 Okay, welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. We are now working on H87 regarding reclassification of crimes and we are just looking at fines and sections relating to fines in the bill. I know there was small group working on this issue. I wanna thank Representative Donnelly and Representative Lalonde. I hope I'm not missing anybody, but I'll turn it over to Representative Lalonde now to update us and give us some context into this portion of the bill that we'll be looking at. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Chair Gradd. So there's been kind of an ongoing concern regarding the categorization or the categories that were proposed by the Sentencing Commission and then actually in the bill we passed last year and the bill was introduced this year that they were really significantly increasing the maximum fine for the various categories that we have for the various misdemeanors and felonies. And so we looked at a couple of ways to address that. So we met, Kate Donnelly and I met with Eric and chatted about the issue and just kind of looked at where the fines were, didn't look at every single crime, but took a look at various crimes to see what the current maximum fines were. And yeah, indeed, our increase of the fines was pretty significant. So what we thought was we would try to become more in line with where the fines are currently. And this is not to say that some of the fines would not increase, but it's not by orders of magnitude, particularly when you take into account inflation. A lot of these fines were $1,000 fine that was put into place in the 70s or 80s is $6,000 or so now. So it does, so we're not that far off if you take into account inflation. So we've significantly decreased what the fine levels are in the proposed categorization. The other thing we certainly heard and this guided us as well is from a testimony that we've received that fines really are not that often imposed in Vermont. And if they are imposed, they're much lower than what the maximum fines are anyway. So I think we feel fairly comfortable that we're at a better place as far as what we're putting in place for the fines. Now, there are some exceptions to this. For instance, drug trafficking fines, I believe they're around a million dollars. I mean, they're very significant fines. But when we get to those crimes, we can have an exception. We can have an exception for the handful of crimes that really fines are imposed. And I do understand, and this is something we will hear, I think down the road, maybe not today, but with respect to DUI, fines are more often used and we may want to take a slightly different approach there. But this bill doesn't address that and that we're left open with being able to, in those instances where a high fine is in fact justified and is the right thing to do, we can in fact do it when we get to those particular crimes, when we're putting it into the structure. The other thing, and this was on a suggestion from Judge Zone that we look at a main law related to essentially what it would do is codify what we understood from testimony that's already occurring in our courts, which is ensuring that courts, when they're considering a fine to take into account the ability to pay of individuals. So those are the main changes here. I know that there are a few changes that are in the bill as well that we've discussed before and certainly let Eric just point out those. I think that nothing really new is stuff that we've discussed as far as some of the penalties for a handful of the crime. So with that, I'll turn that over to Eric for a more official walkthrough. And I'm wondering if Kate had anything to add to that, certainly, but I think I've hopefully covered that. Yeah, I think it sounds good to me. All right, thanks, Kate. Okay. And actually, Eric, before we turn to you, I do see that coach is here. And coach, are you able to register your vote on H-133 now just so we can tie that up? Yes. Yes, you're ready. Too many, I was typing another message to you. All right, so. Christine? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, great. All right, thank you, Eric. Go ahead. Sorry, I was having a bit of a problem with my new button there. Seems to be behaving properly now. Now I mean. All right, Eric, it's Patrick again with the office of legislative council. Nice to see everybody again this afternoon. Here to talk a little bit today about H-87 in particular to look at some of the changes that have been made between the bill as introduced, which the committee has already looked at and which I've done a walk through previously. But now we've got a new version of committee strike all amendment that has a couple of changes in yellow highlights. So if that's okay with the chair, I'm going to move right to the document. Alrighty, so again, we're on H-87, which is an act relating to establishing a classification system for criminal offenses. This is, as representative LaLonde was just mentioning, the bill that takes the existing provisions of Vermont criminal law and categorizes them into a series of classes, A through E felonies and A through E misdemeanors and the amount of the incarceration period as well as the amount of the fine are both vary with respect to the class of offense that it's in. So each class has a specified range or specified maximum of imprisonment as well as a specified maximum fine. The existing categories you see there in section 52, A through E, as I mentioned, are felonies and they give the maximum prison lengths as well as the maximum prison lengths for misdemeanors are next in such section B. And then we get to the fines which the chair was just referring to because remember each penalty and each crime I should say under the Vermont statutes for the most part has a maximum period of incarceration as well as a maximum fine. Although there are some offenses that are fine only and we may see a couple of those today. So the very first thing that the amendment proposes to do which representative LaLonde mentioned a few minutes ago you'll see that in the bill has introduced the fine range for each in this case subsection A is what you're looking at first. These are the felonies to the class A through E felonies. The fine for each specific felony class is reduced, is proposed to be reduced I should say in this amendment that you're looking at now. So for example, the class A felony has introduced at a maximum fine of $500,000. The proposal here in the amendment is to drop that to $100,000. So the maximum fine for a class A felony if someone committed a crime that fit into the class A category under this proposal would be $100,000. So similar as you look down through each of the five felonies A through E the maximum fine is reduced each time. So from B it's reduced from 250,000 to 50,000. For C it's from 50,000 to 25. For D from 25 to 10 and for a class E felony which is the lowest range of felony it's from 15,000 to 7,500. So similarly you'll see with respect to the misdemeanors. So moving on to subsection B here the misdemeanors also have five classes A through E the proposal has introduced to the proposal for each misdemeanor runs from $10,000 for a class A and this was as introduced down to $250 for a class E and there should be a strike through in the first three lines there A through C that's a typo that we're looking at. So the proposal of the amendment is to change the maximum fine for a class A misdemeanor that's on line three from $10,000 to $5,000. So the 10,000 should be struck through with the other highlighting. The proposal for class B is similar in the sense that it reduces it by half. So it's a $5,000 fine in the bill as introduced but it's a $2,500 fine under the proposed amendment for a class C misdemeanor the $2,500 fine in the bill as introduced as proposed to be reduced to 1,000. So that would be a $1,000 maximum. Now you see for class D and E those proposal includes the same fines as introduced. So there would be no changes to D or E the maximum for D would remain $500 and the maximum for E would remain $250. So that's the first sort of three real separate provisions of this amendment. That was the first one, a overall reduction in the maximum amount of fines for felonies and misdemeanors. So that's point one. So before I get to the second piece which is right here, which is the taking into account of ability to pay when determining the amount of a fine I can pause for a moment just to see if there's any questions on this part one which is the specific reduction of maximum fine amounts for felonies and misdemeanors. Again, folks, if I'm not seeing your hands, please, please jump in. I don't think so. Thank you. Sure. So moving on to the second element of the amendment again as represent the law mentioned this was a suggestion from Judge Zone about and I think it was in response to some discussion the committee was having about