 Good morning and welcome to Vermont Judiciary Committee. It is Thursday, April 29th, and we are continuing our consideration of Senate Bill S3 naturally relating to competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. And today we're gonna be looking at draft 5.1. And that is on our committee page listed. It's under Attorney Eric Fitzpatrick's name. And Eric is here to give us a walkthrough of a 5.1. So good morning. Thank you, Eric. Sure. Good morning, everybody. It's Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to, as the chair mentioned, walk the committee through draft 5.1 of the House Judiciary Committee's strike all amendment to the bill and activating the competency to stand trial and insanity as a defense. As you recall from the last time the committee went over this, we'll see as we go through it, there were three different sort of decision points that the committee was still thinking about and those three have been highlighted. So those are the three places that you'll see highlights as we take a walk through the bill, I'll probably go a little faster than I have in the past on the other sections that have no highlights and have no changes because, but of course, feel free to interrupt, stop me if you have any questions, I'll just sort of move along because I think since there haven't been any of those, any changes to those other sections, there's been a relatively recently, the committee seems to have had some consensus on those and has heard me talk about them a few times. So that's why I'll go through those pieces of the bill a little more briefly. So with that being said, let's take a look at section one, which does have one of the decision points in it and section one has to do with the examination that the court orders the evaluation that the court orders of a criminal defendant when the issue of the defendant's competency to stand trial or sanity at the time of the offense is raised, remember in that situation, the court has to order an evaluation. You'll see on lines 20 and 21 of page one, it's not highlighted but just reiterating the point that that's a clarification of language that happens in several places here and that's just there to, it's more of a technical matter really, but it's also substantive in the sense that when the evaluation involves a person's, the criminal defendant's developmental disability, remember there's a Vermont statute on that point that requires that the evaluation include an evaluation by a psychologist with experience in developmental disability. So that language is clarified to make sure that that is the situation would unfold in that way if a person's developmental disability was the cause for the raising of the competency or sanity issue. So you see the way it's phrased is it's gonna be either the examining psychiatrist or if applicable under and there's a cross reference to the statute I was just describing the psychiatrist and the psychologist. That just means that if it's a mental illness then it's gonna be a psychiatrist. If it's a developmental disability, it will be a psychiatrist and a psychologist. So that's the essence of that change and why it's made that way. So moving further down, you'll see what this initial evaluation has to have a report. There's some language at the top of page two that provides that copies of the report are gonna be sent to the respondent. That means the defendant as well as to the commissioners of mental health and if applicable to the commissioner of Dale. And that's because again, if it's a developmental disability then the person might be committed to Dale. So that's why it's if applicable Dale. And then subdivision two you see is entirely highlighted. And so this is the one of the decision points that the committee has been talking about. And this has to do with again, this evaluation that we're talking about. But the situation when the persons in the committees gone through this issue a number of times, but the concept that sanity at the time of the offense and competency to stand trial are two different things. And what this provision does is addresses that situation. And the three different sentences I'll just sort of knock through the three of them quickly. The first one essentially is saying that, okay, if the court is ordering an evaluation of both competency and sanity, then the reports have to be separate. So the evaluation of each of those things, competency and sanity has to be done in separate reports and addressed separately by the court. So that's just follows from the point that the committee has talked about, which is that the two things are separate. So it doesn't make sense for them to be merged into one report. That's the first sense. Second sentence says, okay, if that's the case if there are these two separate reports about sanity and competency, then the sanity one is not gonna happen until the defendant's competency to stand trial is established. And if you think about it, there's some underlying logic for that too, which is because sanity is a defense that a defendant would raise at trial, but the trial is not gonna happen unless the defendant is first found competent to stand trial. So it doesn't make any sense to conduct the sanity evaluation while the person's competency is if the person is found incompetent and may not regain competency for years, if ever. So the idea there is competency evaluation happens first, and then if the person is found incompetent and the sanity evaluation is not gonna happen until they are found competent sometime down the road. So that's the second sentence. The third sense says, all right, if that happens, in other words, if the sanity evaluation does not occur at the time that the defendant's competency is being evaluated. So in other words, if the defendant hasn't requested that they occur concurrently. Actually, sorry, I missed that point. Let me back up for one second. I was just saying that the generally speaking, the sanity evaluation doesn't happen until the defendant's competency is established, but online, there's an important qualification to that on lines 13 and 14 of page two. The defendant has the option, the opportunity to request that the examinations occur concurrently. So remember the committee had discussed this point, they're batted around several different ways through language to make that happen, but that's the way that right of the defendant is made clear in the language that even though generally the competency evaluation happens first and sanity evaluation doesn't happen until the defendant is found competent, defendant can request that they be done at the same time. So there's that option for the defendant. But if the defendant doesn't do that, if they don't make that request, and which means that the sanity evaluation is not gonna happen right away and until competency is established, then the last sentence talks about, well, what do you do with the evidence in a case like that? And that, because as the committee has also discussed the competency of a defendant