 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, May 7th, and we are continuing our discussion on H417 and actually relating to six person juries in civil trials. And we are going to continue our discussion with legislative counsel Eric Fitzpatrick. Good morning, Eric. Thank you so much. Good morning, everybody. So, yesterday, Eric, I abruptly cut you off and asked you to be very brief on what is actually quite a complicated but but a topic that does have very compelling difference on on both sides and definitely needs more than the eight minutes that that I am a lot of you yesterday so Representative LaLonde has some some questions and maybe that will start the conversation again in terms of the constitutionality of of the bill what the legal precedent is and how it might be interpreted these now in in in current time so thank you. Go ahead Martin. Yeah. Yeah, I wanted to talk a little bit about and understand from you from you Eric. As far as what constitutes binding precedent versus dicta which I think a lot of this kind of revolves around that. And as far as I see, you know, the issue, and if I just scale can kind of a little background where I'm coming from and then ask a couple questions or have you clarify that that that the concept of the other concepts and you might meant to talk to bottom a little bit yesterday one is starry decisis it essentially means that if a court has decided something, the Supreme Court, in this case the Vermont Supreme Court than the than the lower courts and the Supreme Court in the future are bound by that previous precedent. The other concept is is is obiter dictum or is it obiter dictum how do you pronounce that anyway. I have no idea. I don't know how I reach I can spell it take Latin anybody take Latin in class they could tell us any event. So, so that concept is that that you know any kind of comment or suggestion or an observation of a judge that is in the opinion that's not necessary to resolve the case. It is not legally binding the starry decisis does not apply. And it's a tricky question, and there could be different opinions about that and I think maybe Eric and I have slightly different opinion but I'm not even sure if we do necessarily of really looking at well. At the way I look at this is in the way I look at our question, you know, there's a lot of questions there's a question of whether we want to do a six person jury, whatever the Supreme Court has said before that's a separate question but the question of whether we're the Supreme Court is bound by this previous decision would certainly go into how we would be looking at our decision of whether to proceed. You know, on the one hand if we're saying yeah we see that the Supreme Court is bound by this decision to apply it to a civil jury trial that we're talking about, then actually going out and passing legislation that's contrary to that. But essentially is asking the court to revisit, as I think Eric said yesterday is certainly one thing and we heard from witnesses including rich Cassidy that he wouldn't really like to do that if the Supreme Court has decided and it's bound, you know should the legislature really question that. But I guess the question that I have is, it seems to me that certainly and I've reread these of the main opinions that we've talked about Eric. It seems like really the main opinion that we have been discussing as state v Peterson. I've read that opinion and it certainly has lots of persuasive, you know, authority in there, I would say, regarding whether whether the understanding back in those days was that a jury as required or in the state constitution was a common law jury of 12 men. But it's in the context of a criminal case. And it would seem certainly that if back then, or even if now, if Supreme Court took up a case that was asking whether a 12 person jury, I won't say 12 man jury but a 12 person jury is required for a civil action. I would say that these previous cases could certainly be very very persuasive, but but would they would they be bound by those cases in applying it to the civil jury and I do have a question coming, Eric and I didn't want you to rebut or respond to what I'm saying as well. I think that I'm looking at that at this is would if we did put this into place this legislation into place if we if we mandated or even allowed at the order of a court to have a six person civil jury. Would the Supreme Court if they were going to see that which we understand they would, would they have to overturn this early these earlier opinions to do that. And I think they're distinguishable because it's a criminal. It's in the context of a criminal jury and there's lots of language in the cases really talking about the importance of a 12 man jury in a criminal trial. It doesn't really necessarily apply to the civil trial so, but here's, I guess the fund a fundamental question is, is whatever the court has decided, I think clearly in the context of a criminal trial. Does that necessarily mean that that's the, that's what is required under the Constitution for a civil trial and maybe it does. I guess that's one of the questions but I'd also like you to kind of respond to what I've said, Eric, because you know we've gone, we've talked a lot about this and I absolutely respect what your opinion is on this. It's just I think on the edges. We have a slightly different viewpoint, but that's fine. I mean that happens with attorneys. That's a good thing that it does because otherwise we'd all be out of work and there wouldn't be any need for courts or anything of that nature so I'm glad we disagree sometimes and Eric dispatch with the Office of Legislative Council here to follow up on the cornucopia of questions that I'm just folded into that one bit of remark there. The, and yes I think that's the right represents a lot I have a lot of respect for, for you and everyone else on the committee and the witnesses that you heard from as well and sometimes attorneys see things differently it doesn't that's nothing personal at all and sometimes we see things the