S.B. 184 Justice System Amendments: transcript

Thank you Madam Chair. It's nice to be in front of the committee today. Uh, will be brief. I understand we're very, very low on time. Um, so this bill, SB 180 4 addresses, um, individuals who have already been sentenced for a criminal offense, but, um, are able to provide information to law enforcement that's helpful in, in either solving or bringing somebody accountable for, for criminal activity. And so what it would do is it would allow, um, by joint motion between the prosecutor and the defense attorney, the ability to, uh, petition that their, their criminal conviction be reduced by one degree. Um, if they've provided information as I stated that, that um, provides law enforcement with the tools to either apprehend or, or prosecute on this matter, I've taken us a lot of work to get here and craft the right language. Um, I did also invite Mr. Adam Craig here to provide a little more context on this issue. So I'll turn it over to him

Kind of affectionately, not as the snitches get kisses, bill. Just kidding. That's not really what it is, but it kind of is. Look, federal rule of criminal procedure 35 has been in the books for a long, long time and a lot of the cases that I handle are both federal related and also state related. Um, most of the bills that we run on 4 0 2 reductions are rehabilitative in nature. They have to go through some rehabilitation. But that doesn't really get to some of the key issues that we have coming these days down the pike that relate to drug cases and other types of cases that are really difficult. And it's really, really difficult to get people to even open up or discuss or even share responsible, helpful information. So what I wanted to do is give the state prosecutors and the defense attorneys a tool, uh, that exists already in the federal courts that allow us to recognize that effort because candidly, that they're placing themselves in danger. They're taking a risk, they're providing helpful, useful information that is going to assist in the prosecution of other cases and or the resolution of cases that have come down the pike that have happened in the past. So it is something that needs to be in our state courts as well. Uh, federal rules, I don't like all of them, but there are some that make complete sense. This reduction rule gives us a tool that we didn't have in the past. It gives prosecutors the option. And what's so beautiful about this is the prosecutors have to be on board. Meaning this is a joint motion, meaning we've come together, we've met, we've discussed it, and we are now on the same page. We're moving forward it and we're gonna be presenting it to the judge as a joint task force, meaning a joint team to get their favorable, uh, approval on the case. So it really relates to are you providing substantial information to the extent that the prosecutor's willing to come behind you and back you up and say, judge, this individual has done very, very well. We are now coming to you to say he deserves or she deserves a reduction based on their substantial compliance in the case, or another case. Okay. And that concludes our presentation. Alright.

Happily to be here. Appreciate It. Thank. Alright. See you tomorrow. Thank you.

There it is. Hi. Uh, Stuart Young. What am I? Criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of the Utah Attorney General. Uh, we'd like to thank, uh, Senator Pitcher. Uh, she's done a really good job of working with us. Uh, we appreciate the language. I don't know if the, I, I'm not quite sure if the sub has come in or not, but the, or maybe it was an amendment, but the joint motion, uh, by the parties. We think that is, uh, a really, uh, helpful resolution. Uh, and this is an important, uh, thing for tools both for prosecutors and defense counsel especially, uh, for, uh, the ability for, uh, those prosecutors to use substantial assistance to be able to solve other cases, uh, and whatnot. So we think this is an important, uh, bill. I will note that all of, uh, section 4 0 2, uh, talks about the interest of justice. And we think that interest of justice is important. Uh, I'm not sure what else to talk about, but, uh, at this point, we appreciate, uh, all of the senator's work on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Carl Holland, executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. We also want to thank Senator Pitcher for, uh, meeting with all interested stakeholders on this, working with us and getting this bill to a place that, uh, we can support. Uh, we think that this is going to be helpful in giving prosecutors and defense attorneys one more tool in the toolbox so that they can ensure public safety, uh, by using information that convicted criminals have to find more dangerous offenders out in the community. Uh, so we want to thank her again and urge your support of this bill.

Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Moffitt. I'm a criminal defense lawyer. And here on behalf of the Defense Lawyers Association, um, Senator Pitcher has worked closely with members of our organization, uh, to bring this bill. Uh, we would urge this committee support. We think it's a good policy. Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name's Richard Morrow. I'm the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association. We support the bill. Um, I know a lot of us have worked in this field before. I'm glad Mr. Young spoke about that. I know we've worked, Mr. Moff and I have worked with him a number of times in federal court. Similar kinds of issues. I think this is good policy and we would urge your support of the bill. Thank you.

So, uh, chair Libe. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. I would move the amendment, house, amendment one, two for sub SB 180 4. That motion's in order. Would you like to speak to it? I would just briefly. I think this is a good bill. I think it's a good policy. I do think that we want our courts to also consider public safety as they're making these determinations. And so it just adds and public safety to the end of line 1 39 in the bill.

I've considered this amendment and spoke with the stakeholders about it. Um, I guess I'd respectfully urge the committee not to adopt it, uh, for a couple reasons. One is that I don't think judges are actually best suited in these circumstances to consider public safety, not understanding the underlying, uh, facts or information that's leading to this agreement. Um, I think that's better suited for a prosecutor to assess. And then also it wouldn't be consistent with other areas of the code that consider expungements or 4 0 2 level reductions. That standard is simply in the interest of justice. Um, and then I, I think it would probably also disrupt a bit the consensus I have amongst the stakeholders. So I would not support it.

So, um, what does this amendment do to the amendment we just made? Because it includes that line. It, it will still merge. It'll merge if we'll merge. Okay. Alright.

Then I move Senate Amendment two,

I am reading it right now as we speak.

Piece? Yeah, so it's just taking out prosecuting attorney consents, but adding joint before motion on line 1 32. So I think it's trying to do the same thing. Just changing the language. Yeah, it's a, if I may, uh, Madam Chair, it's a procedural modification that, um, both prosecutors and defense attorneys feel a little more comfortable with.

All right. I move to favorably recommend first substitute Senate bill 180 4 as amended. The motion is to favorably recommend first substitute Senate bill 180 4 as amended onto the full body of the house.

Um, I think it's a good bill. I think ask good balance and I hope it does a lot of good in our, um, state level courts as opposed to it's already being used in federal courts and hopefully we can get some good information and, um, put more people away that are causing havoc in our communities. Thank you.

Uh, thank you for the consideration and having me back here today. Appreciate it. I'll waive any further summation

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I like Senate Bill 180 4 a lot. This bill creates a mechanism whereby, uh, prosecuting attorney and a defendant can motion the court for a reduction of, uh, charges after an individual is convicted, if that individual provides helpful information to law enforcement, which leads to the apprehension, arrest, or prosecution of that individual. Um, we do have other mechanisms in, uh, criminal court to reduce criminal charges if certain things happen. One of the most common is the 4 0 2 reduction, which prosecutors often utilize, and defense attorneys often utilize to incentivize an individual to, um, successfully complete their probation. So to pay their fines and their fees to complete their community service, to keep the record clean at the end of that period, they're able to motion for a 4 0 2 reduction. And I think it's a really helpful tool to, again, as I said, ensure that individuals are compliant on their probation and that they make victims whole. Uh, similarly, I, uh, this idea was brought to me by, um, some defense attorneys. And I, I think the idea is mutually beneficial to both parties because again, it allows an individual with helpful information, um, to work with law enforcement to, to help with the identification and apprehension of criminal activity, um, while also securing a benefit for them upon the agreement of the prosecution. And so that's the genesis of the bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Carl Holland, executive Director Swap. Uh, we've been working with the sponsor on this. Uh, we want to thank her for bringing this bill. Uh, we do think that this is a great idea. There's a, a great tool that we can add to the tool Belt of prosecutors and to defense attorneys here. We think that it will contribute to a greater good. Uh, we do have, uh, some issues that we're still working out with a sponsor about how those are filed with the court and maybe some more technical details. Uh, but we support this going forward and we look forward to further conversations with her on that issue, uh, to try to resolve those minor technical issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name's Mark Moffitt. I'm here on behalf of the Defense Lawyers Association, and we're here to speak in support of Senator Pitcher's Bill. Um, there are oftentimes situations where individuals who have been convicted come into possession of information that would be helpful to law enforcement. Um, and when that occurs, uh, they have a desire to cooperate, and this will incentivize that cooperation and it will also provide them a benefit as the as center picture indicated. So we support this bill, we would ask the committee favorably, consider it and pass it out favorably. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, are you ready, Mr. Chair? Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name's Richard Morrow. I'm the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association. Speaking in favor of this bill. I think the great part about this bill is it creates some sort of rule. I mean, this is something that's pretty common in the criminal legal system where people provide information, they provide cooperation. This sort of memorializes that in a more formalized form. And so we're in favor of that. We'd ask you to pass this out favorably. Thank you. Thank You.