might not be restored for many years. And if that's the case, then the evidence that may have been related to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense may be lost, people's memories may fade, it may be difficult to obtain any facts related to what the defendant's mental state might have been. So with that last sentence says, all right, if that's the case, if the sanity evaluation isn't happening right then, still there's an obligation on the part of and this is line 17, the psychiatrist and if applicable, the psychologist have to make a reasonable effort to collect and preserve any evidence necessary to form an opinion as to sanity once the defendant does regain competence. So contemporaneously with the evaluation of competence, even though they're not evaluating the defendant's sanity yet they still have an obligation to make some reasonable efforts to preserve whatever evidence they may need down the road to do the sanity evaluation if it ever comes up. So that's the, that provision. Thank you, Eric. And this language was what was separate, it was on a separate page when we last took testimony on this and I believe is the result of the stakeholders and the emails that are posted and where everybody landed in consensus. Is that just my memory correct on that, Eric? Yep, exactly. I think that's right. Okay. So before Eric moves on, any questions or anything else that anybody wants to fill in? Nope. Okay. All right. Thank you, Eric. Sure. Let's see. So section two is the hearing that has to take place if the person is found to be either incompetent to stand trial or insane at the time of the offense. If that's the case then the court has to hold a hearing to find out whether the person is a danger. And if they are found to be a danger then they would be committed to either the Department of Mental Health in a mental illness situation or to deal if it were a developmental disability situation or a traumatic brain injury, something other than mental illness. But there has to be that hearing to determine whether the person's in danger and if so whether they should be committed or sorry, if they are found to be a danger they are committed. That's the way the statute works. So what section two doesn't haven't been any changes to this section but essentially provides that when that hearing takes place the person is entitled to have an attorney represented from Vermont Legal Aid. So they would have counsel from Legal Aid if they choose they would also have the option to retain their own private counsel if they prefer. And that the departments of Mental Health and Dale if applicable are also entitled to appear at the hearing and call witnesses. So that's the provisions in section two. Right, and so Eric in terms of the Senate language this really is predominantly the Senate language except for on page four lines one and two I think we added Dale and actually it's just Dale, right? Is that it's added? Yeah, and again, this was also the addition was by consensus of the stakeholders but this really is mostly the Senate language. Great, thank you. Sure. So section three, this is the victim notification section. I remember this is the idea that if the person has been committed to the Department of Mental Health because they've been found to be a danger to themselves or others. So we're moving further along the stages at the proceeding. So the hearing that I just described to place the person was found to be a danger they were committed to DMH. So then this provision addresses well, what notice is gonna be required of the department when they change essentially the person's treatment status so that the person will come out into the community for one reason or another. And that's if you look on page six, specifically this notification that's gonna be required that the Department of Mental Health would provide to the state's attorney or the attorney general kicks in. And as I said, when the person's status changes with respect to being discharged into the community and that could happen in a number of different circumstances and those are on page six. For example, it could be that they are just completely discharged from the custody and care of the commissioner in which case they would be released or they could be essentially their treatment could be stepped down from a hospital inpatient treatment in a hospital or a secure residential recovery facility to an order of non-hospitalization. So they would be in the community under that situation as well. Or the commitment order could expire. Remember that this could be these commitment orders. The final orders have a maximum period of one year. The department could just decide not to pursue an order to renew, they could get an order to renew that commitment order. So at the end of the year or whatever shorter period it was for, it would expire and the person would be released for that reason or the person might elope from custody of the commissioner and in that case might be in the community as well. So if any one of those situations happens, then the DMA has to provide this notice to the state's attorney or the attorney general who prosecuted the case. And then I'm now on line 18 on page six, the SA or the AG has to forward that notice along to the victim. Sorry, so many, that's my question. Yeah, I can do it. I'm sorry, Deanna, what does going back on line 14 any person, anytime the person elopes, what does that mean in judiciary language? Runs away, escapes, elopes is just the term of art that they use in the mental health statutes, but that's what it means. So if that happens, then the person is back in trouble. I mean, they're going after to find the individual, correct? Exactly. Okay, thank you. You bet. So yeah, so the notice has to go to the state's attorney or the attorney general as Rep. Gossin was saying, then of course, there's gonna be some steps taken to try and find the individual and retrieve the person as well. But in addition to that, this provision also provides that the victim has to get notice in addition to that. So the essay or the attorney general provides this notice of the person's status change and their return to the community for whatever one of the reasons I just identified. And then the essay or AG lets the victim know. The language on 18 is a language that's been talked about a few times in this committee is, you know, I don't know what it is, and this committee is, you know, the victim, to whom does this notice go? Line 18, it goes to any victim of the offense. And then the question is, do you also include for which the person has been charged? And I think there's been a lot of discussion about that. I don't need to reiterate too much, just from my legal perspective, I think that's one of those situations where the for which the person is charged, language isn't legally necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything either. So it's really up to the committee as a policy matter, whether you want to include it or not. I think that's where we were last time. Right, thank you. Everything else with the exception of the word elopes is the Senate language, is that correct in this section? Right. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm nuts. Oh, I'm sorry, Martin. Yeah, this is probably a discussion we've had or could have had a little bit earlier, but I just want to explore and just understand this a little bit better, particularly because of some of the concerns we've heard from individuals who have been victimized by individuals have been through this system. So when the question for you, Eric, first of all, the standards for determining whether an individual should be discharged, and this is, I'm looking on page six, line seven through 10, really. Those are all set forth in the 18 VSA 76-18 or at least that chapter, is that right, chapter 181? That's what one looks at for whether somebody is going to be released or not, is that correct? I don't know the answer to that up at the top of my head. I can check with Katie on that. That's a mental health question. Right, so I guess that the other question I had is, the notice to the state's attorney, does the state's attorney have an opportunity to object to the release of an individual? I mean, do we go back to the previous provision where somebody is found to be incompetent to the hearing regarding commitment? There's a hearing regarding commitment that occurs under 13 VSA 48-20 and subsection B. In my understanding, if I'm right, that the standards for orders of non-hospitalization and the like are actually used to determine if an individual is going to be committed if they're found incompetent to stand trials. Is that correct? I think that's right. Yeah, that's what I thought. So when the state's attorney receives notice that 10 days prior to the discharge, are they able through that earlier provision to actually challenge whether an individual should continue to be committed or not? There is for certain offenses some notice that they get and I think there's an opportunity to be heard when there's a discharge of, I'm just trying to pull up the language, when there's a discharge of someone who's committed certain offenses, I'm just trying to pull that up. I don't think it would apply, I think that it only applies to discharge as opposed to, there's a few other provisions in there, for example, when someone has moved from a secure residential facility to treatment in the community and non-h, that sort of thing, I think it, yeah, it's under 48-22 C. And that's title three or title, I mean, title 13 or title? Yes, so yeah, they're supposed to be noticed in some cases. Yeah, so yeah, I think since it says the state's attorney may enter an appearance and may request examination of the patient by an independent psychiatrist. So yeah, I would say that does mean that they have an opportunity to, doesn't use the word of jet, but I read that as an opportunity to contest the decision. But that isn't included as far as for moving to an order of non-hospitalization. Correct. Which provision is that or is it just not mentioned at all? The fact that it's not an ONH, that that isn't included, you mean? Yeah, yeah, I'm just trying. It said in the very beginning, it says, at least 10 days prior to the proposed discharge of a person committed. So that's the only time that that, that's the very first line of 48-22 C. Yeah. So it doesn't apply for others, other changes in status like the IPO and H situation. Yeah, I mean, this may be something to look more deeply into. I think we're, don't really have time probably on this bill to look at whether there should be more opportunity if there's a moving from hospitalization to order of non-hospitalization, whether in that instance, there should be an opportunity for state's attorneys to be heard as well. Again, I think it's probably beyond the scope of what we have here and a little late in the day, but it's certainly something that may want to, I think I'm gonna flag at least to maybe look into next session. So yeah, it's just my, and this comes from a lot of the, I think very compelling testimony that we've received from individuals who have had family members who have been victimized by individuals who were, from what I understand, were on orders of non-hospitalization. I may be incorrect about that, but the point is wanting to add some extra protections there, if necessary, or at least something worth looking into. I mean, but I think that that would be something, I'm also trying to understand that there's parts of this which are just not really our jurisdiction. And that's really the 18, title 18, the whole, all the standards for orders of non-hospitalization, at least that's my understanding that that's healthcare and such, is that that's not something, and I'm not suggesting we open up that can of worms right now at all, I really am not, but just looking at where we can make some further progress on addressing issues that victims have raised, and I think this might be one of the areas that we at least may have jurisdiction down the road to look at, but no, I appreciate it. Yeah, and so just so you can bring the committee and folks who are watching this, if you could just again summarize the question that you asked Eric, where we landed with that and also comment on why you believe it's beyond the scope of this bill, I think that'd be helpful. Well, as far as with respect to the title 18 and the standards for orders of non-hospitalization or the opportunity for the opportunity for the state's attorney to move it, yeah. Yeah, no, I think it's critical that the state's attorney does have the opportunity to weigh in when somebody's being discharged, and I think that's the biggest issue here and that does give me some sense of security on that, but I would like to look further if that also should be something where the state's attorney has an opportunity to be heard for an order of non-hospitalization moving from it, not fully discharged but for community care instead. And I just think that that's kind of beyond the scope of where we are right now with this bill. But something I'm flagging to something for us to look at further down the road, or at least I certainly am and may have a bill to address that at the beginning of next session. But I just add one thing, and that's a good point, Representative Bilan, I just want to clarify what I said earlier because I was reading the language on the fly a little bit here, but I think, and it's not 100% clear, but I think, by the way, if I'm reading it right, if I'm reading 48, 22A and C together, I think whether to order, I was saying this hearing that would happen and with notice to the state's attorney in the case of a discharge, it appears to say that the court may require the hearing in a case involving personal injury or a threat of personal injury. So, and then it goes on to say, well, if the court does require a hearing, then the state's attorney gets notice and they have an opportunity to appear. So I just wanted to clarify that it's not necessarily that it