same. In a particular case yeah it does seem like maybe we see the precedent a little bit differently. I, I view the Peterson case as more binding I suppose than you do, just based on what I think I'm hearing you, hearing you mention. And I don't think the criminal context well I guess I would say it's because of the way the court frame the question for itself is the reason that I look at it that way. I think you're absolutely right that it arose in the criminal context. The court could have said this is limited to criminal cases but it didn't. It seemed to make sort of broad statements about what the word jury men under the Constitution that weren't limited to the criminal context and I think that the way that it frame the question for that it was deciding seem to help us the idea of the number of persons who should be on the jury in other words not just whether the person had a right to a jury at all because it came out of a case in Burlington where and the Burlington police court. The maximum number of jurors that a person might have would be six, but really the question in some sense that the court was looking at was well, could it could a jury right be suspended under those circumstances completely. It seemed to state restate the question for itself as to be whether or not this provision in the Burlington Charter that provided for a six person jury was constitutional under the Vermont jury clauses, and in reaching that conclusion that said no and it seemed to be saying it did say explicitly that the jury right was 12 people. I do want to get to the point about, because I don't think the court would need to overrule Peterson, or any other cases, in order to reach a different result with respect to its own emergency authority. I think that that's a separate issue. Maybe I'll talk about that first, because this is consistent with what I testified in the Senate, and this is why I made this distinction. Oh, this committee has actually spent some time I think it was in H 133 talking about the inherent authority of the judiciary, the court has some inherent authority during emergency circumstances to take actions that it would not otherwise be able to do. As an example of this, for example, the in 1990 Supreme Court of Vermont decided a case called in Ray Vermont Supreme Court administrative order, administrative directive number 17 versus the Vermont Supreme Court, in which it held that it had the ability to suspend the right of civil jury trials complete for six months in that period because of the emergency circumstances that they had run out of money. The budget was dry, they didn't have any money, and they were it was challenged constitutional constitutionally by sublinus Washington, I don't know that was best. It was challenged by some parties. It was a violation of the right to a jury trial. So, I think, and the court said that it was okay and it emphasized that it was an emergency and temporary situation. And it said that it had the administrative authority to do that in the in this emergency. So, again, that's no guarantee that that I hear the argument to that that, and I heard it yesterday from, I think, both witnesses, so in a way I'm parting ways with both of them with this with this view, but, but it is consistent with what I said in the Senate which I think it's a different story. If the court is acting in an emergency capacity, emergency temporary capacity to do something to regulate the, and protect the litigants is another phrase that's used during these emergency authority cases in that situation to protect litigants in an emergency in a temporary fashion. Again, I'm not saying that I have that that's the answer I'm just saying, I think there's a better in that situation for being able to for the court to be able to say, we can do this on a short term basis. As opposed to the legislature passing a statute saying this is the way it has to be. Yeah, this question about that, but yeah. Yeah, so can I can I just ask a question just to clarify and what you just said right right right there. Yes, that would not. If they did that then we're then they're not really running up against these earlier opinions. It would that be your, your. Okay, exactly. Yeah. Yeah, thank you Eric I think, I think that's a really important point to hang on to as we continue this, this discussion yeah go ahead. Right yeah I think that whatever, however we see these precedents with respect to the legislators ability to pass a statute that doesn't mean that six person juries couldn't happen. This other method that couldn't be permitted or authorized by the court or even order. You know, again, as, as I've said before, you know, the, obviously the final word on whether that's constitutional it's up to the court but but I certainly think there's a lot more leeway, particularly given the cases on the courts emergency authority for them to do that in an emergency temporary situation. Oh, raise me. So go ahead. Sorry. Well, no, we go ahead because maybe you're going where I'm going. Good. I doubt it I was just going to throw out a funny, funny. One of my favorite law legal quotes is always that. How's it go it's the, the, the Supreme Court is not does not have the final word, because they're infallible, but they're infallible because they have the final word. So, you know, their view is the last one and the final one. That's great. Thank you. That's great. Tom. Thank you, Eric. I guess, can you talk about how, and maybe you kind of covered it but how this kind of would muddy the water so to speak between the branches of government if we pass something like this. Well, you know, there is, there is potentially a separation of powers issue lying in the background. I haven't really been getting at that so much because I think the, the, the specific reference to jury trials in the Constitution is more what this is turning on. So it's possible to be honest, I didn't go down that road too much. I haven't been able to relocate it but but when I almost went down the road a little bit. I thought I found it a Connecticut Supreme