Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/19/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR4 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 33-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
2:23:24 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 33, "An Act relating to pretrial release;
relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit
toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to
electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
2:23:37 PM
At-ease.
2:26:04 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
2:26:31 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for SB 33, work order 31-GS1030\U, Radford, 4/17/19, Version U,
as the working document.
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:26:48 PM
BUDDY WHITT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, referred to a document in members' packets,
titled "Explanation of Changes in Committee Substitute for CSSB
33, Version M to U."
2:26:52 PM
MR. WHITT turned to the first change.
Title Changes: The following has been added to the
title in order to conform to changes and added
provisions
• relating to the duties of a prosecuting attorney
2:27:09 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 1.
Section 1: Adds the intent of the legislature that the
court may consider the self-improvement efforts of the
defendant while in a pre-trial status when imposing a
sentence of imprisonment. (Page 1, Line 12 through
Page 2, Line 3)
Adds intent language that Department of Corrections
develop and report back to the legislature, a plan to
track and measure the effectiveness of evidenced based
programs on offenders. (Page 2, Lines 4-7)
He said the intent language was requested by Department of
Corrections related to developing a plan to track and measure
the effectiveness of evidenced-based programs on offenders and
report its progress to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees
during the Second Regular Session of the Thirty-First Alaska
State Legislature.
2:28:10 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 7.
Section 7: Amends AS 12.30.011(e) by directing the
department of corrections to keep in detention anyone
that is legally under the influence (may to shall).
(Page 7, Line 19)
MR. WHITT said that Section 7 repeals and reenacts AS 12.30.011,
related to pre-trial releases, which would direct that the
department "shall" detain a person until the person is no longer
intoxicate before being released on bail. The language
previously read "may" detain, he said.
CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to page 7, line 19 and asked for
clarification on why "may" does not appear.
MR. WHITT explained that the entire section is repealed and
reenacted so the prior language is not visible.
2:30:00 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 9.
Section 9: Amends AS 12.30.021(c)(2) that a third-
party custodian may not have been convicted of a crime
under AS 11.41 and may not have been unconditionally
discharged in the previous five years. (Page 8, Lines
8 10)
MR. WHITT explained that this change would make it a little more
difficult for a convicted felon to be a third-party custodian.
This language was suggested by several committee members. It
places restrictions on third-party custodians. They may not have
been convicted of a crime under AS 11.41, crimes against a
person, been unconditionally discharged within the previous five
years for a felony, have committed a crime under AS 41, crimes
against a person, or similar crimes in this or another
jurisdiction. The Chair met with the Department of Corrections
(DOC), the Department of Law (DOL), and Legislative Legal
Services to address concerns that these restrictions might make
it difficult for offenders to obtain third-party custodians.
However, if offenders need these services, the department has a
pretrial division to provide supervision. The goal is to avoid
"a bad actor" from being released, he said.
CHAIR HUGHES said the purpose of this is to provide custodians,
who oversee offenders, with a better role model. She asked for
further clarification on the difference in the language from
"convicted" and "unconditionally discharged". She said someone
who has been convicted and has served two years and nine months
could be released and would qualify as a third-party custodian.
2:32:44 PM
MR. WHITT explained that "unconditionally discharged," which is
informally considered "off paper" means offenders who are
completely off parole and probation and have completed their
sentences.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to her previous scenario, which means the
person would only have been outside Department of Corrections
(DOC) custody for three months, which is not adequate time to
prove the person could stay clean. This provision adds language
that the individual must have followed the law for a five-year
period. This individual would make a better role model as a
custodian, she said.
2:33:34 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE agreed with the change. He said he is aware of
some instances where people use their roles as third-party
custodians to supervise offenders for less honorable reasons. He
characterized Section 9 as a huge improvement. Previously, a
person who had completed three years in custody and was just
released would be eligible to be a third-party custodian.
Although this is a much better change, he said he is still not a
fan of third-party custodian program, so he hopes the court will
be strict in its use.
CHAIR HUGHES said that the goal of the committee is justice for
victims for the sake of public safety and to ensure that
offenders have every opportunity to turn their lives around.
This change fits in with that goal, she said.
2:35:12 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said parts of the changes in Section 9 make sense.
He referred to the scenario in which a person is released from
custody after three years. The person would almost certainly be
on probation and a probationer would not be eligible under
paragraph (4) of this subsection. He characterized the shift by
extending the length of time from three to five years as a
significant change in terms of when the clock starts. He asked
for an estimate of the number of people this would affect who
could not be third-party custodians.
