 All right. Thank you. Thanks, Jenna. Welcome. Hi. Good evening. This is the presentation from the Vermont Institute of Community and International involvement. And we have the good fortune tonight discussing things. Sorry, good night. See you in the morning. We've had the good fortune to have these zoom sessions in which we hope to educate our community about important legal and constitutional issues that have face all Americans at this point. We have with us tonight Sarah George who is the state's attorney the elected states attorney. She was elected in 2018. Is that correct Sarah, I hope. And she is what we are fortunate enough to have among us, a reform prosecutor. She's a graduate of Vermont law school, and she has served our community ever since in various ways she was the deputy states attorney under TJ Donovan our current attorney general. She, as I mentioned was elected in 2018. And I believe we are very fortunate to have her in the state I want to just say, I was a prosecutor for a while about a million years ago and I came to realize that when I was that the prosecutor in our legal system has probably more power than any other single person they decide what charges are brought, and who goes to jail and for how long. That's pretty impressive. Anyway, so, but Sarah will be talking to us tonight about the ancient right of habeas corpus. So with that, Sarah. This is Sarah. Thank you. Thank you Sandy and hello everybody. I am going to share my screen and do a little. I think I can now and little PowerPoint just because I think it's a little easier to see that way. All right. Can you see that okay. Okay, great. I don't know if you can see it with the notes page or not but that's okay. And so habeas corpus is actually a federal writ, but it is it does have some equivalence in the state court which I'll talk about last, but to start, it is this idea that everybody is born with liberty. And that any taking of that liberty, literally taking up that liberty by the government requires process and proof, which that is a writ of habeas corpus. It's, it reminds me whenever I hear that the phrase I think about the show me the money from Jerry McGuire like it is basically just the show me the proof where an individual who is being detained by the government can say to a judge to the community you have to prove to me that you are legally detaining me. It literally means let you have the body, but in context it means that we the court are demanding that you, you have this body brought before us you have this person that you are detaining and you need to bring them before me, and you prove to me that you are legally detaining them. And so it's a recourse in law, which a person can report basically that they think they're being unlawfully detained, or unlawfully imprisoned to a court and requested the court order the custodian of the person, bring them to court and determine whether or not they are being held lawfully. Usually the custodian of the person is either a sheriff in a lot of jurisdictions, or here it would be the department of corrections or potentially the police department. But the writ would go straight to the court and then that person would be brought before them. There is no guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it really doesn't necessarily protect any other criminal rights that an individual might have so it doesn't protect an entitlement to a fair trial, or being held on an amount of cash bail that you can't post those types of things that is really just about whether or not you are being lawfully detained. Like, like any good writ or law there are exceptions. I'm just going to play this really quick two minute video I'm hopeful that you guys will be able to hear it just because I think it does a good job of describing these sort of exceptions. Can you see this Sandy. No, not yet. Where would it be. Right there. See it. No, we're still seeing the screen that says habeas corpus. The link for a video. Yeah. Okay. I'm not sure how to fix that and it will probably take too much time so it's just it's a quick video that just describes what habeas corpus is which I just told you but then it also describes that like anything there are some exceptions. One of the exceptions to habeas corpus is when the government has determined that you are an enemy combatant or a risk to national security. The case that stands out to me on this issue and it's one that we learn in law school and it has always stood with me because it's it's like the only case I really remember regarding habeas corpus. Mostly because it was timely. It's the case is Hamdi V rum spelled and the circumstances as I recall them are that this this man name, this man Hamdi was born in the United States believe he was born in Louisiana, and he immediately within the first year of his life moved to Saudi Arabia. And then in 2001, he went to Afghanistan. He claims that he was in Afghanistan doing relief work. But it was during the US insurgency of Afghanistan, and he was taken into custody by US officials and brought back, well, not brought back brought to Guantanamo Bay, and he was detained and invest and interrogated there. And he claimed a writ of habeas corpus, he said that I am a US citizen, and I am being held unlawfully and you need to bring me before a judge. And the very first judge that heard it said yes that's he's he's right he's a citizen you have to bring him before a judge, bring him to me. The government appealed it, and the appellate court said, No, you don't have to bring him in front of a US in front of a judge. He's being held as an enemy combatant. And they appealed the family of Hamdi appealed that to the US Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court did find that