 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont house to destroy committee. We are returning from a short break and continuing our discussion on as seven regarding expungement and now going to welcome John Campbell from state's attorneys and sheriffs Association to testify and An introduction I believe so thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. John Campbell, the director executive director of the state's attorneys and sheriffs for the record. And as I believe all of you know, James Pepper, who was our my assistant. He has taken another job. He has been appointed to the be the chair of the cannabis commission, which I think he's going to do a great job. And we have been very fortunate to have retained Evan meaning to replace him. And Evan was formerly of the attorney general's office. And most recently, he was the general counsel for the natural resources board so I just wanted to introduce you and the committee to Evan, who you'll be seeing him. So now you have two Evans in your life. Great. Well, thank you and and welcome Evan mean. Thank you very much. Look forward to working with you. Okay. So, John. I do appreciate the work that the committee has done on this. As you know, we were raised. I raised the, the issue of the, the solicitation and issues of involving children and crime sexual assaults or sexual exploitation of children. You all have addressed that and we do appreciate that. I think the changes that have been made are definitely positive. One of the only things that that we would like to see and in the future because I know that there's still going to be work in progress is that a full, you know, a numeration of the, the crimes, so people are aware, and not just not just, you know, people in the state but also, just for the defendants to really know, you know, what, what crimes are eligible and what might they might be able to, to make use of so if I believe that if we're able to get it I believe judicial oversight is going to be doing it. And they hopefully they'll put this on their, their, so be put on their radar. And then there's just a couple other matters that, again, for them. One concern that we do have is that currently if a state's attorney or if the someone waves or stipulates to the, to the expungement or ceiling, there's no mechanism for the victim to have a request a hearing. So, again, I think this is something that could be addressed during the summer or fall when the oversight committee looks at this. And just again, one more thing for them to take a look and hopefully address. But other than that that's that's all we have to Dan right now. Thank you so I appreciate your, your testimony can you give me an example of victims of what crimes that are currently eligible for for expungement under under this. And you said request to hearing. Well, can you tell me more about what what you're thinking about your concern. What I'm what I'm referred to is that if a under the section and I'd have to look back to see what section it is but under the section where let's say a attorney would stipulate to a, a, a expungement. They it doesn't, they then it will not be going for the judge for a hearing. So what I'm saying is if there is a crime, or if there is, you know, that is being that they're looking to expunge, and let's say there is a victim to that crime the victim might want to have a, you know, their say they may not agree with with what is, you know, to the stipulation. And so what I believe and again this really probably should come more from the victims community but it's just something that that I noted that it didn't have any, didn't have a mechanism for that. And let's bring can tell me I'm not correct on that maybe we did not look at it correctly. Okay, thank you. Sure. If Britain has anything that but we have noted it and also curious as to where else a victim has an opportunity to come in where the state's attorney has already made a decision about the, about the case. Britain. So, I'm doing multiple things at once here. But let's see. So it's true that throughout the bill there is an opportunity to find on the type of crime for a person to seek an early expungement or ceiling, but the, but the bill does provide that the prosecutor's office would have to stipulate to So, if I'm, if I'm hearing some of the testimony I'm kind of coming in and out. But I, if I understand correctly the testimony is that there is a concern that the victim wouldn't have an opportunity to testify hearing. If that stipulation took place is that, is that right. So, yes, but the prosecutor would need to stipulate so I. If that's correct if there wasn't a hearing then there wouldn't be an opportunity but again, the prosecutor's office would have the, I, I think that the prosecutor's office typically would interact with the victim, prior to stipulating but again I would let the prosecutor's office weigh in on that. And, you know, we do have 14 different prosecutors and and I'll feel differently about, you know, certain things and I believe that some are more prone, or there might be a couple that are more prone to giving me a stipulating and and not possibly requesting a hearing in order for the victim to be heard. