 We're on the record and we're gonna try to get through as much as we can. S-234 may get held up today because a lot of several people have asked to testify on life without parole. But I'm gonna start off with Bryn to go through the latest draft and then Skyler. And then we have, I don't know if Chris Menow from the Center for Criterion Services is gonna be here. I don't think she can make it. And if you have any other witnesses, we'll try to hear from them. But then we have some folks from the St. John's Berry area who want to testify. So the morning committee for the record bring here from legislative council. I have a new draft 2.1 of the bill to talk to you about. There's really only a couple of changes to this draft. So I'll just go through those. So the first change is in section one. I added a new sort of phrase at the beginning there of subsection A, except it's provided with some section G of the section. So that language is intended to make it clear that this new penalty section applies for to any workers that were committed after that 2006 amendment to the statute for anyone who hadn't been charged after that. So we talked about that. Some clarification there. And the next change is in section two. This is the consecutive sentences statute. This is sort of that section that is meant to deal with any sentences that are imposed back to back. So it's sort of a default life about parole. And I think there was a suggestion from the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs to change this language so that it's clear that anyone who is 25 or younger when they commit crimes, rather than say that a court can't impose any consecutive sentences, it says that any aggregate minimum of a sentence imposed on a person who's under 25 shall not exceed 35 years. And that sort of makes it consistent with the new upper limit penalty for first degree murder. So those are the only changes to this draft. I would just reiterate that. I'm sorry. I'll go ahead. Just wondering about aggravated murder there on page five. Where is it? The last line on page five. So is the thrust of the bill now that aggravated murder remains a way to add life to it? Yes, yes. And I should have mentioned that the other change that I made was to rename the act to limiting the counts of life without parole because it would prohibit a court from imposing a life without parole sentence unless it's for somebody convicted of aggravated murder. Because that's been one of my concerns throughout is that we're moving toward life without parole but we're leaving life without parole on the table. So all you have to do in order to get life without parole is use aggravated murder as opposed to, well, like take aggravated murder of a firefighter. So we created that crime. And the only change it made is that it produced a life without parole situation. Before that, it was just the murder of a firefighter and that would have been under this draft that would not have been a life without parole. So it seems a small schizophrenic for the committee to be preserving that last law in there which keeps a class of life without parole. Does that make sense? It makes sense to you. But what I'm not feeling is that I have to listen to testimony last week that particularly from the victims that it would be hard for me personally to vote for a bill that didn't have something in it. So we can change that, take it out to the majority that committee wants after we hear the testimony. But it was my judgment that it's still pretty, I mean, kill a firefighter in the performance of their duty purposely. And you prove all the intents of aggravated murder is still a pretty high bar. And I don't know how many people actually have been convicted of aggravated murder versus other forms of murder. It'll still be something for the state's attorney to deal with and if you have a truly horrific, all murders are horrific obviously. But if you have certain elements of aggravated murder, at least you have on the books, a way for the public to deal with it. And frankly, it brought home to me by what's happened this past week when we look who murdered somebody, who I knew personally, who received at first a 17 to life sentence or 17 to 99 years, and I've got 21 to 99, repeated failure on furlough. And it just seemed to me that I don't think it was aggravated murder in his case. They couldn't approve that, but that brought home to me if it had been, if he'd killed both James Brilliant and his brother Patrick over there. That would have been a double murder. Who knows what the prosecutor is gonna find out. So that's what I'm coming for. I asked Brilliant to draft that in that way, and I'm here for the witnesses. I think Senator Brinketer also expressed a concern about not having something still. I won't speak for her, that's my feeling. I think they said there were 16 people. 16 or 15, yeah. I don't know how many of them were aggravated. I don't know how many of them were aggravated. Right, they weren't. Some of them were just regular murders. Hard to say that, I don't know how many of them want to be aggravated, and murderers are really bad. Right. But we heard from the victims last week, compelling testimony on both sides, by the way. The guy from California, whose son was murdered by a 14-year-old who's changed the laws in California. And we heard from Mr. Silver. So it would be interesting to hear how difficult it is to charge and prove aggravated murder. We looked, Brilliant gave us the list. Well, we have the list, but not from the list of things that are in there, but from the practical point of view of the state's attorneys, of how hard is it to reach that bar? Yeah. I don't know. Someone shoots a firefighter off a ladder. Isn't that, that comes under that, right? I think it would be better to hear from witnesses and their thoughts on this proposal, and then move forward, and then make our decisions which we marked and built in the president. So, thank you for that. When I, Skyler, do you want to jump up? Yeah. Also, can you meet with Senator Campani at 10? Yeah. TJ just talked to me about that the other day. Okay, yeah, because the college is getting on him about it, so. We don't want that. Yeah, we don't want to get in trouble about it. Skyler's helping me and the college of doing a diversity discussion with TJ Donovan, Skyler. Yes, Ania is going to be here. Ania? Yeah. Zuzan. Zuzan. Yeah. Like, Susanna, except Sue. Yeah. Dr. Seuss. I'm going to practice that. By Marsmar. By Marsmar. All of my town meeting week break, I'm going to be pronouncing that name. And you have another person. Hopefully Reverend Thomas, but he hasn't been able to get back out of yet. Well, he doesn't. We still, That's still pretty good. So, we're trying to make plans for that. And why is Brian Campani getting in trouble over it? Because he's, he's the head of, He works on a contact. He's worked at the college. Oh, I see. He's, He's the unseen. He's the CEO of, And the Center for Advancement of Public Engagement or something. Oh, except that. Public action. Public action. Capital. Capital. All right. So we're here. I know that's in college better than you do. Pardon me. I know that's in college better than you do. That's true. Yeah. What was that? You have to excuse my voice is a little weak right now. I was battling the flu last week, But I'm good now. I'm good now. Okay. The voice just remains. Trust me, I would not have put the state house at risk by bringing in the plague. I was still under siege. But for the record, Skyler Nash, student activist. It's probably the best title I can think of at the University of Vermont. I've been working on variations of this bill now to eliminate or the issue of life without role alongside Tom Dalton from Vermont for criminal justice reform. And our national partner, Susan Lawrence, for just over a year now. And I got to tell you that, you know, this was not at the top of my list when I was looking at criminal justice reform and pressing issues. I don't think it was for many people. You know, a particularly hot button issue that we're thinking about day in and day out. But over the past year, I've started to dive into the issue. It has really risen to the top of that list for me. Not just here in Vermont, but I think nationwide. And it's been a very interesting process because we're dealing with the worst of the worst in terms of these crimes. But what it comes down to me is our criminal justice system going to be acting in the interest of justice for what makes us feel better. And I think that Vermont has an opportunity to be on the forefront of a change that I think is going to become more common practice over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years. And I hope when that time does come that we can look back and say that we were able to have the political courage or, you know, other courage necessary to do what I think that the data tells us and most expert tells us is best practice in terms of not just public safety but also justice. You know, I don't have, I'm not going to go through the numbers and the studies that Susan Lawrence has gone through because I don't know them as well as she does. And you guys have heard them multiple times by now. What I will say what has been a sticking point for me is that I know many times over the past 100 years there have been crossroads in terms of us redefining what justice looks like and what justice is and what's in the best practice and interest of justice. And I think those have been hard changes to make because they don't always feel like justice or feel like the safest decisions for us to do. And they can be scary because these crimes are scary. But that's what we need to put forth with that courage to do what is really best practice in terms of pursuing justice. Not just for victims, not just for offenders, but for society as a whole. And I really truly do believe that the elimination of life without parole wholly, not even, not with a cut out for aggravated murder it is really best practice in pursuit of justice. I don't have much more to say other than that but a big thing for me through this entire period, and I've evolved on this a lot of different ways during my time for the past year is that it has never quite made sense to me once I started looking at this issue why it is so easy for us to trust the criminal justice system to tell us on a day of sentencing that this is a person that will never be able to return to society safely and we accept that. But then on the back end it's so scary for us to trust that same system if it tells us that this person may have an opportunity to come back to society and be safe. To me, we can't have it both ways if we're going to trust that system to lock people up and throw away the key then if that system were to come back to us and say this is somebody that can return society and be a contributing member of society and safe to return then us denying that person a chance to make that case or have that opportunity is a denial of justice as well which is not always the easiest case to make but I think that it is the case to make and that's what it really boils down to me is that if we're going to trust this system we need to trust it on both ends and we need to give people the opportunity to make that case. Thank you. Talking to somebody last night who was on this committee in 1987 which is a bill on the Duck Penalty is the Duck Penalty that you had been ruled that's on the books in Vermont and been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and so this then sender introduced the Duck Penalty in 1987 and what the Judiciary Committee came up with was Life Without Parole. So that's really the history of it. Prior to that there had been I believe it's still on the books but they're unconstitutional law regarding the Duck Penalty. I don't know why we don't get rid of it since it was born. Well, you could do that here if you wanted I guess but unconstitutional I guess they never wanted to I don't really know why we never repealed it. I don't know. That lends myself to my point I think is that during that time I wasn't trying to argue with you. Not at all but I think it's just... I think the history is in or out I didn't know about that history until last night when I was talking with the senator. And at that point we probably looked at Life Without Parole and said great we found this solution to the terrible problem. And I think we made those compromises in terms of evolving of justice a lot of times. Nationally is there information on how the Death Penalty Life Without Parole is used based upon race? Is it more often? I mean as with every aspect of the