whether or not when setting the amount of a fine remember those fine amounts that under existing law as well as in the proposal for H87 those fine amounts are maximums. So that doesn't mean that the court has to set it as a maximum or that it does so in any majority of cases that's just the maximum amount that is possible. So the court determines what the fine should be within that range. And so what subsection C here proposes again a reflection of what we understand to be practice anyway is that when determining what that amount is gonna be and when it's gonna set what the fine is gonna be keeping in mind what the maximum is as well as the method of payment. So that's on line eight. So when the court determines the amount and the method in other words you're gonna have to pay right away can it be as credit card installments those sorts of things will go to the method. The court shall you see that's important in line nine it's not a may it's a shall court shall consider the defendant's present and future financial ability to pay the fine. So it takes into account the court must take into account the defendant circumstances in terms of ability to make that fine payment as well as going on in line 10 the nature of the financial burden that payment of the fine will impose on the defendant and any dependence of the defendant. So what kind of ability do they have in other words what their resources are is sort of the first clause and the second part of that is even irrespective of what their resources are making the payment of the fine will impose what type of burden on the defendant and the defendant's dependence. And those factors are required to be taken into account when the court determines what the fine should be for the particular offense. So I should represent the law and mention this as well I think I did mention it but this language is well not verbatim based on a statute that is the law in Maine it's based very much on the language of a Maine law that's in existence right now and so that's where Judge Doney forwarded it to me and I use it as the basis for this language. So very similar to what the main statute provides. So subdivision two has to do with the burden of proof. So what happens when the defendant makes an assertion that they don't have the ability to pay while the defendant who asserts present or future inability to pay has the burden of approving that inability by a preponderance of the evidence. So it falls upon the defendant who makes that assertion to show and you remember we've discussed this quite a bit that preponderance is more likely than not 51 to 49 for example in terms of percentages this is one way to sort of visualize it but more likely than not if the defendant can make that showing that they don't have either right now or in the future the ability to pay and they can successfully make that argument than the court can make that finding. Moving on to subdivision three this is the second sort of piece that the defendant can argue because remember they can argue not only that they don't have the present or future ability to pay also that there's gonna be a financial burden on the defendant or any of the defendant's dependence and that also is something that the court is required to take into consideration by the language in C1. So paragraph three says so if the defendant makes that assertion that the define is gonna cause an excessive financial hardship for the defendant or the defendant's dependence but again a defendant has the burden of proving that excessive hardship by a preponderance of the evidence so the defendant has to bring forward some evidence some indication some facts from which the court could make the finding about the amount of the fine to impose based on excessive hardship to the defendant. So again those two pieces are just right out of the main statute but it preserves a similar kind of procedure for the court to follow if a defendant is asserting that they either don't have the ability to pay or that it's gonna cause an excessive financial burden and then the court takes those tax into account when it sets the amount of the fine. So Eric, I think Bob. Yeah, thank you. Yes, thank you. Eric, I'm not saying I agree to disagree with any of this. Like under number two and number three where it says by a preponderance of the evidence is that, does that appear in the main statutes also? Yes, yes. I guess I'm a little confused and I'm just looking for a little clarification here. I'm assuming when they say a defendant who asserts a present future inability to pay a fine she had the burden of proving the inability and I would think period but it goes on by a preponderance of the evidence. I assume they bring in like their tax returns or their bills or could you give me an example of a preponderance of the evidence? Yeah, I think that you're exactly right. It would be factors like those that could be a pay stuff, could be a bank account statement could be any indicator, it could be the defendant's own oral testimony, oral statements about what they have but as you mentioned could be tax statement as well any sort of listing of assets and resources that they have all of those indicators of financial ability would all be relevant and would all I think be appropriate for the court for the defendant to present and for the court to take into account when it made the decision. So I think you're on the right track. Okay, well I'd hope that I'd have to provide some documents not just a verbalization of what they can but I mean proving the inability is one thing but showing documents is another I guess but that's fine, thank you. Sure. Okay, I'm not seeing any other hands. Okay. Okay, should I move ahead? Please, thank you. Okay, so that was the second concept member. So the first one we've gone through the two different sort of elements of this amendment the first being the blanket reduction of all the fine maxims for felony misdemeanors and now also a requirement that the court take into account ability to pay when it sets the amount of the fine. The third piece is really just several individual offenses in which the penalty for a member these are property offenses in which the penalty has been switched from following the property fine structure the property penalty structure I should say. Remember the way the property offenses structure is classified is that it depends upon the amount of property that's involved in the offense. It's sort of there's a scale or a step system based on the amount of property that's involved. So the lowest 200 if it's less than $100 class D misdemeanor very low, very low offense. Whereas the maximum if it's equal to or greater than $100,000 subdivision five it's a class D felony which is five years in prison and $10,000 fine that's the maximum and it ranges between those two depending on the amount of property that's involved. So for the majority of property offenses you simply have said for example that I'm just picking out an example here. So there's an example right there lines 13 and 14 typically not every time but typically the property offenses say well the person shall be sentenced pursuant to and it cross-references those three sections that set out what we were just looking at that set out how the punishment varies depending on the amount of the property involved the value of the property involved. There's a few individual offenses in which rather than follow that structure remember we went through that whole chart that I put together over the last couple of meetings on this bill in which we went through each specific property offense and saw which ones followed the structure like you see in the language that we're looking at right there or I'm gonna move right to one of the changes now because it's a good example of what we're talking about or didn't follow the structure and instead put the offense within a particular delineated class. So that's the proposal that you'll see here for example and this has to do with the counterfeiting paper money statute that the committee spent some time talking about over the last couple of meetings this basically is making fake counterfeit paper money and there was a great discussion about whether that happened in Vermont frequently anymore or not and was a testimony that it does happen occasionally but the bill has introduced you'll see had the penalty provision set up to follow the structure that we just talked about so this is line seven and eight the highlighted language the bill has introduced said all right the penalty the person who commits this is gonna be sentenced under those sections 52, 53 and 55 which means again the penalty varies depending on the value of the amount of money counterfeited. So the proposal here is to change that to the Class D ballot which is actually as I mentioned the highest of the property crime categories it's a five years maximum imprisonment $10,000 