they should have brought him that it did not matter what the circumstances were that he was being held on that he was a US citizen and therefore should have been brought before a judge on a habeas corpus writ. So it ultimately was a good outcome, but the amount of time that he was held without ever seeing a judge, I believe was at least two, two years, if not more. Was it was he in Cuba then was he at Guantanamo. Yeah, he was. Yeah. Can I ask you a question. Yeah, because others that were held in Guantanamo were never brought before a judge correct. And was that because they were not citizens of the United States. That's correct. So those guys that were held in Guantanamo were not US citizens were never brought before a judge correct. That's correct. I mean I'm not sure if any of them ever were but for the most part that is exactly right and the justification is based on the suspension clause so it protects the liberty by protecting the privilege so it provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege, except in extraordinary circumstances so when it rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it. So we've had in every situation I'm aware of in Guantanamo Bay the circumstance or the justification has been we are using the suspension clause. We're suspending the writ of habeas corpus because we believe this person is a national national security risk and or an enemy combatant and public safety requires it. writ of habeas corpus is really a federal writ and so in state courts where I'm working and where most of us would sort of hear about and see the impacts of the system. We don't really have that term we don't really use writ of habeas corpus. Instead, the Vermont rules of criminal procedure have somewhat equivalent in our rule three and rule four and rule five, and more particularly, when a person is arrested, and they're arrested without a warrant, and they're released on a citation so that person is arrested by a law enforcement officer, and again are actually taken into custody so their liberty is being taken. They shall be brought before the nearest judicial officer without unnecessary delay. They're not just brought before an office judicial officer but they actually have to be brought before the officer with an with a formal information or affidavit from either a law enforcement officer or the state's attorney. And that is in some ways what we have kind of dubbed in in our world as the 24 hour rule so. And when someone's in custody on a criminal charge, a judge must find probable cause on the charge and that that they're being held on within 24 hours of them being held on it so. An example of that may be that on a Friday night after court has closed and an individual is arrested by a police department in Chittenden County, and he's arrested on an allegation of aggravated assault. It might be in court until Monday morning, and that's more than 24 hours so an or and we wouldn't have technically charged the person until Monday. So in order to kind of in order to satisfy the legal requirements. And that law enforcement officer that arrested them or a state's attorney would have to call a judge over the weekend before that 24 hours. I'm sorry, I keep saying 24 hour rule it's a 48 hour rule. There's a 24 hour rule it's a 48 hour rule. 48 hours, the law enforcement officer or a state's attorney would have to call a judge tell them what the charges what the person's being held on what our evidence is against that person. And ask whether the judge would find probable cause whether they think that we have probable cause for that particular charge. And then, if they say yes that is usually noted either in the paperwork or the law enforcement officer might even include that in their affidavit. And we used to actually have to fill out a form saying what judge what charge, and when they found probable cause so that we could guarantee that probable cause was being found on those individuals that were being held over the weekend. And the concern about this is that on a Friday night say somebody gets held on a allegation of aggravated assault and on Monday morning we say that there isn't probable cause for that case. It's been held in jail a weekend on a charge that there was no probable cause for. So this is the way of having a second set of eyes, not just law enforcement but somebody else, and really not just prosecutors either but making sure that a judge has actually heard the evidence against the person and has found probable cause. Maybe, maybe you could explain what probable cause really is. Yeah, so that's the burden of proof that the state needs to show in order to charge somebody with a criminal charge. And the sort of easiest way to put it is that we have to show that it is more likely than not that an individual committed this crime. And the judge has to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to us to the state. So, even if there might be some evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the person being charged. The totality of the evidence and looking at it in our favor versus the person being charged. It's not a judge can find probable cause if they think that we have met that burden. It's a really low burden. For a lot of reasons it's a really low burden, and especially more likely than not is already a pretty low burden but then when you take into account that a judge looks at it from the light most favorable to the state that adds another element that makes it an even lower burden. And because it essentially ignores. Or could it could ignore evidence to the contrary. We of course try not to. And, you know, at our office we really try to look at most cases coming in especially the more serious cases in. At a much higher burden at