criminal justice system there are racial disparities but as Susan Lawrence has talked about they are extremely high when it comes to Life Without Parole sentencing. Obviously that's not a big over problem here in Vermont just with the people that we have currently serving it but nationally both at the federal level and then just if you look at the country as a whole there are large disparities. And I think that while we want to focus on Vermont I have also during this process taken a national view of that I do think that nationally this will eventually become the law of the land but it's going to take some states to take that first jump as it has with a lot of other issues. And so at the end of this one that is the case which I think it will be I would like us to be able to say that we were on the right end of this and we're leading the charge rather than following along with Pennsylvania or whatever state comes first. And your thoughts on this draft? I mean like I said in my test you're an intern to this committee in different positions a student intern has been to testify on a particular bill if you'd rather not that's okay but I feel comfortable in asking you that question. Yeah, you know like I said I would prefer a bill to come out of this committee that did not have a cut out for aggravated murder because I think that if we're going to say that life without parole sentencing is wrong we have to say that it's wrong in all cases we have to say that it's wrong and that we are trying to slow a change that we I think are saying that we need to make by changing it for first and second degree murder but we're trying to kind of hedge that change by saying we're going to cut it out for aggravated murder which I understand has to happen sometimes but personally I would think that if we're going to say that it's wrong for first and second degree that we should also say that it's wrong for aggravated. I just think it's important that I like your analysis about the trust if we trust it on one end we should be able to trust it on the other end and I think that that when people when a lot of people hear this they assume that the person is going to be paroled but it's not necessarily I mean there are some people that probably never will be paroled because Absolutely. Yeah and there are probably He came up for parole several times and he was never released. But I think it's important that people understand that this isn't giving parole, this is giving them the right to ask for parole. And honestly I would think that if we have you know the most violent among us in jail that the people inside jail whether it be their other inmates or the correctional officers are going to be better off if that person has the self delusion that they're going to be able to finally prove their case someday and because of that they behave a little bit better or you know use some services to try to improve themselves that they may not have beforehand I think we're better off with that as well. That's an interesting point. Alright, any other questions for Scott? Thank you. Thank you very much. Do you like to testify? Both can come up at the same time feel free. We just need your name for the record I'm Meredith Berry. We can do this. So it's hard to put on the spot I guess. My cousin Melissa Jenkins 8 years ago almost I was murdered here in Vermont and one of the big persons is on life without parole right now the other one is not and I understand it's retroactive but if it wasn't it's not retroactive. So she could still get out? No. The one who was sentenced to a period of incarceration who wasn't sentenced to life he was sentenced to life what was his name? He was sentenced to life without parole for aggravated murder His wife was sentenced She was life without parole. He was not. He actually went to jury, went to trial. So she went to life so she cannot under this bill She cannot. He could evidently under the sentence But you just wondered if it was retroactive? No, it was not retroactive. I've written that I was not retroactive There may be a court suit filed by someone to say that because this bill passed that it should be retroactive but I don't know that it would be successful particularly if we leave aggravated murder in My first My first incident is her son Those people took her away from our two year old in front of her He's now 10 and they have done every other way He when he's 30 and he could possibly be out for parole and come out I don't know what every agent is I just can't imagine how it will affect him I worry for him I don't think he'll ever be out in my lifetime but he could possibly in his, I don't know So I fear for him and if you decide to take away life without parole for a first, second, aggravated whatever it is I fear for what the family would do if they got out I fear for my family I've heard people say let him out and then I would lose more family members It was the most, to me, one of the most horrific things I've been through lots of deaths I've had brother-in-law car accidents I've had lots of people with heart attacks to cancer But there's no other death that you lose so much to murder It just doesn't explain anything And I don't believe that anybody that goes through whether it's first degree, second degree, aggravated it's murder You take someone's life I don't believe that you can be rehabilitated from it I don't think Ted Bundy ever would be I think of Elizabeth Smer who was kidnapped and when she was 14 in Utah and she was one of the 2% that actually lived through it after being raped and kept capital for nine months and she has actually spoken and said how she has forgiven her abductors and I think, wow if Melissa, when she was kidnapped when she was raped, when she was beaten if she lived through it maybe she would be able to forgive him but she didn't have that opportunity to live through it instead she was left in a with ropes and cement blocks tied to her and the people that do that should never come out again my family my children never should be out of the opportunity to see them again I don't know I'm not sophisticated as people in this room I don't know how to word it correctly I think you've done pretty good jobs my daughter is here to speak as well and I wish she could attend to me Thank you Are there any questions? I think you expressed yourself very well if you feel nervous that you might not have been my best speeches are always on the way home after I've given them so feel free Thank you My name is Jane Berry and I'm also most of Dinkins' cousin and she was my godmother as well and I hope you don't see this as me just trying to play on to your emotions and anything like that so it was spoken a lot about how people who committed these horrific crimes should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate but my question is what is the quality of the rehabilitation in these programs? the US has the highest number of people incarcerated in the world even though we don't have the highest population the rate of reoffence is high so who's to say reincursion systems is good enough for these people to be let out who's to say the quality that they're receiving provides them with the necessary means to be a functioning member of society who's to say that and also if they are given the opportunity to rehabilitate the people that are given this to are not given the opportunity to rehabilitate most of Dinkins isn't given the second chance she isn't given the chance to change where these people would be if I obviously am aware that they would not be getting it I know that these people would not be let out but this bill doesn't apply to them this is something that will happen again whether we like to say it or not it will happen again and the same situation should happen if this bill is passed someone can be given the opportunity to rehabilitate the opportunity to change but the person that they did it to does not get the opportunity to change because they took their life to me that just doesn't seem fair and we also talk about the elements of aggravated murder they took more than one life where in this situation that I'm emotionally attached to they did take one life they took one life and in fact hundreds if most of Dinkins was still here her son would have another her family members would be would still have her hundreds of students at St. Jay Academy would have the ability to be taught by such a wonderful teacher and though this is just one case I feel there's something like this that is bound to happen again if this happens again if there's an opportunity to rehabilitate then I feel as if it is unfair to the person that they did it to the family members involved into the community and literally everyone else involved who would have to be out there knowing that these people committed such a horrific act and were able to rehabilitate themselves and become a function member of society so is that in all cases cause we're making this first and second degree murders that the life without parole would be taken away if it's going to be for some cases it should be for all cases I believe that this type of crime is so different than other crimes I think that there should be different yes there should be and it shouldn't be for all cases because there's different scenarios for each case so why would we make it for all cases if each crime is on a different level anyway to me it just doesn't make sense morally or at all thank you very much I know how difficult it was for both of you to come here and talk about it when I talked to the brother of Jim James Brilliant on Saturday morning he talked about being re-victimized every time this guy's let out on parole that's pretty powerful so I understand whenever even the possibility of the discussion comes up of Mr. Prue being released I'm sure that will bring back hard memories I don't want to be at all statistically many people who commit murder are actually looking at their likelihood to re-offend is relatively low as compared to other criminal activity but it sets an error with the crime but it's truly particularly in cases where that's part of the reason that some people receive guns under current law that many people who might commit a murder don't get life without parole Mr. Prue didn't get for whatever reason I don't know I wasn't there I have no idea of the attorneys and the state's attorney and how they ended up settling that case and why that happened I guess he avoided going to trial he went to trial Virginia do you have any comments on behalf of the Senate for crime victim services if you don't that's fine I can I believe that Chris Fennel sent in her well she sent in the testimony but the testimony that I got in my evening was only the bill it wasn't her testimony so that's a confused thing sorry about that because she said something about she said something late last night but it turned out to be just the bill I was introduced late last night so I apologize I didn't make copies I can or I'll just make sure I get it to Peggy later so Virginia Renfrew tore the center for crime victims and the Vermont center for crime victims opposes S-261 our main concern centers on the possibility of parole hearings for the most serious crimes where victims of parole would potentially be retraumatized it's important to provide judges with a discretion to welcome the parole for crimes that warrant such a sentence this discretion is relevant as well to cases where charges when a person may have murdered multiple people we encourage this committee to consider not remembering the sentence of life without parole at this time thank you for your consideration thank you the letter that you're thinking of was this one from the the network yes the network the network letter we've got but we didn't get the person's letter I just have it anybody else who wants to testify on this excuse me can I speak briefly sure you didn't need to state your name for the record why Susan Carr and I'm a retired victim advocate but still an advocate I guess I worked closely with Meredith and her family in the Melissa Jenkins case and I just want to briefly say it is so traumatic for the families to go through the murder the trial and all of that to have to think that someday there may be a possibility for the offender to get out is just overwhelming and it would be this burden that they carry with them constantly until that issue comes up or doesn't come up and to say that they have an opportunity to address the parole board is assuming that all the pieces are perfectly in place for notification and having worked in the system for a long time there's lots of places for problems with