Court case saying that the legislative decision to set the number of jurors was not a separation of powers issue. You know, but it's a separate issue, you know, set because we're talking about the specific jury requirements in the Constitution, kind of separate from whether or not it might also be a separation of powers issue. Right. I haven't thoroughly looked into that. Right. So, again, I know you, you talked about it. So it's your, I guess I'd say opinion that you think the courts already have the authority to do this. Well, I think there's a good argument that they do. Yeah, right. Right. I think if they, if they decided to go down that road, the, the appeals probably would still be there or could still be there. Sure. Yeah, I probably the same way the case that I just cited where, where, where the court suspended civil jury trials completely for a while, someone challenged it. So I'm sure, yeah, it's likely someone would challenge it. Or at least very possible. Right, right, yeah. And, and probably whoever loses like we heard yesterday. Right. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Can, can you remind me and the committee of where the Supreme Court I know that justice Eaton has a working group and it came up during judicial rules last week and that was my, that was my first meeting. So can you give us sort of some context and history about about that and where that stands. Thank you. Well, yeah, I think it was called the Jerry restart committee. And they had been. You know, I think working to try and get procedures and processes in place and court houses set up so that, you know, whether it's through HVAC systems and space requirements and that sort of thing to see how many, how many courts could be structured so that there would be, it would be safe, basically, to have a jury trial of 12 people I think is what they were assuming during the pandemic. And as it happens, I don't be able to remember at all that the specifics of this but as it happens. Judge Greerson testified. I think yesterday morning in Senate judiciary and he went through which individual courts were ready to get started, and which were were not. I think there were nine or 10 maybe that I think we're pretty close to up to speed. So that was kind of a status report. Okay, yeah, thank you so and he actually spoke to us about that too so it. So still looking at yes was still still looking at 12 person jurors that that's helpful. Thank you, Martin. And just on that issue, I think he talked about a number of courts being available ready for six person juries, but not 12 person juries and then some are ready for 12. But unless unless they order, unless the court orders, six person juries, you know those courts are likely not to be used because what we're really hearing is people are not agreeing to six person juries. So I think you know just follow up on what Tom said as well I mean I would. I do believe if the court were to look again at these old cases and the rationale that talked about 12 men, you know that being kind of one problem with that but of course that that's not binding anymore for other reasons that that the court may very well find that in a civil context six person juries. Fine but but I think. Yeah, I'm reluctant particularly after your strong opinions on this to go through this with a legislative requirement of six person juries, and just really hope that the court does the right thing and, and order six person juries and the issue can come up through the pellet process through that route as I think Tom was suggesting because I really think that it should be revisited. But you know they can revisit it on their own perhaps instead of us kind of setting that up. So that's kind of where where I am but the language I guess. And now I'm understanding more and more the language that was crafted in the budget bill, which seems to go about as far as we can, without saying hey guys why don't you order six person. Right, which would be a separation of power issue of course. Actually Eric if you could talk about the language in the budget. Yeah that would be awesome. That would be helpful, because that's that's how we got here. Right. Yeah. Thank you. I don't have it right in front of me, but I believe that it, it provided that you know there was a certain some that was appropriated to the court for purposes of, you know getting getting back up the ground following the public pandemic. And then within that some, it said, there was language that said it's the intent of the general assembly that a certain portion of it be used for purposes of six person jury trials. I'm sorry six person civil jury trials and civil cases, to the extent that the court's emergency authority permitted. That's probably not a verbatim. It's a good pair of language in front here but it's a good paraphrase that's thanks. Roughly it and that was that was the idea that that it was encouraging the court to exercise this emergency authority that I was just describing earlier that review was that, at least there's a good argument that under that authority in fact that I believe the letter that senate, the senate judiciary committee wrote to the court, couple of months ago, also referred to that and also encouraging the court to implement six person jury trials on the basis of its emergency authority. The court had the authority to take actions like that during emergencies. And so the, the language in the budget was intended to sort of have a similar basis in that that the understanding being that at least arguably the court already has that authority, because of the emergency nature of the case and that that it could take a temporary step without without violating these previous cases. It said, seemed to say, arguably said that 1212 people were required, they sort of were able to, the idea was to avoid that question avoid that argument, because you're just encouraging the court to use the authority which it seems to be a, you know, if you're on solid solid ground saying that they have. But again, that's just one approach. You know, I