MR. WHITT answered that the number of people who could not be
third-party custodians was not a concern, but rather to ensure
that the third-party custodians were not the type of people that
should not serve in that role. He deferred to the Department of
Corrections for further comments.
2:37:24 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections, Juneau, stated that the department is
satisfied with Mr. Whitt's response and that it would be an
unconditional discharge from probation after they were done.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether everyone released from prison is
on probation.
MS. WINKELMAN answered no. She said it would depend on the
judgment or if they were released on mandatory parole.
2:38:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that the shift to unconditional discharge may
make sense but starting the clock later and including all
felonies even if the crimes are not crimes against a person is
another big shift. He expressed concern on the restrictions for
third-party custodians since they provide supervision but are
not specifically selected to be role models. He suggested it may
limit access to those offenders who could be released and
adequately supervised for a lack of "boy scouts."
CHAIR HUGHES said that "role model" may not be the best way to
describe third-party custodians. These are people who have
proven they can be responsible outside the constraints of
Department of Corrections (DOC) oversight. They have proven
themselves, she said. She suggested that being clean and sober
for five years is an important way to show readiness to provide
supervision.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he appreciated the change.
2:40:09 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 10.
Section 10: Amends AS 12.55.025 by adding a new
section directing the court to verbally describe on
the record the sentence imposed as required in (a)(3)
of this section. (Page 8, Lines 21 26)
MR. WHITT explained that this is referred to as the "Truth in
Sentencing Act." The court would need to verbally describe the
sentence imposed, the minimum amount of time that the offender
would serve based on mandatory parole.
2:41:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to AS 12.55.025.
Sec. 12.55.025. Sentencing procedures.
(a) When imposing a sentence for conviction of a
felony offense or a sentence of imprisonment exceeding
90 days or upon a conviction of a violation of AS 04,
a regulation adopted under AS 04, or an ordinance
adopted in conformity with AS 04.21.010, the court
shall prepare, as a part of the record, a sentencing
report that includes the following:
(1) a verbatim record of the sentencing hearing
and any other in-court sentencing procedures;
(2) findings on material issues of fact and on
factual questions required to be determined as a
prerequisite to the selection of the sentence imposed;
(3) a clear statement of the terms of the
sentence imposed; if a term of imprisonment is
imposed, the statement must include
(A) the approximate minimum term the
defendant is expected to serve before being released
or placed on mandatory parole if the defendant is
eligible for and does not forfeit good conduct
deductions under AS 33.20.010; and
(B) if applicable, the approximate minimum
term of imprisonment the defendant must serve before
becoming eligible for release on discretionary parole;
CHAIR HUGHES focused on two provisions, and read:
? the court shall prepare, as a part of the record, a
sentencing report that includes the following ?
(3) a clear statement of the terms of the sentence
imposed; if a term of imprisonment is imposed, the
statement must include
(A) the approximate minimum term the
defendant is expected to serve before being released
or placed on mandatory parole if the defendant is
eligible for and does not forfeit good conduct
deductions under AS 33.20.010; and
(B) if applicable, the approximate minimum
term of imprisonment the defendant must serve before
becoming eligible for release on discretionary parole;
She said that the court already prepares these approximate
sentencing reports. They are furnished in writing to the
defendant, the Department of Law (DOL), and the Department of
Corrections (DOC). When applicable they are also sent to the
Parole Board and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. She said
that the approximate minimum sentences are not part of the
sentence imposed nor do they provide a basis for review or
appeal of the sentence imposed or provide a defendant with a
right to any specific term of imprisonment or supervisory
release on mandatory parole. She said the judge would use the
language "may" and "approximate," so it does not provide an
avenue for a case and allow defendants to be back in court.
2:44:15 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said Ms. Meade provided a copy of the form that
allows the court to fill in and check off specific provisions.
She pointed out that the form needs to be updated since it
currently only lists discretionary parole.
She remarked that sometimes the public and victims are outraged
when they realize that convicted offenders do not have to serve
their entire sentence. An offender may be sentenced to serve 20
years, with five years suspended, but if the offender is
eligible for mandatory parole, it reduces the sentence to 10
years. If the offender is also eligible for discretionary
parole, the offender would only serve five years. She emphasized
that the report needs to reflect mandatory parole to inform the
public. She said that the media is often in the courtroom during
high-profile cases, so it will be helpful to give the report
orally, which will improve the "Truth in Sentencing Act."