required that the hearing takes place even in the discharge. I think it's a discretionary option for the court. And then if they do order the hearing, then the essay or the AG gets to appear and take a contrary petition if they want. So, I appreciate that. That's another thing to maybe look a little bit close for that. It's just that it would hold up this bill because we would have to hear from a lot of different people. And this has too many important provisions in S3 that I don't think we should hold it up. But it is something I'm flagging for further review and look at. Okay, thank you. So shall we move along? Please. Before I get to section four, just because the chair was also noting different changes that have been made between the Senate bill and the House bill. And you won't see it in front of you because it's gone. But remember, this was the place as well where there was that provision about requiring that additional form of notice. We've talked about some victim notice provisions just now, but there was that additional notice piece that kicked in whenever a person who was already in the community on an O&H, I know what are found hospitalization if they were, if they were violating the order or if the treatment, the alternative treatment wasn't being sufficient. Then in that case as well, the Senate bill had a notice requirement that the department would provide notice of that lack of compliance with the O&H to the state's attorney or the AG. The Senate bill had also had in it that that same issue, remember, would be studied by the forensic working group. So what this bill does, and I think we talked about this last time as well, last couple of times, is that it moves that language out of the substantive victim notification requirement here and instead just keeps it in the forensic workgroup study so that the issue can be studied first before the decision is made as to what to require in statute. But you don't see that in front of you because it's struck. But we'll see it when we get to the workgroup. Thank you. And again, that was in terms of the testimony from the stakeholders, including victims advocates, it was recognized that that provision didn't need more work and it was best to move it to the working group. So yeah, thank you, Eric. Right. That brings us to section four. What you see is the entire section is highlighted because that was one of the decision points the committee was thinking about, which is again, this is the disclosure to the prosecution or sorry, the ability of the prosecution to get its own and to ask the court for an additional evaluation when the defendant raises the competency issue to stay in trial. The existing statute you see on lines 10 through 13, really more 11 and 12 is really where the operative language is under the existing statute, if the defendant gives notice that they're gonna raise sanity as a defense then the prosecution has an option to ask the court for an independent psychiatric evaluation. So this adds that same option for a competency situation. So the defendant's competency to stay in trial is that issue. This allows the prosecution to ask the court for an independent psychiatric evaluation in that case as well. Again, it's in response to that Cheryl versus state, the Vermont Supreme Court decision that said the statutory language as it reads now does not permit that, permit the state that option to request that and it doesn't allow the court to order it but the language here is meant to provide the prosecution with that opportunity. I think as you've heard both the attorney general and the defender general have different views as to whether there might be a constitutional issue raised by this, but there's certainly grounds to take the position that it's at least, there's a basis for concluding that it is constitutional whether a court will agree with that. Can't say at this point in time, but certainly grounds for the position that it is and that's where the committee landed on what the language means. I don't know if there's been a decision whether to include it yet or not, but that's the gist of what the proposal means. Right, thank you. And there has not been a decision although when we do get to the discussion and I will certainly, I've said it before, I will advocate to keep it in and actually have a bill that just does this on our wall. So you know where I'm coming from, but this again, the Senate did include it, it just goes back to what the practice was before. So we'll pick that up later. Any questions on this section? Okay, thank you, Eric. Sure. So now we're moving on to the reports and studies, sections of the bill, section five is the inventory and evaluation of mental health services that are provided to defendants via contract with the Department of Corrections. So the idea of this provision is that those services provided by the contracted party are evaluated and it's a comprehensive evaluation. You'll see one of the changes made to the Senate bill is that the date is advanced so that this is done throughout the studies. The timelines were pretty tight under the bill that came over. So here, for example, it goes from November 1st, 2021 to January 1st, 2022 to when they're gonna be due. And it adds a number of pieces, I think subdivisions two, three, and four are all new. They were all added by the House Healthcare Committee as well as the language in subdivision one at the very last phase of the paragraph, recognizing the comparison to currently available community services is not necessarily established the standard of care for best practices. That's also new. The idea here being to compare the services, the mental health services that are inmate is getting with those to someone in the community but recognizing that whatever is available in the community it doesn't necessarily establish the right standard of care and that's the idea there or best practices. But yeah, like I said, it's a comprehensive evaluation type frequency and timeliness of mental health services, how they differ among different correctional settings, assessing how the use of a for-profit entity affects costs or quality of care, assessing whether DMH should provide oversight authority of mental health services provided by that entity, whomever it is. There's also a new language subsection C. You see, remember that the committee, this committee added that language about, so that it sort of applies throughout the evaluation, throughout the work that the DOC and DMH have to ensure that social and racial equity issues are considered, including issues related to transgender and gender non-conforming persons. So that was a proposal from the Judiciary Committee. That's the end of section five. We can pause there for a moment. And also in addition to the Health Care Committee, House corrections and institutions also waited on on this. And this in the next section, we did take a straw poll include the recommendations of those two committees in these two sections and then take gave us some language to add in. Just