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for John Campbell. Okay, thank you very much. I always talk slowly because I know it takes a minute to get that. Go ahead, Tom. Yeah, and I raised my hand late lots of times so. John, just to just to make it clear. I know a couple weeks ago you were not happy with a lot of the language it was in there. And you know, some of it I agreed with you but but now I'm not asking if you're supporting the bill. I mean if you are that's fine but I guess my question would be are you not opposing it. We're not not opposing and it's not that I don't support the bill because I believe it's, you know, what we're what the legislature is trying to do here is is good. And it's going to provide, you know, certain people who have committed crimes, you know, to start with a clean slate and I and I do believe in a lot of the the good that this will do. It's my my only concern is that that when you're, you know, doing legislation when we're when we're creating legislation. I guess maybe this is because being a lawyer, I always look, you know, you always want to find the flaws is something to make sure that you're not making a mistake so you know it's it's it's sort of my job to kind of poke holes at it to make sure that all their teas across the eyes are not in so that there aren't any unintended consequences. And because of the fact the the bill the way it was before had pretty much made almost every crime except for the list of crimes to be eligible that those are a lot of I mean there's a big long list and the sensing commitment commission, I don't believe that they went through individually each crime to say hey does this make sense. You know there's a you know they're they're still more out there that I'm sure probably we're not intended to you know to make them eligible here I mean one that can come to mind right now and again I'm not trying to do anything to you know it's something for you all to think about the future, but just sort of explain why I have my hesitancy. And one is, you know, if you had a misdemeanor battery by a police officer. So not police officers have been arrested for battered me for for assaulting individuals. So if you got a situation where police officers been convicted of assault. I certainly, I'm going to be one who would oppose that, you know that being expunged. So there are things like that it's not again not being opposed to the bill I just want to make sure that that everyone knows that when you're making this type of policy decision, it should be based on, you know that you know all of the facts and to make sure that any unintended consequences are covered. Great, thank you. And I do like your idea of, you know, going forward at some point of the, the accused or whatever you want to call them having a chance to, I guess you could say rebut the prosecutor if a prosecutor says no expungement, I think that's a good idea. Thanks. Thank you and john we can certainly consider adding simple assault by a law enforcement officer to the list of crimes that are ineligible. I just, I don't know the thing is I'm sorry because I feel like I every time I come here I'm giving you another one but you know you don't think about him because you know days go by and then you're middle of the night and you think oh wait, how about that one. You know, so, so that's clearly one especially, you know, looking at what's happened across this country right now. You know there are people with law enforcement or shouldn't be there. Absolutely. So I appreciate that and have made note of that. Next draft week because we will have some changes anyway from from today so. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you, Evan. Okay, let's go to the Attorney General's office David share. Thank you madam chair and thank you to the committee for the record David share with the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General is grateful to this committee for taking this bill up again. This isn't a priority for the Attorney General he's a strong believer in expungements a strong believer that for the reasons many have testified to already the second expansion of economic opportunity. The expansion of Vermont's workforce. This is an important bill and we really appreciate the committee pushing forward on it. Obviously we supported a more expansive version of expungement than the one that's been being talked about today but we certainly still support what's here today and we're happy to get through ways in which we could respond to some of the concerns brought up by folks last week and we do think that this bill is responds to a lot of the concerns that were brought forward. And I think in fact eliminates a lot of the concerns that were brought forward and I think it's you know very reasonable response to those and it is something that I believe, and I think most witnesses, although not all have have noted does in fact address a bunch of the concerns that were brought up. And I was pleased to hear witnesses express that there are a couple things I did want to address right now with respect to some of the folks issues that have been discussed this afternoon. You know one thing I will note just briefly is some of the I believe the offense that Attorney Campbell mentioned is one that is currently eligible so it's not a policy change that the bill is kind of this bill is contemplating that being said, you know always open for discussion and one broader point I think is really necessary to emphasize is that it's that many of these offenses under this statutory construct are happening without review they all are reviewed by a prosecutor and ultimately by a court and prosecutors retain the discretion to say that they do not agree to an expungement that they object to it and then a court will be the decider on that and I think courts will take into consideration reasonable concerns of a prosecutor. And say to this committee that there have been cases coming out of the Attorney General's office that involve former officers who did ask for expungements for crimes related