notification in the system to victims especially when a case is 25 35 40 years old so to assume that the victims will have a say when the parole hearing comes up may not be accurate so personally that may be a very different bill but how can we improve that system actually I talked about Saturday morning conversation with a brother of a person who got murdered who has been repeatedly out on furlough he's never made parole because the parole board is denied he was serving in 21 to 99 years sentence so he was out on furlough last week in bellows falls the brother said well I never got notified but his ex-wife the ex-wife of the victim was notified somehow he got left out of the notification so that this individual had made threats against him so he was concerned that he was out I don't know how do you as a victim's advocate if you have any suggestions we'd be happy to hear how we could improve that system you know I think that now this person will get noticed but maybe I don't know if you know Senator Benning represents California County any suggestions you have to improve that system of victim notification would be happy to hear about it because it did fall down this weekend last week unfortunately that's a conversation for another day because it's a really big I'm offering an opportunity I would be glad to be part of that conversation but systems change within corrections from one system to another system something doesn't get moved into the new system and sometimes people don't look at a case and say this is a sexual assault, this is a murder there's probably somebody who cares about it if the box wasn't checked they don't look well again I'm offering and I'm more than willing to be part of any discussion about that that's what I'm saying just so you know I didn't know that you guys were going to be here to testify this morning I did hear from James that you were going to be here I got an email right after I got James which was about 6.15 this morning every Thursday I'm wrapped up in another committee that starts at 8 o'clock which is why I couldn't be here this morning I humbly apologize for not being here for your testimony I would have made arrangements to be here with the other committee chair if I didn't know where I was going to testify I was like getting here married with them I was coming in till last night it was last minute wasn't it it was not a schedule it was not a schedule but I would be glad to be a resource whenever thank you and you know how to get hold of you I certainly do um anyone else any thoughts on this draft draft Joe has aggravated major changes that aggravated murder but still be allowed to have a senator to lighten up the role senator so I'll just repeat for Joe's benefit what I said before um I I think 35 years is uh a long long time and at the end of that time to say that there's the possibility of parole to me is nothing like a guarantee of parole so I respect the testimony that we've heard and I know it will begin um but the original name of the of the bill was an aggravated to eliminating life without parole this draft really makes it more like reducing the use of life without parole and I think that's useful and I can I can vote for that but I I feel that again what we're doing is preserving the concept of life without parole and it's just we're sort of agreeing to use it a little less so um I suppose one possibility is that we could straw vote on on the aggravated murder piece uh and as I say I can support the bill because I think it's it's better than what we have even in this version but what we were shooting for originally I thought was better still there's two things page 5 line 11 which I recommend not to exceed 35 years we can debate whether it should be 25 30 whatever the idea behind that was that when other states have looked at life without parole they've left that alone and so if somebody a bank property then you have a murder of a teller and you have an escape from you know you're attempting to elude and you get all three of those crimes and you get them to run consecutively you could effectively bypass life without parole and that was why we you could do 25 years 35 years but it was that idea that consecutive sentence and um when I first when Skyler first proposed this bill to me the first thing that Michelle Child said before she turned it over to Bryn was well you know you have to get around that problem so that's what this does so we could debate the number we could also do the reason for the aggravated murder I gave earlier I don't know if I mentioned it to Bill but I just think it leaves it leaves the state's attorney with the ability and particularly her certain crimes the ability to ask for life without parole when I first talked with my state's attorney about the bill I thought she said we've never used it so I'm fine with it and then later on I discovered that she wasn't fine with it other state's attorneys weren't as well so this is an attempt to meet somewhere in the middle so if people want to express it there for or against the aggravated murder staying in as the opportunity to have life without parole I vote yes to to keep the aggravated murder asked the ability if someone is convicted of aggravated murder they could receive a sentence of life without parole which is what this draft has so you're keeping that in I'm supporting Phil with like a straw poll so I'm asking I'm giving my vote to keep that in I'm getting confused now as to what the question is are you agreeing to give life without parole on everything except the aggravated murder no you think life without parole for aggravated murder you think life without parole for aggravated murder let me put it I guess I've confused the situation page five line no no it's actually eleven is no line nineteen on page five section three do we have do you want to include section three which would keep the crime of aggravated murder where a sentence could be life without parole for aggravated murder for aggravated murder so what I what I would like to hear is how what is the bar for getting to aggravated murder I mean I know I know that we got from this but what I would like to hear is in reality how how hard is it to meet that bar and if it's relatively easy will people will state's attorneys file aggravated murder a lot more so that's what I would like to hear I know that what the statute says but you can't predict the behaviors well we know that don't we so James Pepper department of state attorneys and sheriffs there's eight aggravating factors which can enhance first degree murder those factors any one of them needs to be found beyond a reasonable doubt so it's not oh this person was a firefighter so it's aggravated murder the person the defendant had to have known that he was a firefighter we have to prove that element that he knew that he was a firefighter that he was in fact a firefighter and that he was performing his duty so we have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest standard that we have the highest burden of proof that we have so take the case of Lisa Jenkins one person received aggravated murder one person received so I think I'm looking at the factors I think that there was perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a sexual assault I don't know I don't know if that I okay you may not maybe it's not good to go to a specific case so what would you need to prove to get the aggravated murder if it was not a firefighter corrections officer supposing somebody killed two people or more each one of these factors has essential elements to it and we have to prove each one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt it's that simple but it's not easy a jury has to say there was multiple people premeditated intent to kill both of these people and that both people did in fact die and that the jury needs to find all of those essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt okay so in the town in case I can't remember she killed multiple people and did she get aggravated I couldn't remember if she did or not because her intention was to kill the first one I don't think her intention was to kill the second one I mean I know that sounds pretty stupid but he just happened to come on the scene in her state of mind she had killed his father and so yeah and you know this these are murders that as you've heard impacts a huge the broader community and you know I said in my original testimony that these are the kind of murders that make people not want to go into public service if you're a firefighter or not want to help out a person that they know which was the case in case we heard about today and that's the kind of reason why the aggravated murder probably deserves a certain special distinction you know it's the most horrific crimes James did you testify in this already on the amendment no but you know the state's attorneys have a strong preference for leaving life without parole in all cases certainly have a preference between the original bill and this for this for the amended bill it was our suggestion on the kind of de facto life with that the highlighted language that you have that aggravated minimum not exceeding 35 years that came from our and that was to avoid what the original bill did was just said any time that there's multiple charges, multiple convictions you can't have concurrent you can't have consecutive sentences and you know I laid out a few scenarios I think for the committee where that actually discourages sometimes cleaning down a felony to a misdemeanor if you have another misdemeanor also that was one of the most horrific I was just looking at Charles Gondola he was the one with Bacon Gondola was the ringmasters as far as I recall that was the murder they were on a new fame they were on a work crew and they murdered that couple and Gondola against they murdered a music teacher they murdered a teacher you're thinking of another guy who's name Gondola received 72 to life Bacon who was less involved like without parole I can't explain it I'm just saying that sometimes I don't know what that means for this bill but it isn't always obviously 72 years to life is a long minimum each judge goes through the kind of four pillars of sentencing the purposes of sentencing I suppose I don't know how old Gondola was he was probably 20 so when you're turned 99 you're eligible for parole I suppose I mean it's just that's how the system dealt with those two cases and the best of my knowledge Gondola was still out of state and not in Mississippi I remember his Gondola was about 17 in 1982 he was 37 in 2002 he was 37 in 2002 that would have been right then for the court really I met him much he was in other trouble long before this well it brings it it's an old case but it was done under that new law writing late without parole and I'm reminded state's attorney's fashion sentences no matter what our law is so can I ask James I haven't been here for all the testimony this morning you know you've provided some language for this amendment it's still your preference however to leave the law just the way it is the state's attorney's yes I mean it's not universal it's the state's attorney's yes oh right so is that helpful yeah so we're still at the straw pool and I'm the only one that's voted well I think Phillip has voted well I would you know I would prefer to take out section 3 I think as a consistency I would prefer to take it out but as as a coming to some kind of middle ground I would I would support leaving it in just although philosophically it doesn't make sense to me but if those are there are very serious I guess what does that vote mean that vote means that I would prefer to take it out but if it's necessary to get the bill passed I would leave it in that's what that vote means Alice is calling the question right I mean I'm not willing to take it out I'm not willing to go to letting somebody off of that vote against the bill no matter what not absolutely sure I mean I think I look at that list again and also I have to admit you know horrific murders where there's you know premeditated is a horrible situation that happens for instance somebody's torture to death that would be a hard time with saying that that would be aggravated yeah yeah well is it right on the list as that do you want time to look over the list I'd like to look at the list but count me as an old I know I'm taking out I'm in a no on the bill all right I've never really been comfortable with the bill quite frankly I see this as an improvement we're still on the bill all together so you are on the bill all together you know one of my thoughts is if somebody has been rehabilitated which