a much higher burden so in order to prove something at trial, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest burden you can have in any country around the world. And so, for us, looking at charging somebody with something that could completely impact I mean negatively impact their life. We try to make sure that we're actually looking at it more to make sure we can prove this at trial rather than just charging somebody because we can we really want to make sure we have the evidence to prove it. So, I just thought it might be a good opportunity since we're talking about people being detained to talk a little bit about next steps in the state court. Once probable cause has been found by a judge that person within a certain amount of time frame it depends on the charges will be brought in for an arraignment, and that's when the person will actually enter a formal plea. More often than not, you know, 90 plus percent of the time individuals will enter a not guilty plea. And I think that's really what a community members can get really hung up on. Wondering how somebody who is maybe caught on surveillance camera doing or committing this particular offense or maybe they admit to the apps that they that they did a did the crime that they engage in that behavior. How those people can then come in and an arraignment plead not guilty. The reason for that is that just because we might have the evidence to prove their guilt. We still need to actually prove their guilt. We need to make sure that their rights weren't violated me to make and defense attorneys are going to want to make sure that, you know, the confession, for example, wasn't coerced by police or that police didn't plant evidence or, you know, make sure that all of their rights were followed in order to get any evidence from the person. We need to make sure that whatever outcome that an individual is getting or resolution that they might come to is based on all of the information. And that isn't often known at arraignment. We don't always have all the information right at arraignment. So it's actually very common and people will plead not guilty, even if there's an overwhelming amount of evidence against them and that's, that's what our system is based on. We want to make sure that people are pleading guilty to things that not only they are guilty of, but also that none of their rights were violated in the process. So once they can I ask this, is all this based on the presumption of innocence. Yes, every single person who comes into the poor house is presumed innocent, no matter what the charges against them. And an individual is never presumed guilty. They never should be presumed guilty. The Constitution entitles them to the presumption of innocence, up and until a verdict by a jury or they enter a guilty plea. So even at trial, when we've presented all of our evidence against an individual and the defense has put on their entire trial, and we've rested our case and we've given our closing arguments, even in that moment. And in some ways, especially in that moment, that person is presumed innocent. So jurors are actually told when they go into delivery on a case that they need to start from that, that they need to say this person is innocent. And let's work backwards and figure out what the state did through this case beyond a reasonable doubt. So even all the way through deliberations that that presumption of innocence stays with the person charged. So if they plead not guilty, then the next question is what it what are we going to do in terms of this person's release so are we going to release them on their own recognizance which just means you have entered not guilty on this charge and now you're free to go and you will have an off date and you have to come back but you don't have any conditions you don't have fail. You just have to show back up the kind of and that's the least restrictive possibility for somebody. And the next least restrictive is that the judge does actually impose conditions of release. That can be anything from. You don't have to come to court when you're told to, or if you change if your address changes, you need to tell the court. Those are conditions of release, very minimal. It goes all the way up to, you cannot be released until you show us a responsible adult that's going to take custody of you, or you have to, you have a condition or release number 12 which is you cannot buy have or possess any alcohol. While this case is pending, or you cannot have any contact with a particular person, which is often the case in domestic violence cases or assaultive cases. So there's a range of the conditions of release and the law requires judges to impose the least restrictive conditions that will still ensure public safety. And so that is a, that is something that they are balancing all the time and trying to figure out what really is necessary to impose to protect the public. The next most restrictive is cash bail, and cash bail means that the judge finds that the person is a risk of flight, and it can only be imposed if the person is found to be a risk of flight. Which means that they either have prior failures to appear for court, or that they maybe live out of state, maybe they're in Vermont on vacation and they live in Hawaii and they have absolutely no intent on coming back to answer to their charges. Cash bail can be imposed under those circumstances, and the amount is supposed to be based a reasonable amount based on what that person can afford. But the reality is that's that's not usually taken into account. It's usually a pretty arbitrary number picked by the judge, usually based on the crime. And that person can only be released from the government's custody if they post that bail. So they