still, I still also do, I know it may not be the policy choice of the committee but I still also think that it is a legitimate choice if you were to want to make it to say, we think those 150 year old cases are should be revisited, and we want to provide the court with an opportunity to do that. So, we're going to pass the statute knowing that you know there's a constitutional issue, of course, but you know, encouraged the court to revisit it, I think that happens occasionally with in the sort of dialogue between the branches. So, you know, being upfront about it, I think there's nothing certainly impermissible about that. It's interesting and then, especially if we tie it to the time of the pandemic, at least for starters. Yeah. There was one just interesting following up on represent the lawns sort of point about the holding of the Pearson case that the it isn't after you had a chance to look at it already. And I was sort of pointed in that direction by one of the written submissions that one of the witnesses made earlier in the week. But Justice Dooley wrote a concurrent, sorry, a dissenting opinion in a more recent case in 1990, which he discussed the Pearson case quite a bit, and he, he referred to it as the holding of the case, couple of different times. And again, not, that's not a controlling decision of the court either that that's was the holding but you know, it's always nice to be like, I'm not the only one with that opinion. And actually I put that in I submitted something for Evan for posting that had sort of a summary of research that I had done on this short obviously you can have a lot of time to do it but there's a lot of language from in there. You're in good company with Justice Dooley so right. So thank you and it would be good to get the language the Senate language as well or the letter or whatever you were referring to so we could get all look at it. I'd like to open this up to other committee members terms of. Um, was there anything else on this that you wanted to I don't want to cut you off that you want to know. Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so committee members thoughts feedback, clean questions for Eric. Tom and then I think Barbara, yep. Okay, thank you. I had an idea of Eric's feelings, because usually if we have a constitutional issue, he'll preface it by saying it maybe it could be that type of thing. And yesterday it was just, it was boom. There was no, no maybe or could be, but there was the, the, however, as you know, there's, there's always some however is in there with that stuff but. So I got a real clear idea of where he was, where he was going but it just some other thoughts that I had, you know, with a 12 compared to a six is, I mean there was some good arguments made both ways yesterday. And when it seems, and maybe I'm off but it seems like in the legislature, compared to what we used to do, you know, with things like boards and commissions and studies. To me it seems like those, those boards commissions and studies, there's more and more people, you know there's bigger numbers on those boards. And, and it for good reason, for good reason, it gives a, you know, more perspective, you know, just a broader outlook on things, you know, as far as ideas goes, you know, go and decisions. And I kind of look at it a 12 person compared to a six the same way. I guess you can almost say the chances would be double of that one person it's going to hold, maybe not the right word but it's going to hold out in a decision maybe because of something they see. And you know, and that's the way that our system is supposed to work. And this gives a broader perspective with with more people and, and, you know, the fair decisions the chance of fair decisions. And another thing that I heard yesterday, and it could still happen if the courts do decide to go to a six but you know we, we have no, no say over that. And I understand why you know things need to get moving, you know we need to get these cases heard, but you know something that was brought up yesterday that I, you know that I have a fear is if this six person is, if we do, if they do go to a six person, and it's challenged, you know, in the, you know, it's appealed in the Supreme Court, you know, overturns all those cases that were that were heard with the, with the six person juries, they're going to have to be redone. And, you know, it's, it's the hurry or I go the behinder I get syndrome almost, because, you know, go to a six to get things moving, but then in the end, if it's overturned, we're back at square one and even further behind than we were. But anyway, I think it's the right decision, not to, you know, not to push this along and let the courts make their own decision. Thank you. Good time. Barbara. So I'm not that far off from where Tom is, it's, and again, I missed a lot of the testimony which I still really need to find the time to watch over the weekend. I sent a few articles I know that somebody from DRM was going to send us stuff but I like part of me doesn't want to wait so it seems risky to me and it would be hard not to blame the losing side is going to have a hard time not thinking that that was a factor. I mean, I would say, look, it's really difficult now so we're only going to allow each side one witness, we wouldn't say you know what like let's not have the judge there or the court report, like so certain things we wouldn't accept. And I'm not convinced about the jury size is something that we that we would accept. So, I'd rather even support technology to have it done electronically or something then to give up on the size at this point. Yeah, I am. This is interesting I'm not sure where I land actually. You know, in terms of some one point I forget who asked but somebody said, what if this committee was cut in half. Well, the Senate has five members on their committees right and they certainly give their work thought and deliberation and I see those laughing faces but but no right. Somebody also said well, if it did go into effect that that folks would wait a while