maximum fine and it's a very interesting one too and we talked about this as well if you look at line six and seven has this odd 14 year maximum in current live no idea where that came from usually there are multiples of five so where the 14 came from I really don't know but it is by property offense standards are fairly severe sentence. So I think the proposal here is to go to the most severe of the property categories which is Class D the five year maximum rather than have it vary based on the amount of property involved which it could be as low as 30 days for example. So that exact same thing a change from the categorization to a Class D felony is exactly what happens in two other offenses and that's this third change that we're talking about just the change to Class D felony for three offenses the first being counterfeiting of paper money the other two being embezzlement usually from positions of trust. So here we are embezzlement by an officer or servant of a bank for example you'll see under current law lines 14 and 15 that's a 10 year felony under the bill as introduced had the punishment follow the categories which again could be as low as 30 days depending on the amount of money embezzled. So the proposal again here is to change that to a Class D felony. So embezzlement by an officer of a corporate bank would have a Class D felony penalty associated with it. Same thing with embezzlement by a receiver or trustee appointed by the court in state litigation so that's someone again position of trust appointed by the court who embezzles or converts the property that they're meant to be trustee over or receiver for. And again that penalty goes from the categorization which can vary greatly to a Class D felony which is five years, $10,000 maximum in the existing law of penalty for that you see in line one is 10 years, $1,000. And I think that's the last one of this double check but I'm pretty sure that's it. Yep. And so that will. I think there was one more correction, Eric. Yeah. I'm trying to find that that would have been on around page 30. It's the tapping gas pipes with intent to do. Oh yeah, here it is. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you Rep. Sovano. There it was right there. Again, changing that from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor was the proposal here as introduced or sorry in existing law. It's a one year, $100 misdemeanor. And the proposal here is to go from Class A to Class B the proposal of the amendment I should say. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Just make sure that's the last one, but I believe it is. Yep. Looks like we're clear. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sure. Any questions for Eric before we move to our witnesses? Not seeing any. Okay. Rebecca Turner, you available. Welcome. Hi everyone. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, Rebecca Turner from the office of the Defender General's office. Thanks for having me back on this latest version. And it's great to see a lot of my points that I made during a previous testimony on the concerns of this being addressed here. And so I think this latest version and wanted to just clarify because I heard the intro remarks. I just wanted to clarify in terms of the new proposed find schedule. I understand that across the board the fines now proposed are lower on the max. But what I haven't been able to confirm is whether or not they are in fact lower or higher than any of the currently listed identified fines on the books. It's, I don't want to ask the question. It's just that my position on that depends on the answer. And I just wasn't clear from the introductory remarks on that. Okay. I can turn to Eric if that would be helpful. I don't have an answer to that question. The each specific offense, you'd have to go through each specific offense and make that comparison. Yeah. I mean, I can tell you that there are going to be some that the fine is going to be greater under this. I'll just give you an example of one that we've just looked at. And that is the counterfeiting law. And the fine there is $1,000. And we're saying that this is going to be a class D felony which I believe we have that as a $10,000 fine. So there's definitely an increase there. I will note, however, that we're addressing the 14-year incarceration period and we're putting it in line with the going, so-called going rate. We looked into that for counterfeiting and there were sentences that were a maximum of 1.5 years. Some deferred sentences were a maximum of 3.8 years. So we really thought the five years was appropriate there. But I haven't done it with this particular crime. I'd have to, and I can do it fairly quickly by looking in the green book. But if you take into account inflation, we're not that far off for a lot of these $1,000. I did look at some of the other ones and saw that there was a $1,000 fine imposed in like the mid-70s for one of the crimes. I'd have to double check again. And that's the equivalent of about $7,000 today. So the answer is, yeah, you'd have to go crime by crime and there are definitely gonna be some that are higher fines, but definitely not of the same magnitude as we were talking about before. Thank you for that clarification. So in response to that, our position would be, and this is consistent with the position I made earlier, which is that really there should be a complete abolition of fines entirely for the reasons talked about before in terms of having the effect of any one of these crimes resulted in increase in fines. I think that is unsupported based on the testimony we've heard crime research group. My understanding is that, and from the judge's testimonies, the fines being imposed aren't reaching those max limits currently on the books. So to propose new laws increasing the fines, I just wanna make it clear our objection to that continues. But I wanted to turn and focus my points on the ability to pay new language in the bill, which is really great to see on page three. And what I wanted to do there was focus on a subpart of that, which is who has the burden? Here as proposed in the bill, language would have the defendant while the courts require to consider the defendant's present and future ability to pay. The reading of this bill indicates it's actually the defendant who has to present evidence of an inability to pay and not just that, but by a preponderance of the evidence. And I understand that that language is taken from me. I quickly took a look and saw that that appears to be true. I would just note that we don't have that type of burden shifting in our sentencing scheme. And specifically I look at our restitution statute 7043D, which similarly requires a court prior to imposing a restitution. Again, restitution is part of sentencing similar to fines. It serves a different purpose, but again, they're both within the sentencing structure. So I think that is extraordinarily useful for this committee to look at how 7043, 137043D2 uses language there in terms of requiring the court to, here's what, I had it tabbed here and now I lost it. But it requires the court to make a finding on ability to pay without putting any burden on the defendant. And we have considerable case law developing and reversing trial judges' failures to adequately make findings on ability to pay. And so what we have is insight as to how that's understood. And that is that if there is no evidence before the court at time of imposing sentencing on ability to pay, then it's on the state to prove ultimately that there is in fact an ability of the defendant to pay the amount of restitution imposed. And the case law of the Supreme Court has identified certain things that the court can look at in fact the statute, I finally have my book out, the statute says the offenders' current ability to pay restitution based on all financial information available to the court, including information provided by the offender. So that's the language I would recommend this committee adopt in this proposed bill. Again, it's currently on the books. We have case law developed, you know, identifying it so the parties know it's consistent with sentencing. And there of course, ultimately the court can't make any findings on ability to pay without evidence. You can look at if someone has applied for a public defender, has shown herself to be indigent. Those papers are before the court and are relied on in a restitution hearing that can be relied upon here. In fact, I would suggest that there should be a presumption of inability to pay upon an indigency determination. But short of that, certainly the paperwork is directly relevant. I think the point I'm making and how our statutory scheme is set up is consistent with federal and state constitutional requirements that provide us some important context to this. We know that a court cannot impose excessive fines. Otherwise that would