to misuse of their official authority. And we did oppose even though we are broadly in agreement with expungement we did oppose those because we did feel like it is important that the public that we not be seen as assisting and putting a veil over a misuse of government authority which can be very profound impact when it's you're talking about law enforcement. And all that is to say that you know the system already has checks and balances built into it. And checks and balances that our system has been able to use and also to give you the broader picture we are very, you know, we have we stipulate to the vast majority of expungements that appear before us but in a couple very narrow instances we can see that our prosecutorial discretion to object should be used and we have used it and I think that that's important to remember that that system is not changing and remains in place. A couple other points I really think that are important to make here. One is with respect to the risk assessment concern. The data is clear, and the studies are clear that all these older offenses are not relevant to risk assessments when you know after a sufficient amount of time has passed. I want to state very clearly this bill does not allow for any sex related offense to be expunged or sealed. So I want there not to be any confusion about that when we talk about this stuff those are not eligible for expungement now they will be eligible for expungement if this bill were to pass. I think that what the department was talking about was if somebody is perhaps accused of such an offense after something has been expunged that that expunged perhaps could inform their risk assessment. I think Mr. DeMora testified clearly and I think the literature shows very clearly that any risk assessment that takes that into account is an inaccurate risk assessment. They simply don't have any predictive effect and they certainly don't have any relevancy. You know if you have something like say I don't know some sort of low level misdemeanor that gets expunged a drug possession offense or something like that. That really has nothing whatsoever to do 10 years down the road with a much more serious offense related to a sex offense. It would have no bearing on the or should and I think the data shows and I've spoken with Mr. DeMora about this. The data shows that it should have no bearing on the supervision decisions that are made for somebody who is ultimately accused of that much more serious offense than the one that may have been expunged. That expunge offense after a period of time simply has no relevant impact or import for decision making about how to supervise somebody. And again we're talking about it's important to remember these are different categories of harm different categories of offense where these expungements that we're talking about are not really especially given how old they are. Well I should say there's two things going on one they're old and for that reason they don't have predictive power and to it is important to remember that they are different types of harmful behaviors and the one is not really going to have that much to talk about the other in terms of supervision risk. Excuse me. One other piece I did want to mention is and representative Alon mentioned this. To the extent that the executive branch of the government is making decisions about supervision and potentially supervising people more harshly. I think on the basis of behavior for which somebody has never been convicted. I think that is concerning. And I don't know if that's happening or not. I can only go you know by by what I heard so I and I'm not sure I may have been convicted but certainly I don't think that there's any sort of public policy reason to be retaining and acting upon accusations which the judicial arm of the state decided were not something that somebody is going to be convicted you know for whatever reason that happened. It may have been because they were completely innocent of that accusation so I just think that's really important to keep in mind and so sure we have a lot of play agreements. But that's how our that's how the system works here and everywhere in the country. And we make decisions after that play agreement on the basis of what somebody is convicted of not on the basis of what they're not convicted of. I think I just wanted to reemphasize those points. And I do think that Mr. DeMora's point is really important that you know if they're making decisions on a very old underlying offense that has, you know, nothing to do with a current much more serious much different that's not really as again as I've had conversations with Mr. DeMora about this. That isn't really evidence based. And it certainly is not impacting public safety and certainly not harmfully impacting public safety it's just not really related to public safety considerations nor it's not necessary and again I do think the folks who really study this stuff and Mr. DeMora is our is the expert we have and one that the administration has repeatedly invoked when they are talking about these concerns that that's in writing and I think a couple documents now in front of the committee and that expert also invoked by the committee has said to you and has said to me and other conversations that these simply are not these old expanded defenses simply are not relevant for assessing risk down the road and I think that that is the best information we have Mr. And I think that's the expertise that we certainly are paying attention to and I think that it would be appropriate for the committee to pay attention to that as well. Thank you. Thank you David