I agree some people have I mean you also see people in prison who do find things in prison in terms of helping their fellow man those persons who have been rehabilitated work within the system I mean one thing we did check on the person we heard from California the law does not allow a governor to commute a sentence a governor can pardon a person like the guy we heard from Vermont governor is going to pardon a murderer unless they want to act like that governor of Kentucky who got thrown out beside part of a whole bunch of people so a governor in Vermont under the company we have to take the constitutional change to give the governor of Vermont the opportunity to commute a sentence to change any sentence something that I'm not sure about talking with Sarah George attorney of Chittenden County evidently the state's attorney can change a sentence I'm not sure how that happens but she says she how can that be I don't know how she did it you can ask for a sentence reconsideration within seven days of the sentence nothing like what we're talking about right so I don't think there's any way under current law to to commute by any there is a way to get a re-sentence right there's one of those cases going on right now a case going on now where the state's attorney is well it's been brought up as somebody's appeal and then state's attorney maybe it's just in negotiations agreed to in an appeal if the individual appeals I suppose rather than going through with appeal but anyway I'm happy to hold this off till next week if you want take another look at it think about it but it would appear that there's as of today there's three votes to approve the bill if aggravated murder stays in I wouldn't vote for the bill without aggravated murder at this point then I would vote for leaving it in because if that's the way you pass it thank you for the strong point no thank you I'm assuming you go for the bill if it has aggravated as I said I think even with that in it's better than the system we have the 35 years we could discuss that that's not a big deal to me I just you know think there needs to be I just want to avoid having the the court just override and give somebody such a long sentence that they would never you know somebody got a 400 year sentence to life yeah that's all about the newspapers right well thank you all very much think about it thank you thank you I'm going to practice this amendment are we on the same bill? no we're on to miscellaneous judicial procedures I'm planning to be on the floor for quite a while Peggy so I'll do the agenda while I'm on the floor and appropriations we'll have it for you but give me the next week too we can try to fill in the next two weeks I don't think we'll be on the floor very long on minimum wage if we can get people to not say anything I don't think anybody's going to need to make a decision oh Michael is he said yes but as soon as he does then somebody else is going to have to understand if somebody else is not going to speak on this right and Debbie and Ruth and Joe and Brian and Karl just one somebody has to tell us how to vote because it's always confusing when you do an override you vote yes to sustain the governor's veto you vote no to override but there's always been confusion because I could tell constituents who say please vote for the governor's veto I did I voted no and people who want me to vote for it I said I did I voted no is that going to be a reverse vote it is right is it yes vote sustains the governor's veto and no vote is against the governor's veto and maybe David will explain that right the question is should we sustain should we sustain the governor's veto and if you say yes then you sustain it if you say no you override but somebody should probably vote yes so you can do a reverse so if somebody voted yes in the house they could have done a reverse vote I just assumed that was part of them thinking and it was thinking enough other than an override a veto override we're on TV the only time I've seen a negative vote was when we did the BY because we had to do a negative vote there because the question was should they be allowed to continue operation if we voted yes I mean if the question should they not be allowed if we voted yes then it would have had to gone to the house and then it would have gone to the governor but we didn't say should something not be no well it was worded it was worded that way that came up unexpectedly it came up immediately Eric has an exciting we're on the record Eric has an exciting amendment to this bill that I'm thrilled about I'm excited we should all be excited about it it's full of diversions awareness yep all that and more yes good morning everybody Eric Fitzpatrick good morning Eric how are you I think we're well good here with the office of legislative council to talk about and walk the committee through the new strike all amendment to S-234 which is the judiciary miscellaneous bill you probably notice already that it's substantially lengthier than it was the last time you looked at it yep and well now this version 10 pages long it should be 26 the one we're looking at 26 pages it's right here she just passed it out well she just passed it out and laid it on the top there might be extras right there right on the corner I think thank you either you forgot me or I put it somewhere else thank you 26 page version draft 1.1 of S-234 I mean they've got it but I presume that everything's so the first actually six sections of the bill all do the same thing you notice each section you'll see the change of the word abuse to awareness happens throughout the first six sections of the bill and this this is a proposal from the attorney general's office that and the office of court diversion programs and the issue here is that the program is currently known as the youth substance abuse safety program evidently there's some young folks who have been reluctant to participate because sort of concerned about the name or that there's a substance abuse issue with there may not be an individual cases so so well so that takes you right up to page 7 yes thank you although actually yes there is another actually senator should I just note the changes no need to have a review that takes us up to page 7 to see section 7 there is actually no change to that section anyway that's the same as it was in the original section just to clarify because our youth minors and possession of all beverages the teen alcohol provision was prosecuted under title 7 the teen alcohol statute not under this counterpity more serious statute that was going through but no changes to that so section 8 this was a piece that was requested by the court to address a problem that's going on in the judicial bureau that's based on the way the language is written see line 10 line 18 line 4 all the same thing that using the language admits does not contest or deny is evidently leading some persons to plead no contest thinking that they're still going to be able to contest the ticket later on now realizing that when you plead no contest it means it's really an admission well it's not an admission of guilt we aren't able to contest it later on so the language is changed to clarify what the language is going to be on the ticket so people aren't confused into thinking that they're pleading one thing when they're not but still be able to be clear to them what it is that they're going to be able to appeal so that's the reason for the language change in section 8 sections 9 and 10 8 to 8 9 to 20 you're going to take the line, sorry line 20 once you're lending it to females you can't turn her sheep oh right thank you yes I think that's it is limited to females this is part of our this is part of our thrust this year this is a lot of women They're having a parade on August 22nd, funding is $20,000. What? What are you talking about? The suffragettes anniversary, the 100th anniversary parade. You can't call them suffragettes anymore, apparently. You have to call them suffragettes. Whatever. Suffragettes. Oh, suffragettes. Yeah, because suffragettes. Suffragettes is a diminutive. ETT is a diminutive, which means that I'm diminished, right? Well, go ahead, you're a chidist. What pain is that? The typo? That's on page 8, line 20. Nice catch on her back. Thank you. It says her. Or she. She'd say he or she. I think you should say he or she. Yeah, I think so. Good catch. The next change is over on page 11. And this section was actually in the bill in the first place. And that has to do with a request from the Department of State's Attorneys and Chairs. You may recall there's a concern there's going to be a loss in federal grant money because of the way in which the timing is set for HIV testing. What does it mean? Franklin County, I think. Maybe it's just back to the Franklin County. This is very important to the senator from women. Important not to lose that funding. Well, this funding replaced the unfortunate productions by the Senate for Crime and Victim Services, if you remember. I do remember. Senator Pepper. James Pepper, the Proposal and Justice Chairs. I would just add that I have been in touch with the compliance officer at Department of Justice. And she said that this language brings us into compliance so we wouldn't sacrifice any funds. Good. OK. Thank you. Great idea. Whoever came up with that idea to do that. Changed the language. And it was Pepper. It was actually me. Oh, it was you. Oh, my god. Thank you. OK. The only change to that section you'll see is, that was a couple of little changes, but there's some language on line 17 to 18 and the same language change on line 15 and 16 of page 12. Well, this was to clarify when it is that the court may, or sorry, when the victim may obtain the order for testing the original language, evidence of guilt is great. Judge Gerrison and Defender General, I think Pepper as well, all thought that should track Rule 41, which weren't language in the rules of criminal procedures. So I ran that language by everyone and they thought that got the concept better. So everyone find out from the language here that more closely mimics the standard that's used in a general or a requirement rule. I'm going to make stuff here. What bill is attached to this in terms of the original bill versus all of this? Say that again, turn it around. Kind of figure out where did all of this come from. It's always been in there. That section. That was the original bill. Yeah, it may have been numbered differently because I had to re-number when we added all these new sections. But it was in the original bill. Would that highway did change on line 17, 18, page 11? So the section was in there, but that language has been changed a little bit. Oh, that one. I have no problem with it, but I'm just wondering when I have it in this one. Yeah, the numbering has changed. So it may be a little. The bill is introduced. That's where we are now. There's a lot more to it where we are now. Yeah, it's a lot heavier. A lot thicker. Six pages more. Right. But that, it wasn't from another bill that was put in here. Correct, not in that case. No, not in that case. I mean, not in that whole case. It's increasing the size of the bill. Onto the next. Right, there may be one that was imported from another bill. But I'll mention that when I get to it. But everything else is just reflex, taximony that you've heard, and people were making requests. So speaking of sections that are added, that takes us to page 15, section 13. You see, what I did for any section that is newly added, I highlighted rather than highlighting the whole thing, for the most part, I just highlighted the section introductory language, for example, line one, page 15, that is highlighted, because that wasn't in the previous bill. And this reflects a request from the Attorney General's office. It has to do with the fact that risk assessments, the way the language is phrased right now, risk assessments do have to be offered to a person who has been unable to postbear within 24 hours of lodging. But according to the testimony, these risk assessments can't be done because the prosecutors don't have access to that sort of information. So they can't be done. They're not being done, as a matter of practice either. They still get, you see, they still get the need screening. You see line seven. So the need screening is a change. They still get the need screening. But the risk assessment. So the risk assessment language and the title of morning two, is that still covered under this section in sub A or sub C that we don't have in the front of us? That's a good question. And maybe that that should be struck as well. So let me double check