give the government that money. And the idea behind it is that once they've given the government that money, they have an incentive to come back, because if they don't come back, they don't get that money back. If they do come back and they plead out or they resolve their charge somehow, then they do get that money back. So the idea is that this money will keep people, they'll be released once they post that money and then they'll come back and resolve their case. On that note, similar to a writ as well, somebody is being held on cash bail and their circumstances change where they can't afford the cash bail or they're being held on a responsible adult condition. And they don't have a responsible adult they can put forward. They can request a bail review. And they just need to file a motion that says I want my bill reviewed and the statute requires that a judge brings that person in front of them within 48 hours. So if they're taken very seriously when somebody says basically I'm being detained in a way that isn't fair to me and I can't do what you're asking of me or I can't post the bail you're asking of me and I want to get out of jail. So they will file that motion and the court has to set it by statute within 48 hours. And then the most restrictive is called a hold without bail. And that is used very seldomly in the most extreme circumstances. And it's only it is a public safety measure and it is for people who have committed a violent felony. And the evidence of guilt is great. So it's not a probable cause in order to hold somebody without bail to be on that we have to show that our evidence against this person that they committed a felony, a violent felony is great. And we don't think that any conditions of release can protect either the victim, in this case, or the public. And so those are really safe for aggregated domestic assault cases and aggravated sexual assault cases. We had one today because we unfortunately had a homicide this past weekend. And so I asked the court to hold this person without bail. So it doesn't matter how much money they have. It doesn't matter if they have some particular defense that they want to present. None of that is taken into account. The only things that are taken into account is that it is a violent felony and our evidence that they did in fact commit the crime is great. And they are held indefinitely they are held in the life of the case. So, again, it has nothing to do with how much money they're going to post bail is not an option they're just held in jail. Do they do you have to have any evidence of flight in that case or they're just now because our danger to the community. No. No. Well danger to the community perhaps but that could just mean one person, you know if, if it is an aggravated domestic assault, you know as a lot of us know that person might not be a danger to anybody else in the community, but can be a fatal threat to the person that they have assaulted and so we we just need to show in those cases that the evidence of guilt is great and that a condition of release that they can't contact that person for example, is not sufficient to protect that person. The other aspect of a hold without bail, because it is taking that person's liberty because it is it is not about their money or the risk of flight. Because they will be held in jail for months potentially while their case is pending and added safeguard to make sure that the government is not taking advantage of that is that the government is required to put on an evidentiary hearing within 10 days of the hold without bail motion. So, for example, today, I filed a hold without bail motion for the individual who committed a homicide last weekend. And the court held him without bail until the until it's set for a hearing so within seven to 10 days the court will set that for an evidentiary hearing. So I'm going to bring in witnesses to show the court, not just by after David but actually show the court through witnesses that that that are evidence that this individual committed this homicide is great. And so it's an added safeguard to make sure that people aren't being held without bail which is the greatest restriction on their liberty without multiple safeguards in place. It also guarantees that the person go to trial within 60 days, another safeguard to make sure people aren't just languishing in jail for a really long time. The kind of flip side to that is that the defense can waive that, and they often do because as you can imagine, a defense attorney will likely need more than 60 days to prepare for a homicide trial. So the safeguard is there, but it's rarely used. We have multiple homicides for example Penning and Chittenden County and all of them are except for this one we are in today all of them are at least a year and a half old. And those individuals are still some of that's COVID right I mean we haven't had you know we didn't have trials for over a year. But a lot of it is because the defense needs the time to adequately prepare the case. There's a prosecutor need time also. We do but the, you know, the statute doesn't protect us from that. If we're not ready and the defense, you know today the defense had said set this for trial in December, we would not be able to waive the 60 day rule. Unless we were to revoke our motion for hold without bail. So you could, you could have more time if you were comfortable with that person being in the community. And you know that the thought behind that I think is that when a state when the government brings a serious charge against somebody, they have all the evidence when they're arraigning the person. That's again unrealistic we had this homicide this weekend and there's still hundreds of hours of investigative work