I really appreciate it and I also really appreciate you in your office. Thank you for being on this latest draft and and helping us move forward on this important issue and I really appreciate yours and the Attorney General's commitment to this important justice reform. Thank you. Committee any questions. Tom came in late again. I wanted to thank David as you just did for his work on this, you know and his considerations for the, I guess you could say the amendments that we made, you know, full disclosure David and I talked offline about it. And he gave me his ideas on, you know what what we could possibly do to make it, make it better for, you know, people's different ideas and, and he came up with good ideas and I just wanted to thank him for that. Thank you Tom. Thank you representative. Yeah, other. Other committee members. Okay. Then later I guess I'm old. With all the, the expungements and the court backlog that we're already under and this bill. I think what July 1 or something like that. Are we going to have time to do Do much expungement and also you know the case back load and all that other stuff the money and all that stuff I mean the courts are already really backed up right. My understanding is yes there is going to be a big backlog and I also I'm not involved in these discussions personally so I don't want to misrepresent but I do understand that there's a lot of discussion happening right now. That should hopefully result in some serious funding can help address that backlog. That is correct. Because all along there have been concerns expressed about the backlog and and where expungements help how expungements might play into that. And there has been quite their ongoing discussions between the other body between our joint fiscal office and helping to alleviate the backlog. I mean, we've done a tremendous amount or somebody's done a tremendous amount of of expungements already in the last. I don't know I think I came on in 2018. I mean is there a lot more lot more to do. Certainly there's a lot more we can think about I mean you know there's the in the earlier version of this bill did a lot more than the current version again I think we've tried to address a lot of concerns and the changes. And we I still think it's an important step forward that will help a lot of people that being said I, I do think that there's more we could do and there's more we can think about in terms of designing a system that may be faster or create less of a burden on courts and and people who are seeking expungements. There's a number of different ideas in terms of avenues we could go down. Ultimately it'll be up to you all on the committee and and others to decide whether or not this is something you want to pursue anymore but I do think that there's fruitful thought and discussion and potentially future action with respect to making our system better. I just, I just want to be fair to the, to the victims that's all, and I just, I just wonder how much more we're going to go on this before we lose sight of that if we haven't already that's my concern. Thanks. And I think it is important to remember that prosecutors do currently retain the ability to object and to do whatever they need to do to take into consideration victim issues. And again, even in what we are very open and we usually stipulate but we have felt that very occasionally a couple of times where we thought it wasn't appropriate for us to excuse me appropriate for us to stipulate and so I think that the mechanism is there now to ensure that those issues are being taken care of but again, if there are future changes that raise those concerns to a greater height. I have no doubt that we can discuss how to make sure that those are being adequately taken care of. Thank you. David it's my understanding that in states attorney's offices. There are victims advocates that work within the state's attorney's office and perhaps in your office as well. Correct. Yes, that that's a very important point madam chair, every states attorney's office I believe and yes, every states attorney's office has at least I'm only hesitating because of budgetary like the way the full time equivalents get divided up between offices so I'm hesitating over a budgetary issue not a substantive issue. Every every states attorney's office has access to victims advocate services whether that's one or more person who assists in those tasks and their job is to reach out to victims and work with them to ensure that their interests are being adequately considered and they have a real clear line of communication with the prosecutors offices who are prosecuting cases we have somebody in our office who serves in that role as well is really excellent. And actually she helps a lot with statewide policy issues Amy far is a wonderful victims advocate but those are there's somebody like that who assists every office and in some cases multiple people who assist those offices. Thank you. Barbara. Sorry. Thank you so David. Does your office have a position on what judge Gerson was asking today about pushing the marijuana expungement back to January 2023. I have a position on that at this time it's not something I heard about until just now. Obviously we're in agreement with the underlying policy of having those things expunge it makes no sense to have something on somebody's record that's not even a crime in the state anymore. But I hadn't heard about that I'd have to sort of take a moment and talk with some folks to understand the implications there a little more. I would definitely love to hear from you after you have because I've got to say like when I heard that it just kind of. It would be pushing it back two years from our original plan. And I understand about COVID but also understand about extra resources and in some ways expungement stuff can happen even when the courts are closed so I. Yeah, I have concern about that. I appreciate your concern representative and I just want to do my due diligence before. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. Again, thank you, David. Thank you very much. Thank you madam chair appreciate your work on this. Okay, our last witnesses, Marshall Paul's from defender general's office. Thank you everybody for hanging in the long day. Thank you. Good afternoon. Can everybody hear me all right. I've been having some microphone trouble. Great. So I just wanted to start off by saying that our office was in here. The bill first came over from the Senate and if you recall our testimony on that bill, the bill that had been voted on by the Senate was very supportive that it was a big step forward that it was important work. Our testimony has changed quite a bit. We don't oppose this bill and I want to make sure that's clear from the get go. I think that this bill makes very small, very incremental progress. This bill is not a good bill. This is a bad bill. It doesn't do very much. It's responding to some 11th hour concerns that were that are, you know, frankly should have been raised much earlier. I mean, when you look at where this bill's Genesis is where it came from. This bill came from the sentencing commission. This was worked on extensively in the sentencing commission. The sentencing commission has the Department of Corrections on it and they did not raise these concerns when this bill was being worked on in the sentencing commission. The sentencing commission has state's attorneys and sheriffs on it. They did not raise this concern when it was being worked on in the sentencing commission. This bill has members of the Department of Public or the Sentencing Commission has the members of the Department of Public Safety on it. There was not these concerns raised during that process. Moreover, this went through the entire Senate. In the Senate, this was supported by the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. There was no opposition from DOC. There was no opposition from Department of Public Safety. There was no opposition from anyone else in the administration. This all came up in the sort of 11th hour status, which is why we continue to actually to support this bill if it wasn't for the last piece of this bill, which sends the bill over to joint justice oversight for, you know, for further for further look at what should be not done next in the world of expungement. I don't think we would support this bill because and the reason why we support that change, shifting it from the Sentencing Commission to joint justice oversight is because honestly at this point, it should be a legislative process. It's become clear that no matter what work the Sentencing Commission does, it's not going to, you know, the whole idea of the Sentencing Commission was to make it so that the sort of, you know, fine tooth comb needy gritty work of picking through all the different, you know, avenues for expungement and sealing that are out there deciding what's appropriate and what circumstances and drafting law that really reflects that. You know, the whole point of sending that work to the Sentencing Commission, rather than having it be done as part of the legislative process, was that it is, you know, sort of too detailed, too in depth to really happen during the legislative process. But, you know, it's pretty clear that no matter what the Sentencing Commission does, it's going to end up resulting in having to go through with fine tooth comb during the legislative process anyway. And if that's the case, then that's where it belongs. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't belong in the Sentencing Commission. If the work of the Sentencing Commission isn't really going to be reflected in the legislative process. So we support this bill because it does the, what we think is a valuable service of taking this, the, you know, the next stages of expungement and sealing out of the Sentencing Commission, putting them in front of joint justice oversight. And we think that that'll be an improvement over the process as it is now, the process that sort of got us to this state of, you know, responding to 11th power concerns. So frankly, you know, I don't think this is a great bill. I don't think it's even a good bill. It doesn't really do much as far as expungements go. It doesn't really, you know, open the door to that many more expungements than were on the table before. And frankly, the other changes don't really do much of anything at all. And so from our perspective, the value in this bill at this point is just in changing the venue of where the conversation is happening. For that reason, that we don't oppose it and in fact support that component of it. Thank you. Thank you, Marshall. Ken. Let me make sure I get this right. You don't like this bill and oppose this bill because it doesn't go far enough into expungement. Yes. So first off, we don't oppose the bill. I just think it's a bad bill that doesn't do very much. What it does do is valuable, and we support that little piece of it. But honestly, this bill does not make many changes to the expungement process. It doesn't make many changes to the scope of expungement it. Frankly, it doesn't do much. So our perspective on it is that this was sort of a failed attempt to expand expungement. Ultimately, this bill doesn't do much at all to expand