contradict the amendment's prohibition against excessive punishment. We have something similar in our Vermont Constitution requiring sentences be proportional. So what we know about how we understand excessive punishment, proportional punishment, it makes sense that you look at a person's income or ability to pay the sentence when it's a monetary fine, monetary penalty. Again, if you turn back to who has that burden, the court under law cannot impose a fine that a defendant cannot pay. So if a defendant just fails to bring in the paperwork on the latest income stubs, that doesn't absolve a court from imposing a fine that's not excessively in excess of his ability to pay. So I just would suggest striking that language on page three, that would be C2 and C3. I think that's right, I think that's... Do you mean striking that entire, those C2 and C3 in their entirety? I think, yes. Let's see, has C2 and C3 talk about the burden there? What I'd like about to, or C3 is that it points to considerations of the defendants, of the defendant, right? And that's a great, great thing to see. I wanted to share that while Judge Zonay pointed the committee to Maine, Texas has a similar statute requiring a judge to find ability to pay, and they passed that in 2017. And I can give the link, but for the record, it's SB1913, in their legislation, there's no burden on the defendant to produce an ability to pay. And they produced a bench card, and again, listed some useful things to look at, but also to consider not just limiting it to the dependents, but there could be other family members just essentially broadening the potential relevant factors that a judge may consider to be hardships in a particular person's case. So to the extent that three suggest those are the only things that a judge can look at, a defendant's own personal income requirements, and then the defendant's own dependence, I think that's an unnecessary limitation. And there are examples out there of what are proper and more expansive to give the full picture of what financial hardships are involved in that person's life. I think those were the main points I wanted to make this afternoon. So I'll pause here if there are any questions. Right, thank you. Thank you very much, appreciate it. Martin, did you have any other? Yeah. Okay, yeah. Questions. So I just want to make sure I understand this as well. So does it matter if there's been an indigene, sorry, indigency, I'm saying that wrong for some reason, the determination that is made going into the case, does it matter if that has been made before you determine whether to have the burden of proof on an individual or not? Are you saying, are you asking a question in the context of restitution? Well, no, no, in the context of this bill that we're talking about in this provision. Well, I think my point is, is that the defendant can introduce and share information relevant. But in a moment where there is no evidence available, the court should look at whatever is available that's been filed. And so applications for public defender services would be there or anything earlier, right? There was some discussion in a Vermont Supreme Court decision where they even considered the imposition of a 24 hour curfew as providing some insight on the ability of someone to go out to their job, right? How much can they do from home? Those kinds of things that give inference. But no, I think that if the question is should, is there a way to leave the language imposing a burden on the defendant in the bill? Well, yeah, let me say, I mean, if the defendant hasn't been deemed to be indigent, should there be a burden on that individual to show inability to pay? Yeah, I understand if there's been an indigency determination before, that presumption should be that inability to pay. But I just want to, maybe that's making too fine a point of it, I understand. Well, and I think the bottom line is that a judge has to rest his rulings on some evidence. And so there has to be some evidence in the record to find. If the defendant doesn't provide evidence, then the state has to provide evidence. And that's certainly how it plays out in the restitution proceedings. Again, who is seeking the punishment here to state? So for the state to support its request or to find to be relevant here appropriately, it is a natural place to turn to in terms of where there is no evidence before the judge to make this ruling. And the state is seeking a fine imposed of a certain amount. And the defendant, there's no information before the court and the defendant is not going on the stand or providing anything. And it is on the state to produce some evidence to support that amount. All right, thank you. Okay, seeing anybody else. Okay, great, thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. I do see that Judge Treadwell is here and I just wanna see if you have any time constraints and if you'd like to go next, I'm gonna give you that opportunity. I have no time constraints until four o'clock. So I'm happy to fit into the committee schedule wherever that works best. Okay, well, why don't you go ahead? I don't think we'll go that late, but why don't you go ahead just in case? Okay, thank you very much. And again, my apologies for being late. I got stuck in court. I've had an opportunity to take a look at draft 1.1 of H87. I caught the tail end of Attorney Turner's presentation. I think, I'm not sure I have many comments. Reducing the fines in the classification schedule is I think a policy choice that is really not a matter for the judiciary. It's what the legislature believes the appropriate maximum fine should be for the different classes of offenses. The other changes that are proposed with respect to certain property crimes assigning them to a classification, I think it's the same issue. And then with respect to the C1 to and 3 provision relating to making a determination of fines, I'm not sure that the judiciary has a particular, any position on who should bear the burden. I would note that the vast majority of fines in the vast majority of cases are negotiated between the state and the defense attorney and are set pursuant to the plea agreement. It strikes me as problematic that the court would then have to make an independent determination of ability to pay where the state and a represented defendant have negotiated the amount. So perhaps if the burden is not to be placed on the defendant, there should at least be a burden of production that the defendant has to raise the issue that the court must address ability to pay in a particular case. So that if it has been negotiated, the court doesn't have to stop and make an independent finding based on some evidence, who knows what it would be with respect to ability to pay. The information that is contained in public defender applications is frequently very summary indeed and may in fact be several years old by the time the court is imposing a sentence. So there may just not be much information available for the court to make a determination on that point. Beyond that, if there are questions, I'm happy to try and answer them. Great, thank you so much. I do see Selena has her hand up. Good. Yes, I found the, I went and looked at the restitution statute and found that to be a really helpful suggestion from the previous witness to kind of potentially track the language around financial need there. And I just your, what you shared about plea agreements had me wondering because restitution would also be the subject to a plea agreement. Yes, no, would that be part of the negotiation, the same negotiation? It's sort of separate and distinct. The court is obligated by statute to consider restitution in any case where a victim experiences a material loss. The practices that, from my experiences that there frequently is a negotiation between the parties in preparation of a separate restitution judgment order relating to payment of restitution. And there is frequently agreement between the state and the defendant as to whether the defendant has, in fact, an ability to pay. When there is not an agreement, it can make setting restitution quite complicated because then frequently orders have to be issued requiring disclosure of tax information and things like that in my experience. Okay, thank you, so helpful. Ken. So let me get this right. So it's really not the courts, we're changing these fees and resummarizing all the laws or whatever it's called, but it's really not the courts that's doing it. It's really done before you see it. So in the vast majority of cases, and I'm sure someone from either the Attorney General's Office or the Defender General's Office has the current figure, but I think it is far beyond 90%. But in more than 90% of cases, there is a plea agreement entered in the case between the parties that actually, the parties agree to the sentence that the court will impose. So the court is not making