2:46:45 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the forms are currently filled out
and sent to the parties. He further asked whether the judge
would have time during the hearing to accurately calculate and
assess the time since the judge would be listening to parties at
the time of sentencing.
CHAIR HUGHES said that the oral remarks are for informational
purposes and the judge would use the language "may" and
"approximate." She said it can be complicated in some instances.
However, the language is written to avoid "bogging down the
courts" if the calculations are not correct.
SENATOR KIEHL emphasized the need to avoid having a judge having
a vague sentence in mind and at the time of sentencing the judge
determines a different sentence. However, if the math is
complicated, the judge might stick with the original sentence.
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that the intent of AS 12.55.025
is to inform people of the actual incarceration time. This
information is important for the victim and the public to know,
she said.
2:49:04 PM
MR. WHITT reviewed Section 15.
Section 15: Amends AS 12.61.015 by adding a new
subsection (d) that adds a requirement for victim
notification by the prosecutor when an offender in
discharged from a treatment program for non-
compliance. The victim contact is for sexual crimes
and crimes involving domestic violence. (Page 10,
Lines 1 4)
MR. WHITT explained that Section 15 relates to the notification
of when an offender is discharged from a treatment program for
noncompliance while in pretrial. She said a number of committee
members suggested this change. This specifically relates to
crimes involving domestic violence and sex crimes. He pointed
out an amendment will be offered to clarify this pertains to an
offender in pretrial status. It currently would apply to anyone
on probation, parole or pretrial.
2:50:46 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she supports this change.
2:51:17 PM
CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further
objection, the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 33,
Version U was before the committee.
2:51:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31-
GS1030\U.1, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEH
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 2, line 10:
Delete "48 [24]"
Insert "24"
Page 10, line 11:
Delete "48 [24]"
Insert "24"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:52:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 on page 2 of Version U. He stated that this would
restore the 24-hour deadline for a person to appear before a
judge or magistrate. He referred to page 2, line 10, and stated
that Conceptual Amendment 1 would add "absent compelling
circumstances" after "arrest". On page 2, lines 16-18 would
reinstate the sentence, "The hearing before the judge or
magistrate may not take place more than 48 hours after arrest."
He said that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 is necessary
because otherwise the amendment is more restrictive than the
current language. He characterized it as bad policy.
SENATOR MICCICHE objected. He said that extenuating
circumstances already exist. He said he does not support the
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the language for compelling
circumstances is being removed in Version U and it needs to be
reinstated to have the 24-hour timeframe be workable. The 48
hours in the underlying bill creates a pretty hard cap.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that the Department of Law made it clear
that currently it must notify the court when it will exceed the
24-hour period. The department tries to bring people before a
judge prior to the 24-hour period but sometimes it is not
possible. Extending it to 48 hours would provide adequate time
for other things to happen that might currently be rushed under
the 24-hour requirement.
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that 95 percent of cases
are currently heard within 24 hours. She pointed out that
extending the time to 48 hours would address some staff
retention issues since it would avoid people working on weekends
and holidays.
2:55:19 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said the Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 is
before the committee. She said that she will also oppose it.
2:55:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that Conceptual Amendment 1 is necessary to
have a serious discussion on Amendment 1. He said that if the
committee is not interested in making Amendment 1 a functional
amendment, he will withdraw both. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 and Amendment 1 were withdrawn.
2:56:04 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31-
GS1030\U.2, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 3, lines 4 - 12:
Delete "[UPON REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS, THE
JUDICIAL OFFICER SHALL REVISE ANY CONDITIONS OF
RELEASE THAT HAVE PREVENTED THE DEFENDANT FROM BEING
RELEASED UNLESS THE JUDICIAL OFFICER FINDS ON THE
RECORD THAT THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT LESS RESTRICTIVE RELEASE CONDITIONS CANNOT
REASONABLY ENSURE THE
(1) APPEARANCE OF THE PERSON IN COURT; AND
(2) SAFETY OF THE VICTIM, OTHER PERSONS,
AND THE COMMUNITY.]"
Insert "Upon review of the conditions, the
judicial officer shall revise any conditions of
release that have prevented the defendant from being
released unless the judicial officer finds on the
record by a preponderance of the [THAT THERE IS CLEAR
AND CONVINCING] evidence that less restrictive release
conditions cannot reasonably ensure the
(1) appearance of the person in court; and
(2) safety of the victim, other persons, and the
community."