Uh, good afternoon. My name is Stuart Young. I'm the Criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of the Utah Attorney General's Office. Uh, we are, uh, in support relatively of this bill. We do believe there, uh, are some technical issues to work out on this bill. We have, uh, sent some of those things over to, uh, Senator Pitcher. This bill is generally based off of the, uh, federal substantial assistance, um, motions that are done in federal court. Having done it for 17 years as a federal prosecutor. I have probably done more of those in this state than anybody else. Um, our only suggestion is that this should not be a, uh, a motion done by both defense and by the prosecution. It should, uh, be sent, uh, mo the motion should be done by the prosecution, which is very in line with the, uh, federal five case statute as well. Uh, on that, I'll submit. Thank you.

Sure. And we're going against what the jury said. So, uh, my understanding, the, uh, the way the bill is set up, uh, it would, it would either, at, at least right now, as Senator Pitcher has put this together, it would either have to come from the prosecutor or the defense. Um, I have actually not ever been in a situation where there was a 5K motion that was done after a death penalty case. Yeah. That is just, that's not something that I'm aware of. Um, also, at least on the federal side, there's a one year time limit after, uh, after the case has been, you know, a adjudicated and whatnot. And I believe Senator Pitcher has added that into your, I'm trying to remember if that's part of this. I have a substitute we need to discuss. I'm, I apologize. That may be part of the substitute. Um, so in, in terms of that, it, you know, I I am not aware of a situation, uh, like you've described. Yeah. Um, I don't know if that could happen or not, but generally, because at least on the federal side, uh, the, uh, the motion is done by the prosecutor, then the prosecutor would be the one as the gatekeeper. And it is unlikely that they would, you know, seek to overturn a jury verdict.

Pitcher. Yeah, I, I think I can provide some additional information in the bill. One of the requirements in order to get the reduction is that the prosecuting attorney consents. Um, and so I think that also addresses probably some of the current concerns that have been raised here with, um, prosecutors bringing the motion is that ultimately, if the prosecuting attorney does not consent to the reduction, it, it won't be granted.

No, I think that's great feedback. The bill wouldn't, doesn't apply to sentences, but it does apply to convictions. And based on the example you're giving, it does still present the possibility of a weird outcome.

Thank you. I'm Seth Stewart. Um, the appropriate role of clemency is post-conviction sentencing between the judge and the jury, as well as petitions for early release based on good behavior. As with plea bargaining, generally, this type of action incentivizes more than cooperation for the sake of truth and justice. It seriously hazards wrongful conviction by altering evidentiary standards. A compelled or incentivized testimony does not have the same evidentiary value as a testimony without incentive extortion or enticement. It is legalized witness tampering. A defendant may hope for clemency based on contrition or compliance, but a statutory exp expect expectation for such clemency in advance incentivizes wrongful incrimination, including potential self-incrimination as a form of plea deal. It also abets higher statutory punishments in many instances, it does so as well by, uh, transferring gatekeeping authority with evidentiary influence to the prosecutor, which violates the separation of powers. So I echo that concern. And it also violates the provision of Utah's constitution, which says, excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor shall cruel. The unusual punishments be inflicted as, as we move towards this, uh, standard of, of, um, statutory expectations of clemency. We also tend to, uh, raise the statutory punishments to equalize for that, which would, in fact, punish people for, uh, pleading their innocence even where they are innocent, and for refusing to share information that incriminates others, uh, where their, where their guilt cannot be established. So I would urge you to hold the bill until all of these conflicts are resolved. Thank you.