before they did bring their cases or it would take, take a while anyway so but I, but I did think I appreciated your question Tom yesterday about, would those cases be be reversed so. That's interesting discussion. Well, I wasn't laughing at you, but it was a little banter that Martin and I had going on and I see Martin said that maybe he wants to talk about it. Well, I, I was actually going to call on some other folks that haven't, haven't spoken yet but if I don't know. If you can hold that thought. Hold and I have a different thought but it's in response to something Tom said but I can hold it. Thanks Felicia coach and then Martin. There's the unmute. Yeah I just, I really fall in with with Tom and Barbara on this I just don't think that changing the size of the jury is going to something that gets us further ahead and there's likely to be all kinds of issues with it and I just. I don't think that's a move for us to make. At any point, if there were to be a decision like this I think it has to come from the judiciary. So, I don't know I just, I'm very hesitant to, to move forward with anything like this. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Good. Coach and then Martin. I guess my, my, my first thought goes back to the comment made about, you know, the, the size of the two bodies, you know, as far as the Senate and the house. And that part of the discussion about being able to be to get more voices and input into the decision. You know, I think, you know, listening, listening to and looking at, you know, the precedents that have been raised as well. You know, creates some concern about those attorneys that would in support of their client appeal. You know, the cases, and then not knowing what the outcome might be, you know, with, you know, the Supreme Court, you know, here in Vermont. That, that, that, that's too much gray area. And I think where it has been allowed. And in the certain types of cases where it, the judiciary has been able to do that. I would say, you know, that decision is very similar to what Felicia said, you know, is up to the judiciary in a way. We heard from Judge Greerson about the physical adaptation, you know, of the courts. You know, I liken it very much to certain schools that were able to function a lot quicker in the pandemic than others, because they made the structural adjustments, and it is workable and it is safe. We heard that from Judge Greerson yesterday. For an example in Wyndham Court. And, and those of us that are familiar with that building and other buildings around the state know how the courtrooms are set up. So basically, there's, it's a three story building. And there's three available full size courtrooms. Well, in order to do a 12 person case, what Judge Greerson was saying, it would take all three courtrooms. So what, you know, has occurred is, you know, from a logistical perspective is the timing and number of cases that will be able to be heard is going to have to be facilitated by those physical plants that can accept it. And, and he did share which ones. But, but knowing how they're set up, it did only make sense. So the, the other comment that came up in the testimony was just a just a seat and eating is working on that mock trial. And that mock trial might answer a lot of the logistical questions as well, because that goes back to what Barbara was talking about, and Felicia about the electronics, because it's going to utilize technology as well as physical space. So that'll be fascinating to see what that result is. But to make a long story short, I think that, you know, we really need to rely on the judiciary itself, rather than than statutorily creating a possible judicial problem. You know, I guess that's the easiest way. But those are just my thoughts. Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm beginning to hear some common thinking here. Martin. So, just a couple of thoughts and then and then also just want to address one, one point that we heard from testimony yesterday and and Tom mentioned but so I mean I'm looking at this. I mentioned this yesterday this is this is there's really two prongs to this it's access to justice issue, and it's a safety issue. And on the access to justice component of it. Right now the courts are saying that the criminal trials are what's going to take precedence as they should absolutely they should take precedence and absolutely. The opinions that are out there are absolutely binding that it has to be 12 person jury as well. Maybe it's possible that the courts can under their emergency authority actually have a six person jury for a criminal trial as well but I find that to be a little more problematic because of what the issues are in a criminal trial as opposed to a civil trial. And the point is though that. Yeah, we have some six person jury, we have some buildings that can accommodate six person juries. We know that six person juries are are safer than 12 person juries we heard that yesterday. And, and we're also hearing that again criminal trials just just Lee are the are the priority. But what this all means is that there aren't going to be any civil jury trials. And, and there is an access to justice issue there. And I think Chris mainly hit it very well I mean a lot of the individuals who are have cases. cases against insurance companies and they have you know there's plaintiffs who really have suffered injury and are not having that injury addressed, and it's not going to be addressed anytime soon until there's a legitimate chance of a six person jury trial. And what I mean by that is what once there is that legitimate chance when when a trial is scheduled for a six person jury. And that six person jury is something that is likely to be upheld if it's if it's appealed whatever the result is, that's going to prompt the focusing on actual negotiations and settlements and actually getting these cases addressed. But I think until those cases until there's a real legitimate chance that something's going to go to trial, and that I think is going to require a six person jury