want to remind the committee. I'm not seeing any hand. Okay, great. Thank you, Eric. Sure. So now we're on to section six, which is the forensic care working group against studying a lot of issues related to forensic care, quite a large charge for the committee in terms of issues to look at. The membership of the committee is also there's been some changes in the House proposal of amendment. It adds the commissioner of Gale, for example, subdivision two, still had the, I don't know if there had been a decision on this point, but remember BGS had been included in the Senate bill and I don't know if that was, I think something we were going to follow up with the health care committee as to whether they decided not to include BGS or whether it was just got lost in the shuffle. So that might still be outstanding. The chief superior judge has been added as well at Judge Greerson's request, moving on to the next page, three crime victims representatives instead of two as the Senate version had, same thing with individuals with lived experience of mental illness that went from one to three. The representative appointed by the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council that's been added or proposed to be added. And then the rest of this is essentially very different from the House version, sorry, from the Senate version, so that it's been restructured and sort of the timelines have been changed. The big picture is that the Senate sort of had one proposal coming back from this working group by November, December of this year or may have been, no, I think it was that it was December issue and the proposal would include right away a recommendations to whether or not in inpatient friends at care facility was the right policy step. So this proposal extends that timeline quite a bit and then instead sort of breaks that reporting provision up into three different pieces. And you'll see that the first one is on February 1st, 2022 and that's a preliminary report. That's in subsection B. So by February 1st, 2022, DMH has to submit a preliminary report to the committees of jurisdiction addressing a number of different issues, gaps in current mental health and criminal justice structure related to the mental health intersection with criminal justice, opportunities to improve public safety, address treatment needs for individuals found in competent stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, consider the importance of victims' rights, competency restoration models. So as I say, quite a broad range of issues and most of these, if not all are added or at least fleshed out in terms of what the Senate had. But a key point here is that you'll see on subsection G, subdivision G I should say, capital G, it's to include models for forensic treatment including inpatient treatment, community-based treatment or other treatment models. You see that it's the report, in other words, this preliminary report is considering them, it's not yet making a recommendation, doesn't do that. So then if you skip ahead though, sorry, I'm gonna pause here as he represented Laun's hand up. Actually, before I call on Martin, as I'm reading this, I think there is certainly room for the concerns that Martin had earlier to be addressed by this group. That was just exactly what I was gonna say. As looking in this, I think that it's well covered in here and the right people are gonna address it. But I think that definitely having put it on the record that they will know that we definitely want this to be part of the consideration when they look at improving public safety. So I appreciate that it is within the scope of the forensic group, thanks. Thank you, okay, go ahead there. Sure, so yeah, so moving down to subdivision two, you'll see this is sort of the next stage. So in other words, we were just talking about the preliminary report that was due in February. And then honor before, Javai, and this is bottom of page 12, top of page 13, honor before July 1st, 2022, there's a second stage of the report that's submitted to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee. And that one has to include, this is lines one and two, page 13, whether or not a forensic treatment facility is needed in Vermont. So at that point in time, there's a recommendation that's gotta be made, but it doesn't have to be made in that preliminary report, which is just sort of in some ways, you could view it as a status report that's gonna come to the committees of jurisdiction next session, next year. And then the following summer, then it's when the recommendation is required as to whether or not the forensic treatment facility is gonna be needed in Vermont. Then the following January, there's the final report. So the final report will again, come to the committees of jurisdiction. And that would include lines, and I'm on line seven to nine of page 13, more detail about this forensic facility if it's determined that it's needed. So that would be the size, scope, and fiscal impact of any forensic facility if one is recommended. So that's sort of the stage, the stages that this reporting process and this forensic care working group process works through. You'll see there line, sorry, subsection C line 10. This is the issue that I mentioned earlier that other reporting issue that had been in the bill that came over from the Senate was also here in the forensic care work group. So here it's still in the work group but it's not in the statute anymore. And this is that notice that's gonna be considered as to whether or not a person is in the community on an ONA order of non-hospitalization. And then it doesn't comply with the order or the treatment isn't working out whether or not there should be notice provided to the state's attorney and the attorney general in those situations. And that's what another issue that Department of Health is gonna take a look at. You'll see that it's a, in this situation or this proposal of amendment, it's a separate report. It's a separate report submitted on or before February 1st, 2022 to DMH and sorry to the committees of jurisdiction. I think in the Senate bill that it was part of the forensic care working group. I'll double check on that. But I think in this case it's a separate report submitted by February to the committees of jurisdiction about whether or not there should be some reporting requirements if that happens and if so, what facts and circumstances should trigger the commissioners do need a report and what should the prosecutor do with the information after they've received it. On to page 14, now this is some other combination of language that came from house human services as well as from this committee represent Donnelly's language that the chair mentioned earlier. You'll see line six and seven there but this is some overarching guiding principles for the work group to consider. And those are social and racial equity issues. Issues related to transgender gender nonconforming persons as well as subdivision B, the general assembly's policy that to