Um, Mr. Chair, I do have a substitute. Okay. Um, which addresses one, uh, bit of Feedback it so well last time, but we can try it again. No, it didn't. Well, and let me just, uh, acknowledge it and then make a suggestion just since we're here. Um, it, it, it incorporates some feedback that I, I think was very good from the Department of Corrections. I like Senator Brammer feedback also. And so I think maybe it would just make sense for me to put everything in one happy sub and present it on the floor.

It Would be my motion that we favorably recommend SB 180 4 to the full body of the Senate. We have a motion to favorably recommend Senate by 180 4 to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President. This bill creates a mechanism by which, uh, if prosecutors and defense attorneys are in agreement, an individual can petition for a reduction of a criminal offense if that individual provides information that proves to be sub, uh, proves to be of substantial assistance to law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense of another individual. I think this helps encourage cooperation with law enforcement while also providing a benefit if doing so is in the interest of justice. Happy to answer any questions.

Aye, That's correct. Uh, it would be my motion that we adopt that first substitute.

The change, uh, Mr. President is that this benefit would be available within one year of sentencing providing some predictability with the process.

It is. I'm gonna open it up for questions.

I move that first substitute Senate bill 180 4. Be read for a third time.

Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. This bill allows an individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense and since sentenced the ability to potentially lower the degree of their, uh, criminal charges. If upon agreement by both the defense attorney and the prosecutor, uh, the individual has provided substantial information to law enforcement, which leads to the arrest or prosecution of, uh, uh, other criminal activity, that I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I move that first substitute Senate bill 180 4 pass. And the question is, shall first substitute Senate Bill

Yes. Again, as a reminder, this bill um, embraces private public partnerships to support our animal shelters that work so hard to serve our communities. It's developed in collaboration, Utah animal shelters and rescues to address additional operational concerns in some communities, it, uh, encourages private public partnerships by informing organizations that have asked to be informed of the shelter's intent to euthanize an animal two days prior to the animal's euthanasia. This bill helps provide notification to rescue groups and gives them the opportunity to save the animal before the shelter euthanizes it. The rescue has one additional day after that two day notice to rescue that animal. Um, the bill does not extend the minimum stray holds, so the stray holds are there. And if there's an Amal that's aggressive or ill, it doesn't affect that E either, and it just standardizes best practice. And that is the Bill. Bill, thank you for that presentation.

I'd move that first substitute Senate Bill 2 0 1 pass. And the question is, shall first substitute Senate bill

Thank Mr. President Pro Tem.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt the second substitute in my name.

I would. The second substitute addresses the discrepancy between municipalities and counties wherein we contract with an outside attorney to provide prosecution services with the municipality. That already happens. It's just not codified that they're allowed to do it. So we're taking care of it.

I waive. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, SB 180 4, in addition to what I just talked about, allows us to, uh, negotiate to, to reduce a charge by one level. If and when that person is willing to provide evidence that leads to a conviction on another crime, which is, again, a common practice. We're making sure that that's explicitly authorized, that allows us to apprehend criminals, um, and bring them to justice for both when both the prosecutor and the defense agree.

I'll waive. Thank you. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt the second substitute in my name.

I would. The second substitute addresses the discrepancy between municipalities and counties wherein we contract with an outside attorney to provide prosecution services with the municipality. That already happens. It's just not codified that they're allowed to do it. So we're taking care of it.

I waive. Summation has been waived.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, SB 180 4, in addition to what I just talked about, allows us to, uh, negotiate to, to reduce a charge by one level. If and when that person is willing to provide evidence that leads to a conviction on another crime, which is, again, a common practice. We're making sure that that's explicitly authorized, that allows us to apprehend criminals, um, and bring them to justice for both when both the prosecutor and the defense agree.

I'll waive. Thank you. Summation has been waived.