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
2:56:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that Amendment 2 would provide an opportunity
to request a judicial review of the conditions of release when
someone is unable to meet them. The Department of Law (DOL)
indicated that the clear and convincing standard is challenging.
He said that rather than deleting the standard entirely,
Amendment 2 would change it to a preponderance of the evidence.
The legislature would continue to provide some guidance to the
court, which provide the least restrictive conditions that
reasonably ensure the 1) appearance of the person in court; and
(2) safety of the victim and other persons in the community.
By leaving a standard in place it opens up the opportunity for
the prosecution to make the case, but it would still provide
some guidance to the court. This effectively would handle the
public safety concern and restore some discretion the department
seeks without saying, in essence, "whatever goes."
2:58:32 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Central Office,
Department of Law, Anchorage, said Amendment 2 would create a
problem because when the court sets bail and establishes
conditions for bail, it states the judicial officer "shall"
revise the conditions unless the court finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that it cannot reasonably do so. He agreed that
setting the preponderance of the evidence standard is correct.
However, the judge has already made a determination after
considering all of the factors. This would essentially suggest
that judges must second guess their original determinations. He
would argue that is inappropriate, that a subsequent bail
hearing should occur, but only if new information comes to
light.
3:00:25 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out the underlying bill does not remove
the ability to have conditions reviewed, so reconsideration
remains in the underlying bill. He offered his belief that this
would apply in threshold cases. He explained that it should be
clear to the judge when the case is reviewed under the
preponderance of the evidence as to whether the offender should
be on the street. Amendment 2 would leave in place an
opportunity for the judge to take another look as long as the
person does not pose a threat to the public.
3:02:05 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said the language in Amendment 2 that states
"judicial officer shall revise any conditions of release unless"
is superfluous language that tends to create confusion to the
existing standards. It would shift the presumption from "has new
information arisen that should change the court's opinion" to
"the fact that the person has not been released means that the
court should release them." That is not the appropriate
standard, he said. The appropriate standard is that the person
is entitled to another bail hearing when new information arises,
although it does not mean that the judge must release the
person. The judge would stand by the original ruling made at the
bail hearing, which set out appropriate conditions.
3:04:03 PM
SENATOR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:04:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 2 and Senators Micciche and Hughes voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a 1:2 vote.
CHAIR HUGHES acknowledged that Senator Reinbold could not hear
the vote.
3:04:40 PM
At-ease.
3:04:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She asked the secretary to
void the roll call vote. The roll call vote was voided.
3:05:03 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 2 and Senators Reinbold (via teleconference), Micciche
and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a
1:3 vote.
3:05:49 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 31-
GS1030\U.3, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 3, lines 24 - 25:
Delete "does not include [INCLUDES] the person's
inability to post the required bail;"
Insert "includes the person's inability to post
the required bail if the person can show that the
person made a good faith effort to post the required
bail;"
Page 3, lines 30 - 31:
Delete "[; HOWEVER, A PERSON MAY RECEIVE ONLY ONE
BAIL REVIEW HEARING SOLELY FOR INABILITY TO PAY]"
Insert "however, a person may receive only one
bail review hearing solely for inability to pay"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:05:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL reviewed Amendment 3, such that it restores
language removed to clarify that the person must make a good
faith effort to post the required bail. When the bill was
presented, concern was expressed that people might clog up the
system. He envisioned this provision would only apply to someone
who has made a good faith effort to post bail. The person would
be limited to one bail review hearing. The judge would not be
required to amend the bail, but to allow the person an
opportunity for a bail review hearing.
3:08:28 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said that he appreciated the attempts to limit the
application. He referred to page 6 of Version U, which outlines
four factors that require a judge to consider a person's ability
to pay when bail is initially set. Once the bail is set, the
bail should not be changed based on the person's assets or
employment history. Therefore, the Department of Law does not
support Amendment 3.
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:09:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 3 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold (via teleconference)
and Hughes and voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed
by a 1:3 vote.
3:10:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 31-
GS1030\U.4, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 7, following line 22:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) In determining the conditions of release
under this chapter, the court may consider the
pretrial risk assessment provided by a probation
officer acting as a pretrial services officer."