the rest of the statute. You can see it. It's probably more pink for us. I know. You are. Section 14 and 15, both these were the court's proposal. To clarify that a person's criminal history records can't be expunged until they've paid court surcharges. And this is consistent with other provisions of law that prohibit expungement until various fees or surcharges and restitution have been paid. And this is making clear that surcharges have to be paid as well before expungement can happen. And that's the same. That's section 14, section 15 as well. Section 16, this basically is a permission for the probate court to allow a will to be valid, essentially to be admitted as valid. If there's no objections, when one of the witness testifies that the will was properly executed. So if there's no objections, there's a bit of a streamlined process for allowing the will to be admitted. And that doesn't mean that every provision of the will is going to be valid. And that goes further on. But just to admit it, as the valid will, you can do it if there's no objection. And this is the new action for page 18, lines 1 through 5. I see that? Yep. Line 6 through 7, although it's moved, that's actually still and that's just a repeat. It's in the statute at the top of the page. But the new provision is subdivision 1. It allows the will, upon the testimony of only one of the witnesses, if they testify that it was properly executed, as long as there's no objection. You do have a time for that, too. All right. High five. Not one more executed as provided. Oh, thank you. As you can tell, this has not been to the cruiser's end. It was not late last night. But that will obviously happen next. But thank you for catching that. And we already talked about the 10,000. Yep. Yes, exactly. And I finally, after we were sort of trying to understand how that worked, and after further exploration, I understand that the way it's drafted works well, adding the existing section. There's no need to make any changes to the way that the language is set down in the existing provision of Title XIV. So it just offs the amount, so that the superior court doesn't have to approve settlements of $2,000, $2,500, $3,000 that their supervisory requirement, their approval requirement, doesn't kick in until it's a settlement that's greater than $10,000. We're due to have a break at 10. I don't know what the committee wants to do. We can go to at least get the walkthrough done. Yeah. Take testimony after the break. Yep. That would be OK. Sounds good. So that brings us to section 20. And the rest of this is going to go pretty quickly, I think anyway. This is just a change because there's a reference in the child support statute to parent child contact. But parent child contact is not decided in child support. Child support, how much money has to be paid in terms of support, not if not to do with the actual contact between the parents and children. So that's removed for that reason. It's not relevant there. You'll see that in subdivision 20. Section 21 is in the mental health proceedings, which sometimes take place in the criminal division, sometimes take place in the family division. But the statute says criminal division only. That's not accurate. So it's changed to superior court because sometimes it's in one division. Sometimes it's in the other. It depends on what stage of the proceedings you're at. Section 22, this actually is new. This was a provision that added last evening that was meant to be included earlier, but there was an oversight. So it's in here now. I think Judge Kirschman will be able to explain a little bit. We'll both explain it a little bit. My understanding of it is it's a request from the judiciary. And there is a problem with the, I almost thought that as a coding error. It is something to do with the entry of information in the Judiciary Bureau. And they're not able to do it properly with respect to admissions. Somehow the statute being changed to incorporate admissions then they will be able to do their data entry properly. Have it correlate with payment and fines to the Bureau. Section 23 and 24, this is the two pieces that actually come in from another bill. 23 and 24 came in from the corrections, the general corrections bill that we were looking at earlier this session. And this has to do with when the Department of Corrections has to provide separate facilities for youthful offenders. Under current law, you'll see, and this is on the top of page 22, under current law, separate facilities have to provide for offenders under age 25. If I see that, line one and two, that's existing law. The proposal is that appropriate facilities would still have to be maintained for people under 25. But the separate facilities, you go down to line five, would only be for folks under age 19. So there's a lowering of that age as to when the facility has to actually be separate. Then- And separate means site and sounding, is that right? I believe so. That's an issue that we're gonna deal with in another bill at some point. Because when we talk about the closure of Woodside, that's an issue because if you close Woodside and you presume that an 18-year-old kid is gonna go to 17-year-olds or an 18-year-old, we passed this law. Well, can you close Woodside where a 17 or 18 ends up at the four-bed and Marble Valley? The current Interim Commissioner of Corrections does not want that to happen. He says that no matter what you do, you shouldn't be holding that age group in prison. But currently, there's a 15-year-old at Woodside. So to use that example, you close Woodside. That 15-year-old would require two correctional officers around the clock, which would probably total four or six of them, to supervise that guy or that kid on the multi. I don't know if it's a guy or a wolf. So that's something that we're gonna talk about in the Woodside when we talk about the bill we had yesterday when we get to where they were not, you close Woodside. The Juvenile Justice Bill that we talked about yesterday with Ken Schatz. And we're gonna continue that conversation, but that is one of the considerations. You know, I'm fine with this in here, but if in fact we choose that, we don't wanna hold kids at Marvel Valley in that four-bed unit. And you close Woodside, you have a dilemma. We will hear testimony after. But I support this change. This is consistent with what the Rays of the Age did. Yes, and as the next thing. Actually, I'm wondering if those two shouldn't be in that other bill, actually. Right. To be consistent. That's the issue is there. I think Prince doing that bill when Juvenile Justice took a couple amendments. We took it up yesterday. It's actually S-232. So these sections probably belong in S-232. Okay. So that we're consistent, whatever we do, we'll be consistent with that bill. Sound good. I'll follow up with her. I've heard those sections in S-232. But this makes perfect sense today. So then we'll skip section 24, move over to section 25. This is a proposal also from the court and from the Probate Judges Association. Evidently, right now, there's language that allows for a fee to be charged that actually Probate Division does not have jurisdiction over those cases. Those cases are in the civil division. So since settlement of these minor cases doesn't happen in the Probate Division, doesn't make sense for that language to be there providing for a probate fee in those cases. So it's struck. In the bank that I probably say, since the probate court not open to business, they're working hours. Working people, we want to keep those minor cases and the other court is open. The next section 26, also purely technical. You see in the existing law in page 23, line 19. There's a, see that line 19, the very first phrase there, guardian ad litem. So the guardian ad litem is already permitted to inspect files, notwithstanding the general confidentiality provision. But for some reason, the same person is repeated again. And it's just the next subdivision later, line two of page 24. They're not trying to sneak in or name change. How did I know? Section 27 is the same concept I talked about earlier. Again, this is another provision that around expungement and sealing of records, making clear that in this case, sealing of records and juvenile cases doesn't take place until restitution and surcharges are paid. No change to sections 28 or 29. Section 30, this is a repeal of, this is also requested by the court. This is a lengthy chapter and title 12 sub chapter rather than allows for voluntary arbitration of medical malpractice cases. I don't remember nobody's ever done it. Since 1975, I don't know, it hasn't been used, so. It's a great idea, suddenly. Right. I can just see them now. Wow, they probably had a long debate. Right. They were debating health care Is it on? Line 15, is that supposed to say section 29? Is that? Line 15 of? On page 24. Because it's section 28 and then there's section 30. Is that supposed to? Actually, no, that's an interesting, it's a confusing way that because section 29 of the bill which starts on line 13, a man's section three, you see that? That's why that's indented. I got it, I didn't see that section. It is, it's always visually confusing. Yeah. Okay. Lastly, this is a new provision, section 31, that the committee may recall discussing, but we hadn't had the language in front of you yet. So, worked with David Scherer on the language from the Attorney General's office and again, this basically establishes a reinstatement fee holiday program that allows people to get their suspended driver's licenses back without paying a fee. That's the general gist of the program. It applies, I'm sorry, it's in existence for a month. You see line seven to eight. Application period is during September of 2020. Available to anybody who applies for reinstatement during that month. And if you do, if you apply to the Judicial Bureau, this is line 10 for reinstatement during that month, you can have your license reinstated without paying any fees. And these fees that would be waived would include, this is line 14, the DMV reinstatement fee, any fees to both apply to the Judicial Bureau for a fair to answer the complaint, failure to pay fees, and any surcharges imposed by the court. So all these fees are waived. And the only thing that the person would have to pay, you see line 19 of page 25, is a 10 to all the time. This is for all suspensions? No. Suspensions that are not permanent. Right. That we're not a DUI. Right. Right. A Charleston negative criminal. Right. But it's for fines. Just for fines and surcharges and reinstatement fees. Shouldn't that be made clear? It just says, permit whose motor vehicle license has been suspended. I don't know. Well, when we get back after the break, we can talk about what should be clear. I also want to consider that on October 1st, all licenses have to be real ID in order to get on an airplane. And we may want to move the dates to like August 15th, September 15th, to give people time to make sure that they had a license suspended and they want to get on an airplane. They're going to need a real ID to do it. Which may give some people an incentive to do it. So then they might, the motor vehicles might need time to just have this system. I don't know, but that's just a consideration. I saw the ad yesterday. The ad about meeting a real ID at first. After October 1st to fly, you have to have a passport or a real ID under the federal law on your license. That means if I want to go visit my daughter, I better get rid of my little green cracker jackpot. Yeah, maybe I'm using the wrong term. I want my agreement. You have to have a certain license. So you get a real ID, huh? Is it enhanced, Trevor? Maybe it's enhanced. I get computed between the two. But you can't fly with an enhanced overseas. No, you have to have a real ID. You have to have a passport or passport. Yeah, you can't go to Europe on a real ID. No, you can't go to Canada or Mexico. Right. So the question on the last page says the public education required by the subsection shall include encouraging program applicants to check all DMV records. What do we mean by that? Well, if there's an out-of-state suspension, say you had your license suspended in Vermont and you also have a suspension from Massachusetts or New Hampshire, there's nothing we can do about that. But at the time you're taking care of your Vermont suspensions, you may want to take care of your New Hampshire or Massachusetts suspensions. So you need to check the record to make sure. But I mean, this makes it sound like they have the ability themselves to check DMV records. They're just going to go to the DMV. David