that law enforcement plan to do. We've been working all day on gathering new evidence and will continue to do so for weeks. So, and the thought that we would actually have all of this ready and wrapped up in a bow and 48 hours after a person is is killed is is really unrealistic, but it is usually the defense wanting that additional time. So the case you're involved in right now is a domestic violence situation. It is. Yeah, it is a man who murdered his wife. Yeah, I think I read about it in the paper actually. Yeah. Not great anyway. No. So those are the ways those those are actually, I don't want to say only ways because it could potentially be a lot but those are the ways that the government free trial pre sentence can restrict somebody's liberties and those are the ways that an individual can go in front of a judge and ask that they should not continue, you know that they believe they have a right to be out and and make the state prove that. I wanted to just see if there are any questions in the chat I don't believe there. Does anybody have any questions. So, could you do other legal systems allow for habeas corpus do you know, I mean this is from the English law tradition right so, for instance, other jurisdictions don't even have a presumption of innocence could you explain when you actually have the presumption of guilt. Other systems have that correct. Yeah, I know that some do I don't. I honestly don't know a lot about other other countries. Why do we have a presumption of innocence. Well, I mean, it's in my opinion, certainly the way it should be. So, individual again when you're taking their liberty, liberty to the extent that we do. We should be held to a really high burden to prove that that person did it. An individual should not have to immediately to spend themselves against the government when the government is the one saying that they did it. So that I think that the protections from law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct are, are, are gravely. Well, they're, they're needed. They're, they're really really needed there's a, there's a lot of history around law enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct in again coursing confessions or planting evidence. And if there isn't a high burden where somebody is presumed innocent. I think that communities and this happens anyway in the United States given the way that the media I think portrays a lot of things as well but without that high burden and individuals presumed innocence. I think a lot of people would be convicted of crimes they didn't commit. But isn't also true we're based on English common law and English common law has the presumption of has has a presumption of innocence to that true. That's true. Yep. Yeah, I know that I know that England does I just don't know what other countries do I know I recall being really surprised. I remember his name off the top of my head but I am man in South Africa who had, who was alleged to have killed his wife and it was a really public trial. And I watched it and I remember being so surprised that there wasn't a jury. And that was the first time that I realized how many other countries don't have juries, their trials are decided by judges. And again, for better or worse, you know, I think that different countries have different processes and some have some really incredible protections of the person being charged and I think some have some are really failing the people being charged. Yes, Jane, that is correct. I was also thinking that thinking that that that sexual assault is a particularly difficult one. I mean, I mean, the difficult one because it seems to come up against people's value against people's values. It's the, the, the, the, the question, the, the case now about, I mean, what that recently about a sex offender being released into the community without, but without, but, but with the expectation that they could commit a crime again. And being, and having a person being unrehabilitated going back into the community seems to go against what the, what, what imprisonment is supposed, what imprisonment is supposed to do. Yeah. Good comment on that Sarah that's I guess I'm, I'm a little unclear on that. Jane is Jane is saying that the sex offender who was recently released. Are you also saying Jane that you think he should have had some kind of presumption of innocence or what what is it that you're asking. Well, that, well, that, um, that, that people are only supposed to be our people. Okay, then maybe our people released from jail only when that they're presumed that they have that they have been sufficiently punished and that and that they are not going to, they are not likely to commit again, but this guy has a seems like they he, he might, he, that there's a, that he could commit again, commit again. I understand what you're saying Jane. Um, yeah, I mean that is obviously always the goal of the system is to adequately hold somebody accountable, and also rehabilitate them rehabilitate them to the point of feeling secure that they won't commit further offenses. My interpretation of that is that we do a lot of that wrong in the system currently because jail is actually an incredible it can be an incredibly violent place and so we're taking somebody who committed a violent offense and putting them in a violent air, you know, a violent atmosphere for years and years on end, and then completely stripping them of all of the community ties they have obviously employment housing children relationships. And then when they do max out their sentence we're throwing them back into a community, and especially in sex offense cases, sending out a press release about when this person's getting out and where they're going to live and that