work toward a mental health system does not require coercion or the use of involuntary medication. So those are all overarching principles to consider during these studies. Subsection E is also new, the provision that the department access regional or national expertise to present models for their review, including any model recommended by members of the working group. And there's provisions requiring draft legislation to be included per diems, et cetera. Some boilerplate on that. And there is an appropriation that wasn't included as well in the Senate bill that's subsection H, $25,000 line 15, sorry, page 15. And that's the end of the Brenta care work group section. All right, thank you. Thank you, Eric. And I have been in touch as well as Representative Lippert has been in touch with Chair Mary Hooper of appropriations, letting her know that there were appropriations in the Senate bill that were taken out on the floor and then we are recommending this appropriation that I know the medical society and others had asked for. And again, I wanna thank the two committees on healthcare and corrections in institutions for their very thorough work on these sections that we have already taken a stock hold of those sections. Eric, thank you for reminding me about BGS. So whether or not to put BGS back in or not, right? So we just need to close that loop. Right, right. Yeah. Okay. And then lastly, just the section seven is the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee, the addition of a member from the House and a member from the Senate, the House member would be the an appointment from the Committee on Healthcare and a member at large from the Senate and the effective date of July 1st, 2021. And I think that's it. Great. Thank you. So any questions before we go back and like to leave some straw polls, get a poll to the committee, but any questions for Eric at this point, he's certainly will be with us for the next 25 minutes before we have our other witnesses on another matter. Selina, you put your hand up or? No, I'm just turning the camera on, but I don't have my hand up. Thank you though. Okay. All right, so committee, I'd like to go section by section and get a little pulse of where the committee is. And again, working from draft 5.1. So in terms of section one, again, my understanding is that was, I'll agree to by the language here was agreed to by the stakeholders in a long chain of emails that we have posted. Anything I'm missing or stating incorrectly? So any thoughts on that section? We generally have been deferring to our stakeholders when there is consensus, but welcome thoughts. And again, this is just taking a pulse. Kate, go ahead. Thanks. I just felt compelled to raise my hand since I sort of kept bringing us back to this section just to voice my appreciation for the work of the committee on this and the willingness to take all the testimony into account. And I personally feel good about where the language landed and appreciative of the process that we engaged in. Great. Thank you, Kate. I'm not seeing any hands, other hands at this point. So then section two, that's the legal aid language referring to legal aid. Again, there was predominantly Senate language. We had testimony, again, from the stakeholders in support of this. I remember Judge Greer saying that really legal aid this is their area of expertise. This is what we do. And we added Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, if applicable, like we've done throughout. So not seeing any hands. I'm assuming that folks are okay with that. Okay. So section three. So in section three, on page six, we have the word elopes that had been upscans and I believe Jack McCullough of legal aid suggested that language and there was agreement to that. And the only, the other new language is online 18 for which the person has been charged. And we've heard that really, really we could go either way. Keep it in or not. Questions or? Kate and go ahead, Kate. I'm gonna turn my camera off to close my door because there's some background noise, but I'm listening. I'll be right back in seconds. Go ahead. Thanks. Thanks. At the risk of delving back into this discussion, I guess I'm still a little bit confused. So that section for which the person has been charged, is that trying to protect, is it trying to make clear that no other person that this individual might have impacted in the past would be notified? Is that what it's trying to make clear? I don't know, Martin, is that something you can answer to? All right, why don't we start with Eric? Eric is. Oh, sorry, I'm sorry. Okay. I don't think so. I'm not, I think represent Donahue's letter that I believe represent the law and posted will be best for understanding some of the reasons for that proposal language. But I think at least from a legal perspective, it's not so much possible prior crimes. It's that there might be, without that language, I think one thought that had been put out there was that simply using the language victim of the offense might imply that the defendant had already been formally convicted or otherwise that there had been a factual finding that the defendant had actually, as a matter of law, committed the offense. Whereas in one of these mental health commitment proceedings, they haven't reached that conclusion yet, right? There has been probable cause, certainly found that the defendant committed the offense. Otherwise this criminal proceeding wouldn't be happening. So I think that was the concern from the legal perspective. I personally don't share that as a legal interpretation view. I don't think that using the phrase victim of the offense does carry with it the implication that there's been a formal conviction. I think that phrase is used quite commonly of the offense. Someone is charged with an offense or they could be convicted with an offense. The language doesn't necessarily mean there was a conviction already. But that's just the legal point. There's a whole other concern, I think it's more probably better stated in the letter about possible implications that that language would help, that the highlighted language would help clear up, maybe represent the law and would be better able to explain that piece. Well, yeah, you're welcome to. I think I understand that other piece in terms of related to stigma and more sort of like how these cases tend to be discussed in a public venue. And I think from that regard, given that it's not, it really doesn't essentially matter either way from a legal perspective. I think just, I personally would err on the side of honoring the desire to sort of reduce any potential stigma that might show up in the language of the bill. So I guess in my, for what it's worth, my two cents I would advocate that we keep that in. Thank you, Kay, I appreciate that. That's helpful. And again, Erica, testify before, this would not be confusing because as you said, we do see this language elsewhere but it doesn't sound like adding this would be confusing to a court because we're not adding