right now. Those cases are just going to continue to languish. So I find that that problematic. And if I had if I felt some assurity that the court was in fact going to order these trials that would make me a lot more comfortable that's not our position to do that. I still think that we could require this and we could have a hard stop on it as opposed to something a little more amorphous as far as when the emergency ends we can actually have a sunset in a year or something like that. I think that would be fine now. The issue of oh well we're just going to have a bunch of trials are going to have to be retried if ultimately a six person jury is deemed to be unconstitutional. I just don't see that I mean we're talking about in the last years that you know as far as civil jury trials there's been 18 to 20 of them a year so it's not like I think that the benefit of having a forcing or or or encouraging or the settlements because because trials are set, certainly offset the downside risk that there may have to be retrials if the six person jury is found to be unconstitutional so I mean I do see where the rest of the committee is going. I'm hoping that the court will do the right thing and actually order six person juries I know it's up to them. I would probably still prefer to do it by legislation but I don't see that there's a lot of interest in that in the committee. So that's that's that's just where I am. Thanks. Thank you. Tom. Thank you. Just a question. So if, if there was a civil trial, could it still be done with six jurors if all the parties agreed to it. Yes, the party parties can agree if they agreed to it. They can do it. So, so with that. And I don't know if you know I mean we're going to be writing a letter if in the letter, it may be something could be suggested along the lines that the court let let people know and that their, their cases may come forward a little quicker with the six person jury, if they agree, agree to it. I don't know if that's overstepping our boundaries something like that. Certainly possibility. Ken and then coach I'm not sure if your hand is what but so Ken coach and Ken coach and Martin. I'll make this real quick. I'm not in favor of the change I agree with Tom's original statement. And if that's true what he just said I like that even even better that they could use possible use a six person if it's agreed upon. Thank you. Coach. Mark and then coach Selena and then Martin has been yet. Go ahead. That did come up. You know yesterday when we were listening to some of the testimony what Tom and Ken just basically referred to. Because back to Martin's point. When you know that you're going to trial. And there's there's a reasonable possibility that mediation can occur. Usually it does. And we've seen it. You know we we saw it, you know, even with the chaos case. You know, the mediation occurred. Three days before the commission was going to hear the case. So what that tells me in real time and a real situation is all of what we heard yesterday was true. And so if, if the court has and does two things, you know, I guess if I were king I did this would be my suggestion, you know would be to support. You know the six person upon agreement. You know, of both sides. And also put up, not a hard placeholder, but have one of those those facilities as the the regular civil 12 and you know, because we heard yesterday that there are a number of facilities that can handle 12 person jury. And, you know, granted, all of this is a scheduling, you know, like nightmare, but at the same time it's still a logistical schedule. So that, you know, being said I don't know if, if what Tom and Ken were referring to is, you know, kind of our our overview letter, or something to that, to that effect that states, you know the feelings of the committee, you know, in deference to a statutory change, which becomes, you know, and, and I'm torn with, with that separation piece. You know, I know there's certain things we can and can't and should or shouldn't, you know, that's, you know, that's that, and I'm in between, you know, like there, but that's another thought. Thank you. Okay, so Selena and then Martin, and then I would like to the pause on on this and move on given given the time Selena. I think I'm just a lot of what I have to say is is fairly redundant with the conversation and I do want to say I'm I am open to continuing discussion on this. I think it's just a question of like, do we have the time to really do do diligence on it and I'm still full transparency I missed a lot of the hearing yesterday so I'm still catching up on all the different opinions I think it's you know, definitely. When our own legislative council has weighed in. So strongly I think you know we need a lot of time to really weigh out all the arguments and counter arguments and I'm, I am not sure that time is going to exist for us in the next few weeks. But I do just want to go on record saying, like, you know, we, we do need to feel urgency about finding a way to get people access to justice and get these trials resumed for folks and I definitely would if if if it feels like that's the direction the committee is headed I think a letter from the committee to the judiciary could be. Not sure, quite sure if that's what other folks were proposing but I wonder if that's an option here to, you know, I think it is certainly an option. Okay, Martin, and then I'll. Yeah. So I just a couple final points on that is is that parties have already for the longest time had the opportunity to go to six person juries that that's, that's, that's already well established law and in a recent amendment to the administrative order in 2009 which is what's really kind of governing how the courts are dealing with access to justice generally during the pandemic. It does encourage civil litigants are encouraged to agree to six person civil jury trials in those court buildings that are authorized to hold such size trials. The concern is that that it does that we're not going to see that many agreements to go to a six person jury I mean we've