they're a high risk of abuse. So, we've had a lot of those press releases go out and then we hear that landlords that that person was going to rent to have pulled out agreements that jobs that person had lined up had got those jobs taken away from them, the offers rescinded. So, we are in a lot of way and I'm not saying community shouldn't be aware of those things but we set those people up for more failure by putting press releases out telling people where they're going to live telling people all of these things about them that then often lead to our community kind of shunning them before they even get back in our community and that's likely why most people will reoffend so it's almost a, it's a little bit of a short assortment of shield I think or a revolving door that we're setting people up for but I also think that a lot of individuals will max out their sentence and there's not a lot you can do about that you can't force somebody to get treatment as much as we'd like and it's not often long term it doesn't often stick or work if it's forced. And so I don't know. There's a lot of those cases where an individual will just decide to sit out their entire sentence and so they come out technically being deemed high risk, because they didn't do the programming. But they may or may not actually be high risk they've, you know, a lot of a lot of the research will say that they've aged out of this particular conduct whatever it might have been. You know they're coming out of jail often fairly old, much older than they went in and aren't as likely to reoffend but if they didn't do treatment will will score really high on risk assessments. So I think a lot of that needs to be worked on and a lot of that probably needs some different community responses and might have better outcomes. I think Jane is asking about two parts of the criminal process one what you're talking about is prior to conviction, habeas corpus. And what Jane is talking about is after a person has been found guilty and sentenced. Yes, right so I think Jane that the whole idea of sentencing is really quite different. Once a person has fulfilled his sentence. He is entitled he or she is entitled to become free again. And that's not based on any kind of real rehabilitation is based on the fact that they serve their time. And now they're eligible to be free again. Correct. Right. Yeah. And, and, and I would say, you know, I'll. People. So, for example, I don't want to use this as a soapbox for restorative justice but I am a huge advocate for restorative justice and folks who go through that process are significantly less likely to reoffend where people who are incarcerated for charges have a 64% chance of reoffending. And, and we continue to send people to jail hoping that that will keep our community safe which it certainly does while they're in there, but it actually makes us a lot less safe when they come out, because we're not protecting them in there we're not rehabilitating in a way that really holds people accountable. So I just put that out there to say there's obviously some people that need to go to jail for the crimes they've, they have committed I, I am responsible for somebody being in jail today, and I, you know, I'm not saying that nobody should be in jail ever. But very few of our cases result in life without parole. We have 11 in Vermont people who are serving life without parole sentences. Everybody else is coming back into this community. So we have a responsibility to make sure that they're coming back into the community. Good community members right and not putting us all in more danger. But then that involves two ways to look at the correctional system right. One is the correctional system really for rehabilitation, or is it for punishment. I mean, I'm asking that. I mean, what do you think, I mean, both or what. I mean, I think the theory is that it's both, but the reality is that it's punishment. And only punishment. Robin, do you have a question. Yeah, I have a question about the prison injustice system. And in particular, I understanding that you are part of a sort of wave of progressive district attorneys and we saw Chelsea, Chelsea. Yeah, earlier and I just received a postcard about Larry Krasner who is in Philadelphia, Philadelphia. This is from prison radio and they're petitioning him that you should not oppose his relief and release. This guy did 38 years in prison for a robbery where not a shot was formed and so on. I'm, I'm sort of surprised to get a card like that that I meant to mail in to Larry Krasner because I thought he was so progressive. Do you know, I mean, I has the whole idea of letting people out who were unjustly incarcerated. Is that movement really happening or is it just talk. No, it's really happening and Larry is actually leading the way on it so I don't know the facts of that specific case. I do know that when he entered office he made a policy that his office would not contest any parole releases. Not necessarily that he would go in and advocate for the release which it sounds like that's what this postcard might be asking for. But in, in historically their office and a lot of states attorneys and district attorneys offices would actually go in and testify against somebody against some parole in his office won't do that, but he has exonerated since being in office more than any other state's attorney in the country, combined, and I believe he's at 21 or 22 people who is exonerated who are awfully convicted in Philadelphia. And that doesn't even include the many, many more that he has re sentenced to just had really, really extravagant super long sentences imposed and he has re sentenced them. Wow. Vermont doesn't have a great system for that. There's actually there are