it elsewhere. Is what I'm saying? Yeah, I don't think it's confusing in terms from legal use to who you're talking about when you're referring to who the victim is and who the defendant is. Yeah, or why it's in here, why we might add that language here but not elsewhere doesn't present a problem. So, okay, well, thank you, Kate. Martin, did you want to add anything else to that or? No, I'm ambivalent about whether it stays in or not. So I'm fine. I don't think it harms anything to have it in there. And so I'm fine with it being in. Okay. Barbara. So I was thinking along the lines of what Kate was talking about and think we should try to keep it in. We should try to keep it in the change. Yeah. Well, thank you. Well, it helps having two professionals bring your expertise to the committee. So, so I appreciate that. All right. So. Not seeing any other hands. Okay. So then we get to page seven. And this is the language that was requested by the attorney general's office going back to prior practice. And I, I know this is important to victims. I would, I would like to, to keep it in there. So I will open it up to folks. Hi. I guess my question is why wouldn't we keep it in there? Well, we had testimony from the defender general's office and different and the attorney general's office. And it's a matter of. If. Committee members were. Persuaded. By the defender general's argument. I do see representative Marcy's. Hand is up. So. I guess my question is why wouldn't we keep it in there? Well, we had testimony from the defender general's office and the attorney general's office. So. I'm going to. Turn to her. Thank you. I wasn't sure if I was able to speak at. Because I know you're in the middle of committee. Trying to decide some issues, but is it appropriate for me to talk, especially on this section? Sure. Okay. This truly is a critical part of the. Of the bill. And I hope. That the members of this committee will look to. To have where, um, especially with the state's attorneys and that, um, Notification is done. I know, and I, I respect, um, Representative LaLone's thought that, you know, We can take it up in another year or that, but I think we all know how legislation works. And it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be looked at again. This is a very important piece. Um, And I think where everything else within the bill has been pushed out a couple of years. Um, I just would hope that members would look at this. I would hate for another community to go through. All what we have in Bennington this past year. And again, it's not about a particular case. It's not about, um, because it's one was in Bennington this year. It's not about looking across the state as a small number of folks, but those notification pieces are important for public safety. With the different, um, Entities that are involved and I could only hope that you would all consider that I would hate for your community or any other part of the state would have to say, oh my gosh, what could we have done to have prevented this? Sometimes those connections are, and not sometimes those connections. And again, with the attorney general advising strongly that this should be in it. And again, I know there's differences of opinion and I respect all of that, but I would hate for us possibly in the near future for another community to go through this to say, oh my gosh, what could we have done to have prevented this? So I am hoping that you will look at this, especially this section very differently. And I thank you that you allowed me to speak. Yeah, absolutely. And I'm sorry that in the beginning I should have, I should have welcomed you to speak as I have had in the past. So I appreciate you raising your hand and asking to speak. So, so thank you. Let's see. I did see other hands on section four. Selena and then Martin. I was just going to, and maybe I see that Martin's hand is raised. So maybe, maybe folks are already planning to do this, but I haven't been able to be as in all of the hearings on this bill. Unfortunately, and this is the section that, you know, I have struggled with the most and for me in, in my final decision making, I'd love to hear from some of the folks on the committee who have worked more closely on the bill and do support this section. Just, just love to hear any thoughts, final thoughts you want to share on why, you know, why you've aligned essentially with the attorney general's argument on this. Thank you. Turn to Martin. I'm not sure if that's where we're going, but go ahead. Yeah, I do want to make clear that I've supported having this provision in pretty much all along. I, for a moment, you know, was questioning that when the defender made an argument for why it shouldn't be there, but ultimately, you know, pretty quickly afterwards, just thinking about it, really feel that this provision should be there. And for a couple, for a couple of reasons. One is in the adversarial system that we have, which is in the courts, you have an issue and you have both sides argue it out is in this particular instance, it's whether the individual is competent to stand trial or not. And I feel that the prosecutor's hands are tied. If all they can do is question. The one psychiatrist who's been appointed, not by them. I feel that they should have the ability to fully vet the issue by having their own expert to testify so they can really. So the issue of competence to stand trial can be fully vetted in front of the court for, for its decision. So that's really where I land. As far as the issue of. Constitutionality of this. I think it's a very good argument that this is constitutional. Ultimately the court will decide that, but I think that there is a good argument that the rights of, of the defendant are not impeded by allowing the other mental examination. And I think the issue of competence to stand trial is, can be a very critical issue for, for these kinds of cases. So I am very much in support of this language staying in. If I ask a follow up question. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thanks. So I guess the. Part of the defender general's argument that did have some resonance with me was. You know, the, the idea that that first evaluation is, is appointed by a more neutral party, like it's a court appointed by the state, by the state. And then the second evaluation and that then. The prosecutor is potentially able to really pick and choose a. A more favorable evaluation to the state's position here. And I'm just wondering how you, how you were anyone else on the committee, you know, feels that that is. Effect. Appropriately mitigated here. I mean, I think that. Yeah. The psychiatrist can be appointed by the court. The defendant also has the freedom to find their own psychiatrist. If they don't like what the psychiatrist has come up with. They can also find somebody. And I think this is to a point, which was very interesting that one of our previous witnesses, will the white mentioned a law review article, which unfortunately haven't been able to track down, but I think it's a very interesting time. Where a same set of facts were presented to. A number of psychiatrists. And the question was presented and. And they all had different opinions on that. So it's, it's, it's not such a clear cut. Issue. And then we, when we have those. Issues that are not clear cut, you know, having. Been trained as a lawyer. You know, you know, you know, you can come in where you have an adversarial proceeding and you have two different sides really arguing. Their points. That that can with a, with a judge. Can, can lead to a decision that is, is most appropriate when you have these. Different opinions that are, are, are. Coming to the floor from different experts. So. So I, I mean, I'm not. So troubled by, by that. And, and also the, the Cheryl case, my understanding is that the court said, well, the statute doesn't, doesn't say that, you know, you know, it does for sanity, but not for, for competency. And so it was really a, for me, my understanding is more of a statutory construction case. And so this would make, this would go back to. And so I think that was prior practice, put it in the, put it in the statute and have, have it be consistent for both sanity and competency. Thanks. Also helpful. Thank you. And I do see representative Morris, his hand is up. I'm not sure if that's from. No, it is again, briefly. I just wanted to make sure that you understood I was not here. I had been representing the institutions and correctional committee prior to, but my statement that I made before was personally me as a representative. It was not representing the institutions and corrections committee. I just thought that needed to be noted. Thank you. I hate that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anybody else on, on section four. Okay. Yeah. Again, I guess just felt compelled to raise my hand. I mean, I guess to, to speak Selena to your, your question or curiosity around how folks are sort of navigating this section of the bill. I mean, frankly, I feel like what's come up for me and in hearing testimony on this bill generally is just how flawed. The assessments are. Period. And to some degree, while I honestly, I'm not quite sure how well this section sits with me. One, I felt like it. Didn't sit poorly enough with me to, to have it get in the way of me being in favor of the overall bill. But two, I almost have reached a point where I'm like, does it, does it really like it's almost not about who's requesting the report to some degree. I mean, there's this much larger systemic issue with how this, this sort of area within the criminal justice system is being handled and within the mental, the mental health system in terms of assessment. That I think warrants. Much more attention down the road. So I guess I think at one point we had talked about, I was just going back to look at the. The work group section, because I think at one point after what a white testimony, we had talked about sort of putting language in the, the working group around looking at that component of things, of the actual competency and sanity assessments. I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in. I'm a little scared to advocate for more language in that. But I guess that's sort of my non-answer answer is like this feels like such a massive issue that in my mind isn't just about who's asking for the, the, the assessment. It's about some much, much bigger issues in my mind. Thank you. I appreciate that. Representative Marcy. No, my hand. I'm sorry. I didn't take it down. My apologies. My hand's not up. Okay. Thank you. Just, just wanted to make sure we, we do that all the time this committee. So for you. Barbara. So I missed the beginning of Kate's testimony because I had to answer the phone, but in hearing the end of Kate's testimony. Not testimony. Comments. I. It does seem like it would be great to, at some point, look at the whole assessment process. And my thoughts are this bill at least. I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it moves things in a direction that both advocates and. People that have life experience have. Told us will improve things. So it feels like it's a short-term fix and hopefully. We can get that done. It's an art, not a science. And it does seem like there, you know. Could be much further work that is done, whether or not that's our committee or not. And maybe we'll be so blown away with what this work committee does that. You know, there'll be like a version two that can help look at. Mental health services. I, I need to go to another appointment, but I'm wondering if. You need my vote before I leave, because in general, I know we're getting towards the end and I'm supportive of. Of moving this forward. Thank you. I know our agendas as possible vote, but. I don't think we're quite ready for a vote. I do need to verify the, there's that little BGS. So, so go ahead, Barbara. Thank you. And actually representative Marcy, I don't, I'm wondering if you could help us with that because. BGS was originally in. I think that was for. And I think that was when there was more emphasis on a facility. Right. And I think that was why. I think that was why they were out. They were out. Technically they were out. This was more. They would be probably coming into the picture. If it was decided something was going to happen with a forensic facility. They didn't really think they would necessarily be able to weigh in. To kind of the details of. All the other sections. So that was why it was left. Okay. Thank you so much. That's really helpful because that was. That was definitely. On the list. So that's great. Jated. Okay. Any other questions, especially for her. Maybe. No. Okay. So. Okay. And I'll look at our schedule this afternoon, but I would like to vote it if we, if we can vote it out today or. Or tomorrow. That'd be, that'd be great. There's been an enormous amount of work on this by. Norma's amount of people and witnesses that I. Really, really appreciate. As well as from the other, other committees and the Senate as well. So. And we're going to have to go through the legislative council. Katie. So we will get back to this. We do have. Two witnesses that we're going to turn to now. Is it going to. Could I ask one question before signing off? Is it likely this. Is it likely this afternoon or tomorrow? You know what I am. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if Evan could give me a send me a notice if it is. And if it's the same. I access information I would need to get back in. I believe it will be the same. Access. We will let you know. Just wanted to check in with the top of my table. See where they're at. Okay. Great. Great. Well, thank you. Thanks so much, Eric. You bet. Great. All right. See you this afternoon. Yep. So actually I'm sorry, Eric. So we don't need any, we haven't made any changes. So we will, if we were to vote, it would be 5.1. Is that correct? Yep. That's right. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. Great. All right. Thank you. You bet.