expungement, which from our perspective makes the bill for the most part of failure. So let me, so let me ask it another way. So, so, so you want a bill that does more to expunge more, more, more crimes, correct? Correct. In fact, the bill that was originally introduced in the Senate, which was a reflection of the work that the Sentencing Commission had done, and that was voted out of the Senate. That bill did in fact increase the scope of expungement so that substantially more crimes were eligible for expungement than are eligible now. This bill, as it's written now, does not really substantially expand the number of offenses eligible for expungement. Thank you, sir. Martin. A question I think for, for, for Bryn, I want to make sure I understand something if, if Bryn is still there, I know she's multitasking. Could you just remind me, because there's lots of strikeouts and additions and moving around and stuff. Can you remind me what, what additional crimes we are adding to the ability to expand on this bill. Sure. So, the many of those felony property offenses are not currently eligible for expungement. I think I said earlier that at least one is, but most of them are not currently eligible for expungement. Can I ask just a real quick follow up question then. So, so the sections I'm looking at on page 67, all that strikeout language, that's just struck out from what we got from the Senate, or is it No, the, the, the struck out language in six and seven is I'm sorry, I forget that I actually just use my eyes and read it and now I see what it is I apologize to keep going keep going I'm sorry. So that's existing law, and it's not that those are no longer eligible, it's that we've condensed them into C and D on page seven. So, you're also expanding it to the, the selling dispensing and transporting of regulated drugs. So that's an additional new category of crime that are now eligible. Okay. And most of subsection five, those property crimes. Most of those are not currently eligible are new. And there are some misdemeanor offenses that are not currently eligible but are under seven. I appreciate that and I guess I don't have a question but I do have to make a comment that I do think this bill does advance things. I also understand the role of the Sentencing Commission is to is to make recommendations. And that we in the house do a very good job of our due diligence, and want to make sure that we look deeply and and I think other people out there understand that and will come to us as well with concerns, because they know that we are looking really taking a deep dive on these I think we've done our due diligence, and I think this is a good bill. So, not a question that I'm sorry Marshall just just not agreeing with you or your perspective on this one thanks. Thank you Martin. Marshall, do you want to comment on pushing out the, the cannabis expungements to 2023. I would have to take a look at that that was new to me today and so I have not had a chance to just sort of look at what the collateral effects of that would be. Okay, great. Thanks. Well, if you if you can and let us know. That would be great. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay. Thanks, sorry I'm having some connectivity stuff so my video is going to stay up again this might be a question for brand I remain stuck on the section of the bill having to do with folks who are under the provision of the department of corrections and I'm wondering what was my question. Because one I'm wondering if prior to this. So currently, are there offenses that someone under the supervision of the department of corrections could seek expungement for like essentially is this bill in front of us limiting further what someone under probation could access. Is that are you, is that a question for me or for the witness. I either whoever can answer it I'm guessing it might be for you but So, under seven, one of one of the changes that seven makes in the Senate past version makes this change as well is to is to pretty explicitly provide that expungement or ceiling is not eligible until the person has completed or satisfied the judgment for either the underlying or any subsequent conviction. So that that language is in the Senate past version as well. So, the new language that was added in that subdivision to earlier on in the bill. I think was is really intended to to make it explicitly clear that a person who's under supervision couldn't have access to ceiling or expungement but I think that those changes that were made even in the Senate version already kind of achieved that objective. Thanks and just quick follow up on that question to one of the things that outlined is as an offense that can be expunged as one that's no longer illegal. Given the language that is in this new version of the bill. That just says, you know, they shall not be eligible for ceiling or expungement with that include eligibility for ceiling or expungement of a crime that's no longer illegal. Yes, I believe that it would it's placement in the bill. I think would make it apply to everything was eligible for ceiling or expungement which would include conduct that's no longer considered criminal. I guess I guess I would like to flag that a little bit it feels concerning to me that folks would not be eligible for expungement of something that is not deemed illegal anymore for what it's worth. Okay, thank you. Marshall, did you want to respond or no. No, I think we're in cover to. Thank you. Any. Any other questions for Marshall or for Bryn. That's singing me. Okay, well again, thank you. Thank you everybody's been long day I appreciate everybody staying.