people serving sentences in Vermont that I would, I think should have less sentences. They were incredibly egregious sentences that they would never get now. We have one individual serving a life without parole who did not kill anybody. He was present at a homicide. But he did not commit the murder and person who did committed suicide. And so this individual went to trial and was found guilty as an acquaintance or as a helpless. And you know he was 22 years old when it when it happened. And I don't have a legal remedy to re sentence him. And so a lot of states struggle with that. Why don't is there no other way or he needs to get a lawyer to bring his case again. A lawyer and he has exhausted all legal remedies the problem is he's, he's not being how it's the sentence that it's a legal sentence, you know there was nothing illegal done about it, in my opinion it's just unjust. There isn't a great legal remedy to just re sentence somebody for the sake of re sentencing them, you really have to have like, they were wrongfully convicted, or you have new evidence to support their innocence or, you know, their attorney was incompetent those types of things there's a ton of legal remedies for those but those don't apply necessarily when you just got a sentence that in my opinion you shouldn't have got as well as really sad. Yeah. So that should be passed by the legislature. Yep, and we've tried for a couple of years now and most of my counterparts have testified against it and, and you know the, the argument against it is that victims deserve closure right like when they when somebody is sentenced to something victims deserve to know that that's the sentence. But my counter to that is that that's not really true anyway. The Steven Bergoyne case I tried a couple of years ago. I'm still emailing the family on an every other week monthly basis telling them about the latest appeal and, and how that might impact the case. These cases never end. So victims really don't get the closure that I think we all hope they will when somebody's tried and sentenced. Can I ask another question about that Sarah victims don't have really legal rights. Anyway, do they. I mean, there's some but they don't. Yeah, I mean, they have a right to be heard they have a right to notice they have a right to speak at the sentencing they have a right to know. They don't know when the case is being heard those types of things, but don't have, it's not up to them for example, what a sentence is they have input, and we are required to get him, but it's not ultimately up to them. And I think the reason for that is just to protect, you know, we could have somebody who wants somebody to get life without parole. And maybe our evidence of guilt is not that great, and we need to take a sentence that's a little less than that in order to balance the safety, public safety interests with the risk of an acquittal at trial, those types of things so we certainly take their input into account but we have to ultimately think about the legal avenues and, and making sure that we're consistent amongst individuals that were prosecuting. Does anyone have a question because I have another one and connected to that but I don't want to be the only person that's chatting here anyone else. Okay, one of the things that struck me as a prosecutor was a first of all the education I got when I was a prosecutor, as for sure. But one of the things that I don't think people understand is that prosecutor actually represents all the people. Correct. And that includes the defendant. So as you can tell from the way Sarah has operated is that she takes the defendant into account, which a lot of prosecutors do not. They think that they represent this thing called the state, which is not all of the people but really is the police in a lot of ways, I found when I was a prosecutor. And, in fact, the ethical responsibility of the prosecutor is to represent all the people and to make sure that defendants rights are respected, which I found really, really quite moving in a way. And I know that Sarah does that also so yeah and I take that I think especially personal because I'm an elected official so when I first started I was a deputy state's attorney and represented the state, technically. But when you become the elected official, you know the individuals who you're prosecuting the witnesses the victims, sometimes the cops, the judges they're all your constituents and so you really need to be able to balance. You know, all of the, all of that input and try to make a decision that, you know, it's rare that everybody's happy with an outcome. And that's usually means you're probably doing something okay but really making sure that ultimately that person that you're charging is going to be safer for the community when they, when their charges resolve. What else. What any further questions or discussions for you Sarah. No, this is great. I love having these conversations. Okay anyone else. Well, the reason that I wanted to have this conversation was specifically about Guantanamo and and ask once again, is the United States right now, keeping people in jail before they're convicted of a crime. We certainly be in other words, in other words, I've always seen habeas corpus as the, as a right not to be disappeared. That's what happens in other systems. So that you don't languish forever in some location and never brought to trial, which of course is what happened with many of our detainees in Guantanamo Oscar specific case. What about the January 6 rioters are they in jail right now. Many of them are. Yes. What's that what's going on with them why aren't they being brought in front of a judge. I think they are I mean I know that a couple just a guilty. I don't know in the