Judges in northern Utah are about three times as likely to put someone convicted of a third-degree felony behind bars as judges in the southeastern part of the state, raising questions about whether justice is being equally applied statewide, according to a new legislative audit.

From 2017 to 2025, a defendant sentenced in the 7th District — covering Carbon, Emery, Grand and San Juan Counties — was sent to prison or jail 24% of the time for a third-degree felony, auditors found. Judges in the state’s six northern counties sentenced convicts to prison or jail roughly 75% of the time, for the same severity of crime.

Judges have broad discretion when it comes to sentencing, but auditors said the Judicial Council, which oversees the courts, does not regularly monitor disparities in sentencing and could not provide an adequate explanation for why they exist.

“We are concerned, of course, at the level of variation observed here,” Jordan Green, one of the staff auditors, told lawmakers Wednesday, “because, simply put, justice shouldn’t depend on the district you’re in or the judge assigned to your case.”

House Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, suggested that someone might want to consider not committing a crime in a district with a high rate of prison sentences versus one with a lower rate.

Appeals Court Judge David Mortensen, the vice chair of the Judicial Council, said part of the disparity may result from whether counties treat inmates. A judge may not sentence someone to prison if the person has been held in custody since his or her arrest, giving credit for the time served, but impose a longer sentence if the inmate is released from jail before the trial.

However, the inconsistent sentencing is also true of different judges in the same district. Looking at seven judges in the 2nd District, the likelihood a defendant would end up behind bars ranged from 41% to 89%.

The data comes from one of four audits lawmakers ordered scrutinizing the court system, assessing court administration, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, the Judicial Conduct Commission and an overall look at judicial independence and accountability.

The audits were ordered amid ongoing tension between the Legislature and the courts, which have angered Republican leaders as judges have blocked several key pieces of the conservative agenda — including blocking an attempt to ban most abortions in the state, limiting the Legislature’s power to repeal citizen-led ballot initiatives, and discarding the Republican-drawn, gerrymandered congressional districts.

The audit of the Judicial Conduct Commission looked at one high-profile case handled by the commission — its investigation into allegations that former Supreme Court Justice Diana Hagen had an improper relationship with an attorney on the gerrymandering case.

The commission’s investigators did a preliminary inquiry into the matter and found the allegations against Hagen to be “speculative, overstated, and misleading” and said they had “very little credibility.” The chair of the commission, who is a friend of Hagen, recused herself and the remaining commissioners voted to dismiss the complaint.

Schultz, Senate President J. Stuart Adams and Gov. Spencer Cox considered that inadequate and launched their own investigation, which ultimately led to Hagen resigning from the bench, saying at the time she wanted to protect the privacy of her friends and family.

The audit found that the JCC investigators handled the Hagen probe as they would any other investigation, although it did criticize the chair of the commission, Cheylynn Hayman, for casting doubt on the attorney who brought the complaint against the justice when she announced her recusal. Such statements could influence other commissioners’ view of the matter, the audit said.

Schultz expressed frustration that Hayman did not attend the hearing and grilled the commission’s executive director, Alex Peterson, over why only a preliminary investigation was done.

Schultz asked why subpoenas weren’t issued to Hagen’s ex-husband for text messages that could have demonstrated Hagen had perjured herself when she denied wrongdoing.

Peterson said that after the preliminary investigation, the commissioners decided the evidence didn’t warrant issuing subpoenas. Staff, based on the initial inquiry, recommended the complaint be dismissed and the commission voted 9-0 to do so.

House Majority Leader Casey Snider, R-Paradise, blamed the commission for Hagen’s case being aired publicly.

“She was prosecuted in the court of public opinion and not entitled to her fair day in your process, and that had significant ramifications,” Snider said. “And I think that that has not only ruined her career, which is unfortunate, but it’s tarnished the entire reputation of the judicial branch.”

House Minority Leader Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, pushed back on Snider’s accusation.

“Who was the one that put her before the public, to publicly execute her? Lots of people,” she said. “We can’t just put it on one particular agency.”

The audit did not address how the conduct commission’s investigative report, which by law are supposed to be confidential, was obtained by legislators and, eventually, the news media.

Additionally, the audit identified shortcomings in the JCC’s governance, including inconsistent record-keeping, a lack of a clear investigative framework and limited public transparency.

The audits identified similar shortcomings with the Judicial Council, which oversees the court system. They recommended more robust oversight, scrutiny and governance of the courts — including potentially adding legislative representatives to the council.