Page 13, line 3, following "needs":
Insert ";
(4) conduct a pretrial risk assessment
using an instrument approved by the commissioner for
all defendants detained in custody in a correctional
facility following arrest and for any defendant for
whom the prosecution requests to have a pretrial risk
assessment at the next hearing or arraignment"
Page 13, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "[; PRETRIAL DEFENDANT RISK LEVEL AND
CHARGE;"
Insert "; pretrial defendant risk level and
charge [;"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:10:38 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 4 would restore the
pretrial risk assessment as an optional tool. He recalled
earlier testimony from the Alaska Judicial Council about the
usefulness of the pretrial assessment tool in reducing some of
the concerning differentials in the criminal justice system. He
said that some of the initial results of the pretrial assessment
tools are promising. He acknowledged that some perceived
deficits exist, but by making this an optional factor, a judge
can consider providing one additional objective measure to use.
MR. SKIDMORE said this concept is very intriguing and the
department would be interested in it. However, he has not had an
opportunity to review Amendment 4, so the department has no
position at this time on Amendment 4.
3:13:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he does not see any advantage. He
only sees irresponsible releases in many communities throughout
the state of people who continue to offend. He said he does not
support the pretrial risk assessment. He does not support the
criteria of the assessment being outside of the realm of the
legislature. He suggested that it was created using the wrong
criteria and was extremely generous in its release factors. He
said he will not support Amendment 4.
CHAIR HUGHES stated she does not support Amendment 4. She did
not think the pretrial risk assessment has been working. She
said that the constant cost factors would create a need to
constantly update this so it would trigger a fiscal note.
3:14:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD echoed the comments made by Senators Micciche
and Hughes and said she will be a no vote.
3:14:41 PM
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:14:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 4 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold (via
teleconference), and Hughes voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 failed by a 1:3 vote.
3:15:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 5, work order 31-
GS1030\U.5, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 5
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 9, line 30:
Delete "180"
Insert "360"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:15:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained Amendment 5. This relates to a limit on
a court granting credit on a sentence of imprisonment for
inpatient treatment. He stated that some inpatient treatment
programs exceed 180 days. Amendment 5 would increase the cap to
360 days, so it would not create a disincentive.
3:16:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said the maximum treatment program she found was
180 days and most are shorter programs. She said she does not
support Amendment 5.
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:16:17 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 5 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold (via
teleconference), and Hughes voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 5 failed by a 1:3 vote.
3:16:42 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 6, work order 31-
GS1030\U.6, Radford, 4/18/19.
AMENDMENT 6
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSB 33(JUD), Draft Version "U"
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Rules 38.2 and 45(d)"
Insert "Rule 38.2"
Page 15, line 19, through page 17, line 8:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 18, line 14:
Delete "Sections 24 - 26"
Insert "Sections 24 and 25"
Delete "secs. 24 - 26"
Insert "secs. 24 and 25"
CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
3:16:58 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained Amendment 6 would relate to a court rule
change that would allow an attorney to consent to a delay on
behalf of his/her client. He said he has a philosophical
objection to this. If a defendant wants to risk the case by
running a trial against his/her attorney's advice, it should be
allowed.
3:17:36 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he does not support Amendment 6. He
suggested that Mr. Skidmore would be able to point out specific
sections of the bill and why the change is important.
MR. SKIDMORE said that Amendment 6 does as described. This would
allow the defendant to decide if a case can be continued. It
relates to a tactical decision by the attorney in the case,
which is the reason it would allow the attorney to speak on the
case without allowing the defendant to weigh in. He said the
philosophical opposition does not take into consideration the
additional downstream consequences to the legal system,
including all of the additional work associated with giving a
defendant this ability, which can be substantial. He said that
he opposes Amendment 6 because the current language makes the
criminal justice system more efficient.
CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection.
3:19:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 6 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold (via
teleconference), and Hughes voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 6 failed by a 1:3 vote.
3:19:46 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said that was the final amendment. She explained
that a majority of the committee was not available to move the
bill.
[SB 33 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR 3 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR 3 Version A.PDF |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SJUD 4/12/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR4 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR4 Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/15/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| SJR4 Explanation of Changes Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/3/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/17/2019 6:00:00 PM SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 4 |
| CSSB 33(JUD) Version U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |
| CSSB33 Explanation of Changes from Version M to U.pdf |
SJUD 4/19/2019 1:30:00 PM SJUD 4/22/2019 6:00:00 PM |
SB 33 |