an independent determination of the sentence to be imposed in the case beyond determining that the agreed sentence is in fact in the interest of justice. Did that answer your question? Maybe, but I'm gonna ask another one. So this reclassification and this money, everything that we're doing right now, really when you're passed down your judgment, really is following these new guidelines of what we're trying to pass here. That makes sense? Yes. Classification completely reorganizes the way criminal penalties and punishments are assigned across Vermont's criminal statutes. Currently, the way it is done is that each separate statute has its own separate penalty provision that the legislature has enacted at a specific time. What this does is it creates a classification scheme and sorts all crimes into classes A through F, misdemeanor and felony, and then the legislature can decide where specific crimes should go. What the classification does is it sets the maximum penalty that could be imposed as punishment, whether that is negotiated between the parties or imposed by the court at a contested sentence. Okay, thank you. Martin. Yeah, I just wanna follow up a little bit on what Selina was asking about as well. And just looking at the restitution law and looking at what we have here, certainly in this proposal, it does spell out a burden of proof there. It doesn't in the restitution. And I guess the question I would have for you just to make sure I really understand this is if we did not have C2 and 3, which is where the burden is placed, and we only had the language in C1, it seems like that's pretty close to just what we have in the restitution law. And how would that play out? I mean, what does that do as far as what a court's consideration would be? And maybe you've already answered it by talking about what happens in the restitution law, but... So as I understand the Vermont Supreme Court's restitution decisions, the court has determined, based on the language in the restitution statute, that the court must find an ability to pay in order to order restitution. And the burden on establishing the ability to pay is effectively on the state. If C2 and C3 were not included and it was just C1, that would arguably leave open the question of who has a burden. And it would be subject to litigation as to where the burden is assigned and how it is assigned. As I understand it, the court cannot impose an excessive fine and the court must consider an ability to pay when seeking to imprison a person for failing to pay. And that most often comes up not in the fine context, but in the context of failure to pay child support. It's not clear to me that that necessarily requires that the state bear the burden in all cases. All right, thanks. Thank you. I don't think I'm seeing anybody else. Great, thank you. Thank you so much. Great to see you. Thank you very much. Always happy to help out. Great, thank you. Take good care. Okay, James Pepper. Okay, thank you. For the record, James Pepper from the Department of State's Attorney's and Sheriff's. So I will go through the bill, H87 DREF 1.1 section by section, starting with the fines. It sounds like that's probably the most relevant for today's conversation. The bottom line for the state's attorneys is we've supported more consistency in the fine structures as opposed to the more ad hoc approach that's used to developing fines currently. But we don't feel strongly one way or the other, given the kind of historic use of fines. And keeping in mind that judges already are considering ability to pay, and not imposing excessive fines. I don't see section C2 or 3 as an inappropriate burden shift because already at this point, the state has proven all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this is an appropriate legislatively imposed penalty. But that being said, it doesn't seem like section 2 or 3 actually add all that much to the conversation. And I don't necessarily believe that they need to be in this bill at all. And I think about kind of some of the other instances where courts consider ability to pay restitution, certainly one of them. There's a informal poparis where the courts can consider waving fees based on ability to pay. That has certain criteria that you could look at, whether someone is on federal assistance for food or housing, whether someone falls behind a certain percentage of the poverty line. But honestly, just I think having the courts consider ability to pay like they do in bail determinations. Spelling that out, I think is the important thing whether someone wants to prove it by a preponderance or not. I just, I don't see that as being really essential to the conversation. What I like about considering ability to pay is that the courts considering it is it can cut in both directions. I mean, essentially, for people that can pay and see fines kind of just as the cost of doing business sort of with, for instance, like speeding. I think sometimes people should pay more towards the higher end of the fine structure if they can, because then it has kind of a more of a deterrent effect. Whereas, I don't think we're seeing huge fines or fines being imposed really on people, particularly people that are represented by public defenders. So I don't actually have a real problem with C2 or three coming out and just saying the court shall consider ability to pay and just formalizing that, which is something that they do already. Thank you. I see Ken has his hand up. But again, the deal is made before it gets to the judge, right? And then the judge is just agreeing to what the deal was maybe between the defendant and stuff, correct? In the vast majority of cases that are resolved by plea agreement, right? But of course the plea agreement has to be approved by the judge and the judge could at that point consider ability to pay. And does the judge, so I mean, this isn't a question for you, but does a judge usually override the plea deal? Pretty infrequently. If there's something, if it looks like a miscarriage of justice for one reason or another, or if a victim hasn't been consulted properly and had a chance to weigh in, a judge might halt a plea deal or just ask for something different. But it's very infrequent for a judge to override a plea deal. Okay, thank you. Martin. Yeah, I guess I'm still looking at the restitution language as well. And it seems to behoove us to have the language for the fines and the language for the restitution or the concept, I should say, be equivalent because I could see that someone's unable to, you know, if we put the burden on the, if we put the burden on the defendant in one and not the other, it could end up that it's determined that the defendant has to pay one and not the other. I don't know if that made sense, but I think there's just, there makes, it seems to make some sense to me. And I guess if you could comment on that, to have these at the same level as far as restitution and fines. I have different standards, it bothers me at least. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but it's... I guess I would want to go back and really look at the restitution statutes. You know, I just, I don't know how much really information we would have about a person's finances the state would have in order to meet this burden. So I mean, I just assume really just take it out. You know, if it's gonna be a burden on the state, I don't really see that the state really meeting that burden. You know, someone had, again, for a public defender application, it's really just kind of a sworn statement that you don't have the, that you meet the criteria for public defender eligibility. You know, no one's really investigating whether those are accurate or not. And no one really has the real ability to do that. So to me, this is, you know, the whole idea of the burden of proof here is, I don't think it's just very useful to the conversation, especially considering how infrequently fines are imposed. All right, thanks. Thank you. Anybody else? Nope. Okay, great. Well, thank you. If you had anything else to add or... I mean, I don't. I mean, I had comments on the rest of the sections, but honestly, you know, they're all, you know, I think this draft is in better shape than the prior draft. I think it, so we're, and we're, so I don't really have much more to add at this point. Okay, great. Well, thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Okay, David Cher, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the record, David Cher with the Attorney General's office. I don't actually believe we've testified on this bill yet, and I'll just say for the record that the Attorney General's office does support this legislation. We think it makes sense to make the penalties, including fines more consistent across the board and also to have a bias in this legislation towards reducing penalties is appropriate and bringing them more in