not seen it in the past. And it does not necessarily well it doesn't it's not to the advantage of a defendant to have a case heard earlier rather than later, because it's the defendant that might have to be paying out. It has no motivation or little to no motivation I should say to agree to a six person jury, having said that. I think where it makes most sense where we are now and certainly reading the committee as well as Maxine has I'm sure is perhaps a letter and let's hope that the court if they see that this encouragement of voluntary agreement for six person juries. If that is not filling up the dockets for these spaces that can accommodate six person juries will hope that they in fact order those under their emergency power since we really are seeing a denial of access to justice and let me just the it's not just it's it's across the board. cases are not being heard divorce cases. Chins cases. It's not just the cases where a plaintiff is trying to get some money from an insurance company that's not what they, I mean it's all these various cases are backed up. And that's, that's why something has to be done a six person jury is one of the avenues we have available that the court has available and I'll trust that the court will will do the right thing so that's, that's where I am. Thanks. Okay, thank, thank you everybody and I. I don't think we have to decide this today, I think we can all think about it and come back to it next week I have reached out to the chair of House appropriations to see if in fact it would be helpful for us to have a decision on this knowing that there is language. And the Senate's budget so just to get some some guidance. So, I'm not feeling like we need to to decide this today. The other thing is I'm sitting here listening I'm thinking about the proposal the Senate's proposal to put funding in for the backlog for the judiciary. And that's something that we've been asked to support, whether it was by the state's attorneys by many others and and so what the relationship of, of, you know, helping with the backlog, where that would play out in this too so I think there are many many factors that that could be helpful in terms of access to justice. So, let's, let's leave it here. And, you know, certainly we have on the table a letter, possibly doing something with the sunset tie into the emergency order, or we're not, we're not doing anything. Barbara, and then I'm going to, going to move on. Thank you. So, you raise a good point about appropriations I'm curious if, in their mind they're choosing between the judiciary's request and the Senate's language. I don't know. I don't know. So that's that's what I'm trying to get a handle on that and more more guidance and what and what our role. What our role is and I, I have asked also if we should be taking further testimony than what we were asked to. And if that would be helpful to the to the committee. So, okay. All right, well thank you. So, just a few more quick things. H428, which is the, the hate motivated crimes that we that we agreed to concur with is up for action Tuesday. Coach as the reporter before I just want to check in to see if you're up for reporting to the body that we are concurring with with the Senate that does that work for you. Okay. All right, great. And I can certainly, you know, work with you over the weekend or, you know, or something. And then again, we decided to take out the, we agree to, to the Senate's taking up the line on the data and put it into the miscellaneous judiciary bill so that's that's where I'd like to go now in terms of Eric giving you what is on my list for the miscellaneous judiciary bill and have committee members listen and make sure I haven't missed anything as well as you Eric. So certainly we have the underlying bill. I know that you're working with with Bryn on this and so that I know that you don't have all this, this written up but we've got the DCF language and juvenile proceedings that we that we heard about from yesterday DCF and Marshall. So, you know, that's that's from Bryn would be from Bryn. Judge Greerson's language from the, I want to call it the juvenile justice workgroup or whatever. Yes, I should just note on that I can certainly break it up again when whenever the committee looks at a draft but I found a couple of notes in that language and another section that needed rewriting so I ran all that by Judge Greerson and Marshall and they ran it by the group and they all agreed so it'll be essentially the same but it might look a little different when you see it next. Okay, all right, great. Thank you. It's helpful. Sure. And, and then the reporting language from H 428 that the Senate took out. And, and I believe that was Bryn's bill so she would have, she would have that language. And also, and actually maybe we can, we can talk about it but in the in H 145 the use of force bill. There was reference to he and she as opposed to persons. And I know that we are trying to move away from that in our statutory construction and according to bring that's not something that that ledge council can fix over the summer, you know, like other things that you do. What I thought was to, to make that change in the miscellaneous judiciary bill and I don't think that's clear or Martin if you want to kind of refresh our memory or. Did you explain that again I'm sorry I might I can't multitask and I had to look at a text that came in, I apologize. No worries. So in the use of force the, the gender language. Yeah. I mean I see no reason that we shouldn't change that. I mean, it should be pretty straightforward. I don't have. I can forward the exchange of emails to Eric that we had with brand and also copy Brandon on it. But essentially it's it's not it's. My understanding is that the legislative council that we don't yet have a standard of gender gender neutral language, although it's on kind of a more of an ad hoc basis when we have new bills I've noticed that we've definitely been pushing towards gender neutral language and this particular general or the the amendment didn't