit” whose primary donors “include Borealis Philanthropy, the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), and the Emerson Collective.”

Taylor explained that these organizations, in turn, receive donations from controversial billionaires, including Hungarian-American financier George Soros, Facebook founder and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, his wife Priscilla Chan, and Lauren Powell Jobs.

“These four wealthy individuals in turn funded Mr. Mulroy’s campaign via the People for Fairness and Justice campaign, which spent more than $600,000 to elect the district attorney in 2022,” Taylor noted.

According to Taylor, the overlap in donors means the publication “has a sizable financial interest” in keeping Mulroy elected.

Elected in 2022, Taylor embarked this year on an effort to Make Memphis Matter by drawing the attention of his colleagues in the General Assembly to the city to craft legislation aimed at lowering crime.

– – –

Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Pennsylvania Daily Star and The Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Brent Taylor” by Brent Taylor. Photo “Steve Mulroy” by Steve Mulroy. Background Photo “Memphis Skyline” by Thomas R Machnitzki. CC BY 3.0.