line with actual sentencing practices, again, as an appropriate policy outcome that we supported the legislation that encouraged the production of this bill through the sentencing commission, which did put a finger on the scale towards reducing penalties in the direction of consistency with actual sentencing practices. So for all those reasons, we do support the legislation. I think it's a good move forward. I don't have a lot to say on the current draft. I think it is looking in good shape. I know that the conversation today has mostly been about the fine issue. I largely agree with Attorney Pepper with respect to the practical impact here. The vast majority of cases that go through our system are public defender cases, meaning somebody's very low income, lacks the ability to pay for an attorney is around the federal poverty line. In very few of those cases, would you see a fine as part of the ultimate penalty? They just aren't used that often. It's not a big part of our criminal justice system and our penalties in Vermont. You may see a little more often in certain contexts like DUI cases, which tend to span the socioeconomic spectrum in a way that you see less of for other types of offenses as they're prosecuted anyway. I think that the more important fine, or I should say cost assessment that's being imposed on defendants is actually the restitution scheme, which is a scheme that attempts to make victims whole. I think that that process is really the important one when we think about assessing costs on a defendant. And that system I think is well-established and working well. I don't, I certainly think that this is a good idea. New subsection C is a good idea and support it. Again, I think it's going to be something that is relatively unusual that there is going to be a weighing out of ability to pay in these cases for the reasons I mentioned, both that fines are relatively unusual part of our system and also that as others have mentioned, a huge, it's actually greater than 99% of our cases are resolved by plea agreement. So for all those reasons, support the bill, support subsection C, I don't think it's going to make a huge difference whether a burden is assigned or not. And I would certainly be, it would have no opposition being that language entirely subsections C2 and C3 as others have discussed and letting courts sort of figure out how to get the evidence they need to make a finding. And that'll be, the burdens will be litigated in that case. And I think that given the relatively small number of cases where that'll be relevant, I think that may be an appropriate resolution here. So that's all I had on the bill for now and happy to answer any questions. Great, thank you, appreciate it. Any questions? Martin. So there is one issue that we haven't discussed as a committee yet, but we've had a couple of different viewpoints on it and it would certainly appreciate if you could weigh in on where the AG's office is. And that's whether to include the transitional provisions in this bill or not. And we've heard arguments on both sides of why it should or shouldn't be there. And I'm wondering if you have a position on behalf of the AGs with respect to that provision for those provisions. Sure, we have no objection to including the transitional provisions. I understand that there are folks who have concerns about that, that it will end up being a sort of blunt force transition that may not be delicate enough or with enough attention to detail when it actually gets implemented. I see the risk in that. I understand where that's coming from. I think that the counter to that is that basically all it's doing is enacting the policy decision that's been made or that is being made, I should say, around transitioning to this sort of tiered system. And I think that that will force consideration for those areas where there may be some concern that the preexisting pattern of the classes doesn't fit certain offenses. I understand again that folks are concerned that there won't be time or attention for that sort of fine grained look at cases that or crimes that may not fit neatly into the class system, the classification system, but we don't have an objection to it. I think that that's less of a concern for us and would not have a problem with seeing it go forward as is in terms of including the transitional provisions. But we also certainly wouldn't change our support for the bill if that were to be altered or come out. So we don't have a strong position on that, but I've no objection to seeing it continue in the bill. Thanks, thank you. Great, thank you. I'm not seeing anybody else. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, so we still do have a little bit of time on this Martin, do you wanna start some? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I certainly, I understand this is up for discussion and possible vote tomorrow, but certainly if there are any areas of concern or suggestions that we can put into hopefully the final draft for tomorrow, my inclination given the testimony from everybody we've just heard from is to strike subsection C2 and C3 on page three. I think that seemed to be the consensus of the folks who are testifying. And that does make it equivalent as far as my reading on the restitution that it's very similar if we take out those two provisions. So that's the one big change I'd have, and I'll throw out there right now. I mean, the rest of it, I think is fine. I do understand the concern about the fines, but I keep on hearing that it's really not a concern because the fines are not being imposed. These fines come much closer to really even where we are right now, particularly if you take into account inflation. So that doesn't concern me in particularly since we're adding this language. And it's a give and take. I mean, we're significantly, we're significantly addressing the situation with respect to incarceration and really going towards the so-called going rate, actual sentencing practices with respect to incarceration. So I think this does a lot of good, this bill overall. And I'm somewhat ambivalent about transition, the transitional provisions. I'm leaning towards thinking that it's something that we should include in the bill. So that's kind of where I am, but I would certainly like to hear where other folks are and if there are any additional tweets or changes to get everybody on board. Great, thank you. Selina. Yes, Martin, agree with you on the removal of the evidentiary burden sections around ability to pay. And I think I'd further suggest in line with the defender general suggestions that we really track the language. Oh, I feel like, oh, there you are, Martin. Sorry, my style rearrangement, I thought you dropped off. That we track the, maybe think about even tracking more closely to the restitution language, which has a little more detail on process, I think. And then I guess I hear what you and other witnesses have said about the fines. And I guess the counter argument or question to that is like if these fines aren't being opposed, why would we raise them for any crime? And I understand they're rarely utilized and it also seems to me and reading and continuing to read and learn about the criminal justice system that fines and fees are some of the things that keep people trapped the longest sometimes. And so I guess I'm just, I'm trying to wrap my head around raising the possible maximum fines. Like I think the argument, they're not being imposed works both ways. Have they to hear your thoughts on that, Martin or anybody else? You know, I appreciate that, Sina. Yeah. And Martin, you, oh, actually, let's, let's hear from Bob. Oh, thank you. And let's say what everyone had to say in reference to the fines and restitution and so on and so forth. The bill is proposed personally speaking, it looks fine to me. I think we need to keep in mind that the fines have gone down considerably. And this is only something that the judges could impose on a defendant. And we've talked about the ability to pay and not to pay. And if they do have the ability to pay, then that's why I think we need to still look at these fines as keeping them where they are. So that they could impose those fines that for those individuals who do have the ability to pay. As far as sections two and three goes, I don't see any problem with removing them because basically in C1, that already assesses that the court shall consider the defendant's present and future financial ability before they assess a fine. So two and three seem to be a little bit redundant as far as I'm concerned. So I think if the proposed fines, lowering of the fines and elimination of two and three, and personally, I don't have a problem with the bill as it's written. Thank you. Martin? Well, yeah, I'm just kind of trying to go through and looking at where the fines are. And yeah, I think the possibility is that some of