beginning whether some of them were held without going in front of a judge but I do see headlines about some of them pleading guilty or having a hearing. The people that I actually think a lot about is illegal immigrants being held at the border for months, if not longer with absolutely no legal representation, never going in front of a judge. I think that those are an incredibly egregious violation of human rights. They're being held in jails, correct, but they're immigration immigration. They're not really jails. They're just immigration centers centers. Yeah, they're cages. Pages, children. Yeah. And that's still is going on right. It is. Yeah. So, is it because there isn't a real crime involved in the first place why is this allowed. Yeah, I mean I think that. Again, I mean it's, it is federal. Those are Homeland Security or immigration cases. But yeah they're not, they don't follow the same criminal. The guidelines are rules procedures that formal crimes do. So can anything be done about it doesn't appear so right. Yeah, but I didn't probably do a lot about it. I think our administration could do a lot about it and doesn't, and don't. What's the purpose. What is it why what is what's really happening. I mean, I don't know. I mean, there's a political answer I think but I don't know the legalities of it well enough to know. Okay, but it's sad. Yeah. I think habeas corpus is a right is really basically a right not to be detained without probable cause, correct. And then, in other words and a judge has to rule that there was probable cause in order for that person to lose their liberty. That's correct. Yeah. Okay, so, and I think it's probably pretty particular to the United States and England but I'm not certain of that. I don't know. Okay, any other questions for Sarah tonight. And now how does have you. I'd like yes I'm sorry it's Jane and like, and Jane. How does habeas corpus deal with deal with deal with deal with people who are deemed mentally ill and they and they're and they're losing their, their, their, their, their, their, their liberty to their, their liberty. There are times that against their, against their will. A lot of times, a lot of times. Yeah, like in voluntary hospitalizations, Jane. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean there is a, that does happen, certainly. But there is a judge involved in that process. There has to be a judge involved in that process. Typically, so I believe it's said there's there are 72 hour holds which don't I don't always require a judge it can sometimes just require a treating physician. If law enforcement wants to do an involuntary hospitalization that does require usually a prosecutor for my office to call a judge and get, and get a court order for that. It's only 72 hours if the hospital wants to continue to hold somebody without permission or involuntarily they do have to go in front of a judge. So, not to minimize 72 hours 72 hours being held against your will is a long time, but it isn't, you know, the idea behind habeas was really people who are being held for months, and, and more without ever being brought in front of a judge. No, because I was, no, because the reason I was thinking in those trunk was I was thinking of, of these unrepentant rapists as having some type of mental type of mental illness because of the, if they're, if they're refusing treatment. It would be almost. And, but, but they're, but there's a high likelihood of them committing a crime. Then, are they. It's, it's almost, they think that, that, that, that, almost like them having, having, having a type of mental illness, almost like having a type of mental illness. But anyways, it's, it's a, that's weird, but that's an elderly thinking about it. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's troubling. Yeah, it is troubling. And I, I think that, you know, there's certainly folks that I have spoke with who were in on sex offense, sex offenses and refused to programming. And that was mostly because some of the programs require that you admit every single fact in the affidavit in order to succeed in the programming. And the reality is that that's not often the case rates. And so a lot of individuals will just say like, yes, I committed this offense, but I did not do that or that or that or that, and that will cause them to fail the programming. So some of it I really do think is a programming issue and the way that we gauge success and rehabilitation of incarcerated folks, rather than an individual just refusing to do this programming because they don't want to do the programming. It's usually why a lot of people are not released at their minimums because they haven't done the programming so there is a huge incentive for folks to do it and if they don't, or they aren't successful it's not always because they're going to reoffend. It can just be out of principle that they will not admit to something they say didn't happen, even if they'll ultimately admit they committed the sexual sexual assault, which to me seems like it should be the priority in any programming that you don't make them admit every single thing you focus on the most important things and you go forward, but that's not always the case. And that's why we're lucky to have Sarah George as state attorney. Anyway, I think we're out of time. Thank you all for joining and again this will be recorded and be on CCTV want to thank you all for attending and next week we're having a discussion with a public defender from Florida, a former student of mine at the college where she'll be discussing the death penalty. And she's in a state which has a death penalty so uses it. Right. So, we will talk next week I hope and thank you Sarah, and everyone joining us. Sarah, thank you.