have gender neutral language, Bryn recognize that but it was a little awkward but we've talked a little bit further. I mean it was awkward of not having the way she put the language but we talked a little bit further I think there's a way that we could say the same thing but in a gender neutral manner. And I think that wherever we can. We should certainly have gender neutral language. Thank you. So I should follow up the bread on that one too or you have something also represent the lunch. I can I don't, I don't have we never really got to mapping out specific language. We just talked a little bit but I can send you the exchange of emails just so you can see what we talked about on it. That'd be great. Thanks. And once we have that the committee can look at that so that's so far that's on what I have on my list another possibility is language regarding a working group for to keep age 317 the Bureau of Racial Statistics, going and the miscellaneous usury bill would be a good place for that. So I know that that this issue is also very important to to Senator Sears. So, that's what we're still trying to, so trying to figure out what what that would look like and as I mentioned I was talking I was on the phone with CSG this morning and coach I see your hand is up, but we can have Sarah Friedman from the Justice Committee come speak to us and recommend other models other states to look at and possibly hope me help us form this working group. I also had a question as to whether or not it needs to be in a working group versus committees of jurisdiction with the guidance of CSG and our DAP and others but, but I don't know and I'm going to defer to, especially as a coach who's been with us and, and Martin others so coach very, very quickly because I know I don't like being the person in between us and lunch. So that being being said, we had some some modeling thoughts, and Martin and I have been giving some thought to a model that worked very well for us, which was the working group that we used for SEC and with some modification, it would give the Committee of Jurisdiction input, you know, as well as the our DAP and with the assistance of the partners that have already established that they would be happy to work, you know, with us on this project. And I think we could construct, you know, a next steps and using the the miscellaneous approach could get us to where we need to be. And when we think about the number of meetings and things of that sort. You know, all of that, you know, can be done probably easily within that framework that Martin was referring to that may be available, but in that range of cost, because we already kind of know what it would take to pull that together. So, and we've, and I've got some language that we had used for that, that other working group that was very effective that I can share with Eric, and then it would give him an idea for his expertise and putting it all together. Okay, thank you so. And then so that would mean that the miscellaneous judiciary bill would need to go to appropriations by no Martin you're inquiring about, about the $50,000 or, or whatever and then also would need you to have a quick drive by by government operations in terms of standing up a new working committee and just think something to think about, but at least we can get it going, get the discussion going. And then also, by then, maybe the council state governments will have an idea of whether or not they can. They can work with us and, you know, and address some of the funding funding issues as well. Okay, Bob. Yes, thank you. We're going to have a lot more discussion on that particular real are we know. Is there anything you should share? No, but I'm sorry. Establishing the Bureau. Yes. Okay, thank you. Yeah. That's absolutely. Anybody else. Did I miss anything. Tom. Yeah, just real quick on 417. We're going to sit on that over the weekend. I think that would be helpful to get a little bit more information. And then, and then we could pick it up early next week. Pending. Yeah. Pending a possible letter to the judiciary. Well, I don't know if it's pending, but I, I, I, so yes, I'd like to sit on it for the weekend. I'd like to be able to have a conversation here, you know, here, here back from the appropriations committee. Early next week. Okay. So, so is it as much the language in the budget as well that we should kind of be looking at or having, you know, and it's on page 202 of age 439. That's the language that is essentially leaving it to the court, but kind of as far as we can go in legislation, encouraging the court to address the issue. That kind of be out there as well, Maxine. I think it'd be really helpful to look at that language. Okay. Yeah, and it'd be great if we could get maybe that, that page or that section posted on, on our webpage. So yeah, I think that's why I'm hesitant to, to make a decision until we all as a committee can see, can see that language and then I can. I have checked in with the chair, but, but we'll do that again. I have an image, page 202 of age 439. Eric, I know you, you had had your hand up. I was just going to ask a reason if you could send me the. I don't know exactly what it was, but I think you were indicating you were going to do that anyway, but something that might be used as a model for the, for the working group. It's on its way. Oh great thank you. If you could copy me to coach please and on that issue Eric is there a time that we can schedule for coach tonight to chat with you I don't know if Maxine wants to join that but later this afternoon. Yeah, or we can do it when we get done here or after lunch. I've got something at noon so that doesn't work for me but I'll work for you all. I don't know if we have to do a scheduling on while we're online. Maxine but I just want to do that before we all get off. Okay. Yeah, let me know. I also have calls and meetings at noon time but but I'm around this afternoon. So, yeah, I'm available to. Okay, great. Okay. I'll be in a tube. Hey good luck. Oh, right. Right. Let's adjourn. Let's adjourn please.