the, certainly a number of them would potentially be raised at least as far as the maximum. And more often than not, it has to do with the fact that it might be in a tiered system of the, how much of the value of the property involved in certain circumstances when it's a higher property value, the fine could be higher. The cap for the property kinds at this point to make clear is $10,000. There's no, we don't have any. Well, I'll take that back. I think we have a couple of Class C felonies that we have in here, if I'm not mistaken. But other, most of them are not. Most of them are, we're talking about Class C or Class D felony at the outside. If the value is $100,000 or more of property taken or destroyed, again, the maximum, if max is $10,000. So I think overall, yeah, on paper, it looks like some of these fines could be increased. Again, I will also suggest that we're not that far off if you look at the inflation rates for when these offenses and fines were put on the books. And again, I haven't looked at all of them. So, yeah, I understand where you're coming from Selena as well. And I also understand where Rebecca Turner is coming from as well. And probably I don't understand the use of fines period in the criminal justice system, but that's a step too far, I think. And I think actually significantly reducing the fine scheme that we have now also may be a step too far for some folks. And I'm trying to have as much consensus on this as possible. But I understand where you're going. And do we further reduce these? I'm ambivalent, but it depends on where other people are. Okay, Selena. Yeah, I think my question and maybe it's just, I mean, I imagine it, there's a heavy lift just to determine it. But in the new version of the bill, where are the instances and how many of them are there where we've potentially raised the maximum fine? Let me not balance. I really support the bill because where we are trying to reduce sentencing and reduce fines to something that's at least more comparable to current practice. And at the same time, it eliminates some of those outlying like potential maximum, potential maximum. So I think the bill collectively is in net gain in that way, but I guess the devil might be in the details of where are the places where we've, there's a handful of places I think where we've raised the potential maximum sentence and to what extent have we done that for the fines? And I think because this version of the bill is so new, we don't have a, perhaps don't have a ready answer to the degree of occurrence there. Thank you. Tom, your hand had been up. I didn't know if you wanted to. Yeah, I did take it back down, but I think I'll go ahead. It's just kind of gone through my mind that, you know, my own opinion, I guess, that it doesn't really matter what the upper end of the fines are in a sense. And the reason that I say that is that the people who can't afford to pay it aren't gonna be paying that anyway. It's gonna be pretty much predetermined what they're gonna pay. And I can certainly appreciate what Selina's saying and anybody who thinks that the fines should be raised, like Martin was saying earlier, some of them go back to the 70s and 80s. And the people who are gonna be paying those maximum fines are probably gonna be able to, I don't know if afford it is the right word because depending on their situation, but they're probably gonna be able to afford it on some level. So as far as going back and changing everything, just personally, I don't think it's necessary because of the safeguards that are in place for our low income people. Thank you. Okay. I know if I'm not seeing any other hands and I don't know if Barbara, if you wanted to, I know you were having some internet problems, but let's see if you wanted to weigh in or Kate, I'm not sure if Kate is with us. Barbara, do you wanna weigh in? Sure, so I found the Defender General's testimony compelling and I'm glad it sounds like we're incorporating that. I guess if I had a preference, it would be to not have any fines go up, even though it's the going rate in other states and I do understand that, and there's the caveat about ability to pay, but in some ways I'd love to see us move away from fines as a solution. Not that I have a great solution because I don't like incarceration, but I'm not persuaded by the going rate. Thank you. There you are, Kate. Just wanna give you an opportunity to weigh in because I know this was an area of concern of yours and you're muted. Thanks. I had double protection, my phone and computer muted. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the committee taking the time to kind of double back around and reflect on the fines. You know, I think from my perspective, I think this is a big improvement. It's tricky because we're sort of throwing like darts at a dart, like there's no, we're sort of making things up a little bit here, which is always a complicated space to be in my mind and aware of timing issues. And I think there's a desire to move forward with this bill and I respect that. I think it's a good, I think it's a good bill and I think it would be unfortunate in my mind to have it stalled or sit in any way because of the fine issue, especially considering that we've taken this time to kind of circle back around and reflect on it to this degree. I think what helped me feel more at peace with it was the more explicit provision around affordability. And so, you know, that sits more comfortably for me. You know, if we felt like we could go back in between now and the time that we need to move forward with this and really do like a deep dive into each of these areas, like that's great. I don't know if that's possible and maybe someone else can answer that. But I think for me, where it sits right now, I feel comfortable with it. Great, thank you. That's helpful. Anybody else? Ken, do you want to weigh in or? In my mind. Can we vote on this today and get rid of this thing? No, seriously, I'm like, seriously. It's like, I'm not even gonna say it. Well, I think we would need a, very least a clean draft, you know, to vote on. But I think we could do this tomorrow. Okay, so now I'm gonna say it. We keep going. We're not gonna put anybody in jail. We're not gonna make anybody pay any money except the rich, which we already do in Vermont anyway. The rich pay everything and that's why they all move out there. I'm done. Thank you, bye. Thank you. Kate. Yeah, you know, Ken, I appreciate your comments and I guess it just sparks a thought. For me, I think during the course of discussing this bill, I feel like there's been discussion around, like, I guess it has felt important to me in my own mind to make a distinction between restitution and fines and punishment. And I, you know, because from what I've learned, you know, so there's this issue of making whole, the person who's been harmed, which in my mind is where restitution falls. And I think it's, I think there's value in us looking at, and then Martin and I started talking about this, sort of the order that we, that money has paid out. You know, I think there's value in looking at whether restitution can be prioritized. I get the sense that there's pretty universal agreements that we want to support people who've been harmed. And I think that restitution is where that work falls. In my mind, fines and penalties, that falls more in punishment for a crime. And what I've, you know, heard in testimony is that, I guess where my mind goes in those terms is less about making someone whole who's been victimized. But more in terms of looking at, you know, how do we enhance the safety of our communities? And does massive fines and incarceration time actually make our community more safe? And what testimony continues to tell us is it doesn't. And so I think, you know, it's, in my mind, this kind of bill is trying to strike a balance of, you know, honoring the needs of the people who've been harmed, but also trying to honor that our criminal justice system is imperfect and that some of the methods we've used to try to punish people into behaving differently have not been effective and it has inequitably impacted certain people. And so I guess I just wanted to name that, that as we talk about this bill, or maybe stop talking about it as we might want to do, that we just make that clarification, or it's important to me to make that clarification between how we're honoring the needs of those who've been harmed and how we're essentially, you know, acting upon those who have done the harm. Thank you. Thank you, Kate. That's helpful. Appreciate that. Ken, your hand is up. So I'm just gonna make one more statement. If you've ever been the victim, like I have on some of these crimes, you never forget, you never basically forgive and certainly what it does to your family. And therefore I'm not near as forgiving as a lot of people. I don't mean to sound cold hearted, but never