will explain that to you. It's as simple as voting. I mean, I don't know. It sounds like public education campaign should encourage them to do something besides going to the DMV and saying, what do I do? Well, I think the idea is that if somebody were to go to the Judicial Bureau, I'd say. Yeah. And not the DMV, which is a possibility. They would want to check DMV records for the purpose of Senator Sears mentioned and also to make sure that every ticket that was assigned to their license was being checked because sometimes people names are spelled differently or people have changed their names. So if you go in with us and say, hey, such and such name, I want to pay off all my stuff. I might not actually get every ticket that's assigned to you. And DMV apparently was saying, we're discussing this, that is a real issue that comes up. Because they really want to encourage people to go to the DMV, even if they go through a different avenue to make sure they get everything. All right, we need to discuss this. But? Let's discuss this more after the meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Take a break and then come back for discussion. Yeah. We've done a lot for you. I thought that's what you said originally. We've completed the long through. Yeah. About three times. Yeah. I thought that's what you said. Yeah. We'll testify next. Please. Grill. What time are we coming back? 10.30. Is it shouldn't be? It looks like we're there. Peter Stirling wants to talk to a couple of you. David, Senator Nicke has a number of questions. She's not here. So I guess we'll just brief you on that and then we'll answer that. David, I know the answer. Mike, it's canceled, too. Yeah. You know, so we can probably do a little bit of a tie. I don't know if we're going to be able to talk to the doctor. OK. We're on the record. I was going to say we're still on through. Yeah, so we're down. We're still on 234 until 11 AM and then at 11 AM, we're going to switch back to the insanity defense. So you want to explain your proposed amendment? Sure. I can say it's hard. It's really hard. Thank you for David here with the Attorney General's Office. So I think Attorney Fitzpatrick did a good job of giving an overview on it. I mean, the basic concept here is to have a month where people can come in and wipe out their old fines without having to also be burdened by the main statement fees that come along with that. And those fees come from both the DMV and the judicial bureau. And we're just trying to get as many people licensed as we can. I think we all agree on the policy behind that. And we're having the rules to be safer with licensed and insured drivers. This is a way of doing it. This does result from a meeting we had that included DMV, the Judiciary, Judge Gerson was there, and Joanne Charville from the Judicial Bureau, David Evans from DMV, and several other people who would be involved administratively at risk. A couple of ideas that have actually bubbled up this morning would be to get rid of the fine altogether and just have an administrative process where we could pretty rapidly wipe out. Because the fine just isn't, we're not talking about a amount of money that's all that meaningful. You mean the $10? Yeah. And so one idea that just came up, and this hasn't really been vetted through the group yet, but it could be that we just have no fine at all and use an administrative process to wipe out the fines that followed in this category, suspended for non-criminalite. There had to be some effort to communicate with people to make sure that they know that that happened, but those are issues we can think through. So those are a couple of ideas that have just come up, and we can work on refining this more and keep working with that group. Just three questions I have. One is, how do we know this is just for civil, I'll call it civil, that somebody who has their license suspended for DUI is not eligible? I think that's a good point, we should clarify that. The statute, it's sort of much counsel, they feel like it's sufficiently defined already, but I think it's probably important to make that clear. So we can amend that. Second question is, I know that I'm gonna get pushed back from my town manager, he's gonna say, well, you're taking away my fine money from my town, it's already down, so somebody who has $800 in fines, surcharges interest, they're not gonna pay it. They've been suspended for a year, clearly. Well, what about the person who's suspended license comes up on August 31st, and now all of a sudden, they can get rid of their fine, is there, should there be some kind of a oldest to it? Like, I don't know how to put it, but you know, it has to be more than six months old. I suppose that that could be a safeguard on that, I think that it may be kind of unfair to me who's gonna pay that fine for somebody next to me to just walk in and who got fined $250, including all surcharges, and then I just get away with it, not have to pay anything because they were lucky enough to get fined during the month of September. I mean, I'm speculating a little bit, but it would be, some of you really have to be clever and Fred and Needle just right to, they have it all the timelines work out so that they know they're gonna be suspended during this month, and then they wait, go under suspension, and then get out from under the ticket. I frankly think it's unlikely that somebody's gonna do that, or even know enough about the timelines to be able to gain the system that way. Well, but where was, that was actually, that was nice. But again, the timeline, you have to make sure, it's not like you get the ticket and go under suspension, there's timelines that precede it and come into play, so somebody would have to calculate it correctly if they missed the month, then now they're out the other side and they're just sitting there with a suspended license and they have to pay everything. And it's not all, frankly, the timelines don't always happen exactly as they're advertised because there's mail time that happens and I think it would be, I see the point and I think it might, that's something we could do. I don't see there being a big risk of scoff laws because I don't think it's actually that easy for somebody to do that. And the group for simplicity's sake felt like it was as easy as just to say, let's forget about those sort of system gamers and just say blanket. I don't know about the town manager, the local government that we're losing our client money. I think everybody agreed in that meeting that the collection rates are low for this type of stuff. You're not actually talking about losing much money here because you're not getting the money now. And that came from DMV too and they could testify a little bit more expertly to some of the collection rates but the reality is with both with the general reality, the people who are under suspension for a while aren't like with pay and also apparently with some of the legal changes more recently, it's made the collection rates go even lower. So they're just, you're not talking about a practical loss, you're talking about a non-collection either way. So so far, Alice, we've talked about how to make it clear that it's not criminal license suspension or a DUI or a callus that we just tried to make it clear that it's criminal. The second thing we talked about was whether or not there should be any fine at all currently as it's drafted on line 19, if you had 10 tickets, you'd pay $10 a ticket or $100 would be the total fine and maybe there should be no fine at all. I mean, in terms of just the general public thinking about this, in terms of there should be no there's not. I can't hear you right now with that door open. $100, I mean, as people are getting to have this gift. Well, assuming they have 10 tickets. Yeah. It's taking some personal responsibility. I like your idea of a delay too. You know, if someone, like the one recent person, doesn't just jump right in. And even though that would be rare, the perception of the whole thing. Well, let's get a testimony from DMV about whether that could happen. Could I ask a question first about the $10? Does it cost more to process the $10 fee for everybody than it would be worth? I mean, do we end up collecting about $3? I couldn't, I didn't defer it to you just to be on DMV on that. I don't know about the cost. Any other thoughts on this? Hold on. Yeah. Well, that's DMV. I would like if you would send this out to DMV and any other parties that aren't in attendance today and set up some time next week for comment on this. Then I want to, after we've finished it, I want to run it by the Transportation Committee. All right, thank you. Is there any other comment today? Any other judge versus? We were just talking about to be made. And I would want to clarify that it's for a traffic violation, right? Right. You were talking about center students the dates of the period two. Nope. Do you want to change it to August 15th? I think obviously, in line with the, with this, if it's necessary, actually I'd like to hear from you. I actually could ask you to do that question. If somebody was to pay off their fine, you know, get their license re-instated on September 30th, would they be eligible to get a real ID on October 1st? How long would it take for this, you know, does it take a week for their process, for example? So that's their DMV questions? Yeah, really. I don't know how long it takes for them to work through the system that the person's license is no longer suspended. And it's now they're okay to go get a new license. So do you want to set up, have them come in next week? To respond? Yeah, well, but I would like them to get it. Mike Smith is probably the person to send the copy to, he just, yeah. Ian, is it Jake? All of the headphones, is Jake still there? Yeah, he's still there. Jake maybe want to testify. Okay, sounds good. Judge? Just briefly, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge that's fine with respect to S-234 draft 1.1. We've seen the draft, I think the committee looks like all of our requests have been incorporated in this most recent draft, the exception of the section relating to judicial evaluation, that we understand the committee's position with respect to that and we'll decide, I guess, whether we're going to continue to pursue it otherwise, but I understand the committee's position and thank you for everything else in that draft. With respect to the fee holiday, I've written to folks internally in the Office of Judicial Bureau, my immediate reaction to it is, if you're down to $10, I'm wondering if it makes more sense to eliminate any payment and just allow the Attorney General's Office to provide the court with a list of cases to be dismissed. We make an entry and we're done with it. And I mean, to the effort to process the $10 payment doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but I don't know internally what it would mean to turn this into a dismissal, but we then wouldn't have individual petitions. Attorney General could get the list of cases that are applicable from DMV. Here's a list of whatever it is, 100 cases, send it to the court, dismissal. And then you send the letter to the person saying it's good. Or somebody would. I don't even know that. I haven't gone that far ahead. People, but people would still have to do something affirmative in order to take part in this. I mean, they, it wouldn't be like the lines, would it be like the, maybe I'm just understanding. They still have to do take some personal responsibility by at least contacting DMV or. That's what. What do we envision here? I know when they did it in Chittenden County, there were lines stretching out to the screen. That's because if I understand how that process worked, they declared that whatever it was, the amnesty came in, that there was a reduction. In other words, there were payments process that's involved in the court and approving agreements. And so there was some significant amount of work involved in that, you know. This, all I'm thinking and I may be wrong, that's why I'm waiting to hear back from the Judicial Bureau is that if you're doing all of this work for $10, maybe you should just dismiss the cases. And then it's from our end of the central entry in the system that they're dismissed. As far as how people get notice of this. Let's have some time to talk with the Judicial Bureau and I'll talk to David about this idea to see what would be involved. Is there gonna be pushback for states attorneys? These are not criminal issues. I mean, to be honest, they become criminal issues if you get a number of tickets in a certain number of years. And these are the lowest level prosecutions, lowest priority prosecutions that we have. So I don't see why the state's attorneys, I mean, I'll reach out to them with this language, but I don't see big pushback on this. And I know when this was first being discussed before we saw it in this form, I think someone was putting together a fiscal impact information for the committee. I don't have it with me and I will find out where that stands. So do you know who would do that then? We should invite them to. I'm not sure. Who gets the money from the fine searcher? Oh, for these searchers, I think. It's like the technology fund is what the fees go to the technology fund. The search are just the same, right? We talked about victim groups and this. And the technology fund is what, in part, is paying for the new case management, another was built into the request for case management. If they don't get paid, you don't get the money. Right, right. I was gonna say that they don't. That's why. Very little that you would end up with because they're not gonna pay with the fines anyway. So if we get, if I have a fiscal impact, make sure the committee has it. Katie, would you make sure that when you take this up next time, next week, that we ask the victims of that work? Just. I think it's CC, I think it's the center. Center for Crime Victim Services. Yeah. I know that the local government will probably have to push back. They're in town today. Well, they're not testifying today. No, but I mean, they're a lot of them. But we probably should contact the leaders that he's in town this year. So they can give their testimonial. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Just for the mechanics. Is it the bureau that would dismiss these? Yeah. So maybe it wouldn't even involve these G, right? People from the EG would know. And I'm thinking out loud that I'm talking with David, probably the EG could go to DMV to find out, get the list of people that these are only civil pickets and they're not the criminal violations. They would have that list and they'd break it down by county where these tickets are. And then send the list to, let's say, Washington County. Here are whatever number of cases. And the state is requesting that they be dismissed. Then we would do a computer entry on dismissed. Thank you. Would you also put that, the DMVs? OK, so we're to see how it works. It may not be as simple as I explained it. But I would put the DMVs for this $10. We go somewhere and I'd like to put it. Processing, individual, do that. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm just going back to my point there. How are we going to break down between us and David? It's taking that to go in and apply. I know. How do we do that? That's what I've got to talk with David about. Thank you. Now we're going to, this has been an interesting day. We've gone from late without parole to license suspension to competency to stand trial. Our first witness on the competency is Jack McCulloch, Director of the Mental Health Law Project for Monthly Relay. Welcome back, Jack. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm happy to be here. I'm Jack McCulloch. I'm an attorney for Monthly Relay. And I'm the director of our Mental Health Law Project in that role we represent people in all of the civil involuntary mental health proceedings in the state. And what I'm here to talk about mainly is the issue in the bill before you about what's described now as party status for the Department of Mental Health and for the Mental Health Law Project in hospitalization here. We agree that it is important for the defendants in hospitalization hearings to have representation by an office with the expertise and knowledge of the mental health system. And back a few years ago in S61, we had a proposal that would have created a mental health law project to represent people in these involuntary in the hospitalization hearings. What I've passed out is a memo that sets forth essentially a tweak of the language that we have in S61. I agree with the people who observed that it doesn't really make sense to talk about either the Department of Mental Health or an attorney as having been a party to the litigation. Because we're not a party. We're just a lawyer who represents people. And so what the change that I propose to Section 3 of this bill is to, as you see, that the court when a person is found incompetent or insane and we're now at the point of hospitalization hearing that the mental health law project would be appointed by the court to represent the defendant in the hospitalization hearing. And the Department of Mental Health would also have the opportunity to appear in that hearing and be represented by the Attorney General's office. And so what this is designed to do is not to oust the state's attorneys from their role in prosecuting these cases. Because I understand that they want to maintain the ability to assert their position. But it would also allow, in addition, that the Department of Mental Health would be in there and argue for their preferred outcomes. Can I ask a question? Are you proposing, in our bill, there is no five. So you're proposing putting a five? This would be addition, yeah. And so then would you, on the top of page four, those two lines, would you eliminate them at the same time? I would eliminate those, yes. What would be the rest of four? I've got my five upside down, so I should change. Sure, you know what I'm saying. I think you're correct. This is, as the Leader, Attorney General, was concerned about that section as well yesterday. This would move that. I'm assuming we're moving firm parties to the hearing. We'll move all of those two lines, right? And add this instead. Right, yeah, I was wanting to, on page four, we'll go on. Yeah, OK. And then add those five, OK. What about section one? The Commissioner shall be a party with issues of competency or wage. That's 2016. I would take that, too. You're suggesting in hearing that legally the President has the resources to take on this original caseload. You, being a member of the appropriations committee along with Senator Victor, I'm always concerned about me talking about additional resources that will be needed. You haven't asked me to know what that might be. We've been, I've been talking to Judge Greerson to see if we can find out, estimate how many cases it would be. The last time we had this proposal, there was a fiscal note that was pretty substantial. It was based on an assumption of about 197 cases a year. I don't know if that's the right number or not, but the judiciary is querying its database to see how many cases we could expect to have to litigate. But based on around 200 cases a year, we're thinking it would probably require us to add two attorneys. About 200,000. I think it was around 240, somewhere in that neighborhood. And then the other factor, it would probably involve an additional expense for independent psychiatric exams that are not being done at this point. All right. Probably asking, no matter what, whether we put this in or leave it out, the change of making all of you parties to it would also be a resource issue lesson. Yeah, I think so. So whether we adopt this amendment and, you know, I think we need a fiscal note. Yeah, I have a look. You're kind of phony to pass this and then not fund it. If you could find the lawyers I've been talking with, several people who hire lawyers, the federal, general, state attorneys, they're having a hard time. I don't know if you are legally. We've been successful at hiring great attorneys. I think probably some of you know, Moria O'Reilly has been working on expungement. And, you know, we take the job of hiring new attorneys very seriously. And so, you know, if we don't get a good tool, we will be an advertiser, and then hire someone who's not going to do the job, but we'll be successful at getting people to come. Yeah, we're not going to make a great job. So, I don't know what else to say at this point. How does the committee feel about, first I guess we should hear from the AG and the Department of Mental Health on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. The record, Morning Fox, Deputy Commissioner of Department of Mental Health. Thank you for having me today. In reviewing Mr. McCullis' memo and language, I think the Department is able to be in support of this language moving forward in regards to this. The one piece of that I guess I'm just a little confused and looking for some clarification is that understanding about the Department being able to have that status at hospitalization hearing placement, one thing we had discussed was the Department at least having party status and I forget the actual terminology, but so that we could receive notice upon competency or sanity findings or issues coming up prior to an actual hospitalization hearing just so that the Department is aware that those things are going on to ensure that we have that notice. I just didn't want to lose sight of that piece, but otherwise the language here that Mr. McCullis put forward is acceptable for the Department. Did you anticipate spending more money when you proposed having, was it you that proposed having? Party status with the legal aid. Yes, we think that it's our hope to be able to endure it back in our current. Somehow, never it ceases to amaze me. Somehow we very much after testimony, particularly from the Defender General, seriously cut back the bill to some issues that I thought were important, victim notification and the competency hearing and somehow we were spending more money than we did when we had the 90-page bill. How did this happen? You're spelling this on paper. It's getting worse proportionally. Never ceases to amaze me here. I just kind of assumed that we were doing less. So I'll start it because Chittenden County and that Chittenden County, you know, if that was part of New York, we wouldn't be having this problem. Or can. It is part of New York compared, so to say, some people. No. I've heard that the best thing about Chittenden County is that it's pretty close to Vermont. I just don't know. Can we just add in job engine for the state? No. Revenue driver of the entire Vermont. By the center of Chittenden. I just don't know how this happens. But OK. The answer is always have really long bills. Because it's an inverse. Will this leave us with a better system? Mostly surely. In my opinion. I guess it remains to be seen. I didn't think the current one was particularly broken, but, you know, others disagree. Well, I think the governor disagrees. I know, but sometimes we don't agree. Sorry. It's nice to be an independent state's attorney. Has any comment? Or would you rather wait until tomorrow? Are you taking it tomorrow? Yeah. I think I'd like to wait until tomorrow. Wait until I have taken it up from there? We don't have it on schedule. We do have free from 10.15 to 11. We have it on schedule for Tuesday at 10.30. Well, I don't want to. Do we have markup in mode Tuesday and 10.30? We're never going to get it to markup. We need to take more tests tomorrow. We should take more tests tomorrow. If we expect to get there on Tuesday. I don't know the timing. We don't have a chance to open tomorrow. No, no, no. I meant testimony tomorrow. What's that? Oh, the fiscal one. Oh, maybe we should wait until Tuesday. What do we do tomorrow from 10.30 to 11.30? 