forget the victim because most of the time it just doesn't go to the dad of the family, it goes to the kids and it stays with them for the rest of their lives, the victim of somebody that makes a bad mistake and hopefully they turn into good people the rest of their lives, but I got news for you. There's always gonna be bad people out there. And I'm now finally done. Oh, yeah. Well, that's true. It's appropriate to be talking about good or bad people. So. What was that? No, I'm not sure it's appropriate to be talking about good or bad people sometimes. Well, I don't know the proper words to use, but people that make mistakes and don't make mistakes or however you wanna put it, that's what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying? They made a mistake, but still it's a victim that's dealing with that that had their lives turned upside down or an invasion of privacy or something like that. That's what I'm trying to put out there for people to keep in mind. And basically to be on record. Thanks. Okay, no, thank you. Oh, Barbara. Sorry, because I was muted. Maybe I should not take your bait, Ken, but I do think that if we said, let's start, you know, we're getting rid of leeches and we're getting rid of, I don't know, some other treatment because, so what are we gonna do with cancer victims? We, if we look at the evidence, neither incarceration nor fines are great deterrents. Maybe there are other reasons to do it, but it's a lot of money to do all of these things. And when we look at why people commit crimes, a lot of cases it's, we'd be better off really using the research and getting at the root of the problem rather than continuing to do things that are expensive and don't make our community safer, cost a lot of money that people have. And don't bring back the, I mean, I love the reparations, but if it's someone who's murdered and I have had a relative murdered, it doesn't bring them back, you know? Thank you. Martin. I can't help but just jump in here a little bit because it's actually going to the core of what we have the criminal justice system for and Ken is naming one of the primary and fact reasons and that's retribution. And that is something that historically has been part of the criminal justice system as well as deterrents, as well as protecting public safety by keeping people out of the public core really actually dangerous to the public and also rehabilitation as well, but going to the concept of evidence and such that I think increasingly there are studies that show the concept of retribution that victims are more likely to get some sense of satisfaction or closure through a reparative justice system. And there are studies that go there. But nevertheless, I do recognize where Ken is coming from and that is historically that is something that is part of criminal justice. That's not necessarily should be the primary rationale for what we do. I think it's keeping the public safe and it's the reparative components of it, but any event, I just wanted to name that. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Barbara's hand is probably up from, yeah. Okay, well, we're five minutes from adjournment and this is on our agenda tomorrow. Martin, do you wanna work with Eric in terms of the next draft? Yeah, with Eric here right now, I'm not sure if Eric, if there's something else from what Selena said that could be incorporated from the restitution. I mean, it didn't jump out at me at what else that would be Selena if there was, I mean, I thought the language just in C1 was fine, but if you had recommendations, it would have to be soon since we wanna try to have a final draft to vote out tomorrow. I'm looking at the language again right now, Martin, and I can send something to an email to you and Eric with any suggestions that I have, if that sounds good. Yeah, I would think so. I mean, I think the idea is to try to be close to what the restitution provides. Yep. Okay, great. Eric, is there anything that you need from us? No, I think as far as I can tell, it's just that last little piece that Representative Coburn and Representative Alond have just mentioned about some parallel language with, I assume you're looking at 7043, 7043, is that the language you guys were looking at? 13 BS, yeah. Anyway, whatever language you feel like you wanna add, just let me know and I can do it. Okay, I'll read it again. I thought I had seen a little more detail in there, like just a tiny bit more direction to the court, but let me read it. I was sort of reading and listening at the same time. So let me go back and read it when we're done and I'll give you a section that I think it might make sense to track a little more closely. I'll shoot you and Martin and email and CC Maxine. Okay, that sounds great. Bob, see you have your hand up. Thank you. So I thought we were looking at the elimination of C2 and C3 and now we're looking at a new draft with more language added to it. Yeah, thank you for bringing up Martin, yeah. I think that, yeah, and I'm assuming just from my quick read of the restitution language that it's really tweaking, it's not anything really significant, but if it's not something that folks wanna go with, then we won't go with it. We'll have a chance to look at whatever that is tomorrow and have a discussion to see if folks are still on board or not. But I don't think from what my quick reading that there was really, it would significantly change what we have and see one right now. Okay, all right, well, again, we'll take a look at it. I'm gonna ask, you know, if we can, Eric, if we, on that language, if we can get something so that it can be sent out tonight so people will have it overnight to ponder before we have it scheduled for a vote, that's possible. I don't know if that's okay with your timing. Yeah, I think that's fine. I mean, I don't know for sure, but if you guys are looking at, you know, the sentence I'm looking at, you know, based on all financial information available to the court, including information provided by the defender, if it's something as straightforward as that. That's what I'm looking at. Yeah, that's what I was just looking at and thought it means track with because you get sort of rid of the burden of proof, but you just make it really clear what the, what the, you know, what is needed for the current court to, I don't know. Right. To substantially alter the language just tracks a little more closely as the defender general's office said with the case law and just gives this a tiny bit more direction to the court. In fact, it actually does, even though it doesn't create an evidentiary burden, it does make it clear that the defendant has a role to play in supplying that information. Right. So yes, as you responded to the timing question, though, yeah, that's no problem. I can certainly get it out to folks tonight. I'm in Senate judiciary on firearms issues tomorrow morning. So I won't be available, but I can certainly get the draft to you guys so you can all look at it. And has this gone to the editors, Eric? It has not, but the only, there's very few changes between the bill as introduced and what you're looking at now. So I think they'll be able to move on it pretty quickly. All right, thanks. Yeah. Ken. Hi, I'm back. So you're going to change this bill. You're going to make another draft of this bill. Is that what I'm hearing? Potentially. A proposed draft. Yeah, incorporating some of the comments and discussion today. We have to see a new draft because we're eliminating C2 and C3 anyway. And so it's a matter of clarifying C1 by this language that you can find if you look on the Vermont statutes online at 13 VSA 7043 subsection B2 is the language that we're talking about. And it's just one sentence essentially. Clarify what the court is basing its determination on under C, under C1. But Ken, yeah, we have to have a new draft anyway because we're eliminating language from what we looked at today. Martin, I think it's subsection D2. Oh, I'm sorry, D. Am I wrong about that? No, that's right. Okay, I'm just making sure we're looking at the same thing. So I don't, if that's where you're going, I don't need to actually send you an email. I think we just did. I think that would be my recommendation. Okay. So should I just do that or do we need to, do you want to further discuss that the two of you before I go ahead and just rework that paragraph, take out two and three and essentially fold this sort of language in. I think send it to Selina and I and I'll certainly turn around real quick. Okay. Yeah, I can keep an eye out for it if you want, but that's, I mean, that's all I'm suggesting is just to track a little more directly to that provision. Yeah. And that seems to make sense. And it starts to add continuity to both sides of the discussion. All right, I think so. Thanks, Selina. Yeah, thank you. All right. Well, thank you, everybody. Thank you, Eric.