10.15 to 11.30. No, I've got nothing to say. Maybe we could do what they did with S54. So I think they're voting it out today. No, really? I don't know. We're trying to make that year deadline. Are you available tomorrow at 10.30? Yep. What would you like to take? I don't know. Thanks, Titty. See what else we have. Well, there might be something you'd like to do. You know, to do just the waiting. We could review the miscellaneous bill we were talking about this morning. Yes. Yeah, but we still need more to be able to talk about it. They're the main group. And Jake can't come over tomorrow? He couldn't come tomorrow. So maybe he'll come over. Yes, please do. And then maybe Jack, he was well, or whatever else we could try to get on this. So going back to section one, I'm hearing you were mentioning the fact that removing the DMH's party status using that terminology and adopting the language that Jack suggested for later on in the proceedings covers that issue. At the earlier stage, I think what you were getting at was the section one removal of that language. So instead of saying, be a party, just say, shall receive notice. Like, would that kind of cover what you're getting at? And that way, all right. Thank you. Did you do the corresponding report? Thank you. No, that's fine. Did you do the bonus? On the notice? Yes. So once there was a finding by the court and in competency, the next step would be hospitalization hearing. And that's when they're talking. That's where Jack's amendment would come in. That's when they would get, they would represent, as you pointed out, right? And we, at that point, the court would include notice to the DMH. Right. I think they're asking for earlier in the proceedings, what's on this and something. Yeah, just to have them notice earlier, not representation. Notice after a finding of this confidence. I think we're actually thinking that just notice that the confidence is at issue as it's essential. I'm going to get a point to the confidence. You don't have to wait too long. That's why I was thinking that once we've made that determination, that's when it would make sense to immediately tell you so that you could be ready for the hospitalization hearing. That's what I had in mind. But that would be covered by Jack's amendment, right? Sheldon Sheldon. Right. Yeah, I think so. But that's the stage you're talking about. And then we're going to be, obviously, notified of there being provided the opportunity to be represented through the AG. On the face of it, I think I agree. I just want to check with my commissioner to make sure we're on the same page. OK. Thanks. She thought it was rent available. If you're available, you can call me. Yeah. You can get more bills and more than I was ever in the day. Yeah, you can get all of us. Right. Good for you. All right, well, I don't know that I want to waste anybody's comment. Anybody else comment on the Sandy? I do not mind at all. I'll take a little page out for you, please. I'll just show it on free. Run free. Matt Valerio, Defender General, back on sanity. I raised an issue yesterday on page, I believe, with seven of the 10th involving an addition to the non-testimonial order statute, or rule 16.1, which would allow a mental examination by a psychiatrist or other expert by the state. And I indicated at that time that I believed that it was, first of all, inappropriate for non-testimonial order to be in that, to be dealt with under those terms. And my initial review of it personally was that it implicated fifth and sixth amendment rights of a defendant not to testify effectively to give any verbal testimony regarding his situation and that a sanity issue is a defense that is subject to the decision of the defendant if they've been found competent. I told you I was having this reviewed by the appellate division to see if my analysis was accurate. In fact, my analysis, according to my appellate division, was accurate that a mental examination is testimonial in nature, not non-testimonial. You understand the difference? So when you're giving a non-testimonial order, you're talking about the taking of fingernail clippings or hair or DNA or blood or saliva or whatever it is to usually establish the identity of somebody, right? It is scientific in nature in that it's chemical or physical or the like. And you need to have a warrant before you can see these fingernail clippings or blood or whatever it is that you want to take. A mental examination is testimonial in nature in that it requires the defendant to speak and to describe what might have been going on or not going on or the like. And our Constitution says that you have a right to remain silent, that you don't have a obligation to speak to the prosecutor and quote, unquote, tell your side of the story of what was going on at the time. And that as a result, that not putting this in to kind of term it, first of all, shouldn't be a non-testimonial order section. Second of all, the reason it probably never was in, unlike in civil cases where you can get evaluations of people depending upon the issues you raise, is that constitutionally, you're required from having the defendant test, point, quote, testify to speak words contrary to their interests or maybe in favor of their interests. They don't have an obligation to do anything. They can just sit there throughout the trial and argue sanity and defenses based on facts and circumstances. So in any event, it was pretty clear that to them that this doesn't hold constitutional muster because it is testimonial in nature as opposed to not. And under the current statutory framework, what is going on is effectively a review by the state expert of the information that is available, kind of like a record review or a whether it's mental health records or a factual review of what went on in the case or usually all of that stuff that gives rise to an opinion whether or not that the defense has an expert, whether that defense expert, whether their opinion holds water or not. And so going forward, that is going to be an issue for us if it remains in the bill. And I told you why. And sometimes you don't agree with me. But I know that it is a thing that the state's attorneys would love to do is to kind of have any ability to talk to your client while the case is pending, which is something that they cannot do now. But under current law on line 17 on page 6, submit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection of his body or notice is given by the defendant that sanity is an issue or that exception or that expert testimony be offered as provided by rule 12.1 to a reasonable mental health examination by a psychiatrist or other expert. And what we've added is submit to a reasonable medical examination by psychiatrist or other expert on a court examiner pursuant to the 13 but reports to the defendant is not competent to enter. Is that what you're complaining about? That's what I'm complaining about, Jeff. Well, but current law provides that. Not in whether the case states share out that in the case that you can't compel the individual to have an examination of the kind that you are talking about in J. And what I think is that the statute is based on it is constitutionally based. So again, you just think, well, it's statutory. You rely on the statute because that's the easy way to do it. But the statute is constitutionally based based on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grants. Of course, that's going to be the argument when it gets to Supreme Court if you put this in there. But I'd be remiss if I didn't let you know that we find it problematic. No, I appreciate that. But I'm just saying that currently the court can order that and then it's kind of lost. But this just adds an end. Doesn't happen that way. Well, well, how do you hold this out? And if that's what's happening, why do you need it? Is my shovel bailed? No, I think the question is, what's the distinction between allowing the court to order the mental examination when an extended defense is raised, as opposed to the one that's a compensation? Because competency is jurisdictional and sanity is a defense. Both the state and the defense have, in theory, the same interest on a competency evaluation as they go for it, because neither one of them would want to have, and I think this is important, but it's technical legal garbage, nobody wants to have an incompetent person be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. And a prosecutor would be unethical for a prosecutor to try to prosecute somebody who they knew was incompetent. And it would be unethical for an attorney representing that person to allow the person to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court if that person was incompetent. Once you get by the issue of competency, now you're the issue of defense. So now you're subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The next step is defense. And as part of defense, the client doesn't have an obligation to provide testimony on their own behalf in support of a defense. It's a different constitutional issue. So one is jurisdictional, am I subject to the power of the court? And the second is, what do I have to do when I raise the defense of insanity? You can raise the defense of insanity, never hire an expert, put all of the evidence that you have in, except for the client, testify and say, look, jury, can't you see this guy was insane at the time? And the jury has the right to make a decision yes or no. Now, as I had surveyed before, with my people that nobody ever wins an insanity defense for the jury, but in theory, you can do that. You don't need an expert. But if you have an expert, the state has the right to cross-examine that expert on the basis for their opinion. So if they had interviews and they had, and doctors do this all the time, reviewing other doctors' records to make determinations as to whether or not they're applying the appropriate statutory scheme, whether or not they're looking at the, whether or not they're qualified to make the evaluation and whether or not they're up on the standards in the medical and psychiatric profession and the like, and they can test that person's opinion. But they don't have the right to talk to your client. That's the testimonial part. And that's what the problem is. And when I argued before the Supreme Court, if you decide to blatantly, you know, flaunt the Constitution like that's in the bill, if I get a chance to argue it, I'll say the same thing. I will be there. And then I'll come back and they'll say, don't discuss it, and I'm just going to say it more regularly. That's two little fives going into the explanation of the bill. Can I ask you a question? Yes. So in an order of hospitalization or not hospitalization? I can walk through that. That's civil. And so that's the five years. So that's once the competency is found or not found? Right, right. Or somebody's going to be saying, but this is. This is part of the criminal case. Thank you, though. So you can potentially testify in their criminal case. And this is a testimony. OK. I get it. OK. Speaking for the prosecution, it's like being on a jury. James Pember, Department of State Services and Charities. Well, you can come up. I would never want to be on a jury. Wow, this is what it's like. Bye. So our appellate division drafted this provision. And our appellate division, in fact, it was the attorney that argued the Cheryl case. And he does not feel that there is a Fifth or Six Amendment issue here. Anything that comes out during the competency evaluation, other than the recommendation of competency or incombinancy, cannot be used against the defendant in the criminal case. So I don't see an issue here. The Cheryl case was decided on a statutory interpretation. If we want to change the statute as opposed to the criminal rule to move it out of the non-testimonial order section, I can understand that. That was something that we discussed. The reason why we chose to do it here, as opposed in the statute, is that we didn't want to tinker around with anything else. It might have an implication on sanity. But I'm sure that this will go to the Supreme Court and the same attorney that argued Cheryl, probably argued this. Something to look forward to. If we leave it in. If you leave it in, that's right. Other? And if we take it out, what is the impact? The impact would be the status quo that the state would not be able to retain an expert to evaluate a person's claim to being. So it doesn't matter. Could you check with the Supreme Court judges and see how they do? I will. Thank you. I wouldn't comment beyond that since I sometimes fill in on the Supreme Court. So I'm not going to want to run into any of this. But if you were to, that's fine to say. They won't do that. I know they won't. That was a rhetorical point. I wish sometimes they would do that. They used to give an opinion at Supreme Court. Sometimes they give opinions with direction. For example, here. They used to never even show up here. They used to even show up here. They didn't even show up here. So they have given opinions in opinions that the legislature should change that sort of thing. But they would not give us an opinion ahead of time whether they would count this or not count it. That's why I was joking with the judges. I know I used to come to the committee once and ask. I'll let you talk about it. Any other arguments in this bill today, we will pick up here on Tuesday or Wednesday. Stay tuned. Are you available tomorrow around 10.30? I was going to take up the expungement bill. Brinn's available to walk us through it. And that's the clerk of the sentencing committee. And since it is the sentencing committee, we've got to walk us through that as well. So that would get us ready for our meeting on the 27th of Manuski. So we've already walked through the bill. My afternoon thing got screwed over because it's winter break.