S.B. 259 Evidence Declaration Amendments: transcript

Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee, Feb 20, 2026

1. Committee chair (presiding)44:35

   We are onto the next item on the agenda, SB 2 59 Evidence Declaration Amendments. Is that correct?

2. Sen. Todd Weiler44:41

   Yes. I'm gonna invite, uh, Kanosh Bullock to come forward, and I know you've probably all heard about this bill. Um, so some of you might remember, I've, um, ran a, the Prosecutorial Commission bill with, um, Mr. Bullock last year. Um, he's, um, uh, uh, a long time presence here at the Capitol and, um, was the, um, head of the Utah League of Citizen Towns for, uh, about two decades. And, um, what happened was, was that the, the league was audited by John Dole's, um, uh, auditors, um, back about, um, eight or nine years ago, 10 years ago. And they found, uh, there was some discrepancies they found. And, um, one of the issues that was reported was that, um, Mr. Bullock was using his company credit card, uh, to book all of his, uh, travel. Now, he had permission of the treasurer, um, of the organization. He had permission of the board of the organization, um, but he didn't, uh, he often, his son was playing NCAA basketball for Stanford, and he was flying around the country trying to be a good dad. And sometimes it took him a few months to pay off, um, to, to pay off the, the mileage that he had put personal mileage on his, uh, company or league credit card. Um, as a result of that, the, the auditor, um, made some findings, uh, but didn't, didn't find, um, that that arose to a criminal violation. Uh, but one of the deputy auditors, one of the, uh, subordinates of, uh, John Dugal was, was unhappy with that. And so he illegally leaked, um, all of the audit, um, findings and paperwork to the office of Sim Gill. And Kanosh Bullock was charged with seven felonies. Uh, he was fired from his job. He went through, um, seven years of litigation, which is ridiculous. Part of that was due to COVID, but a lot of it wasn't. He paid over $500,000 in attorney's fees, and mostly to appease his wife and to avoid a trial, he ended up pleading guilty to one, I think Class C Mismi misdemeanor, which has, uh, since been expunged. Um, it basically ruined his career, in some respects, ruined his life. And mind you, his charge was that he had not followed the rules closely enough, but in order to prosecute him, someone in the auditor's office broke the law. This, this was information that if Sim gill's office had filed, a grandma request would've been denied. The auditor who leaked the information was never held accountable, and the prosecutors who relied on leaked information didn't even get a slap on the hand. Everything I've told you has been established through depositions and court records. Nobody cared. Nobody cared that all of the information that was used to ruin this man's life was illegally obtained, nobody cared. Um, this bill would simply ask, um, certain individuals, and I do have a sub, certain individuals to sign a statement that the evidence for a felony, this doesn't apply to misdemeanors, was obtained or provided in compliance with state or federal law. And it requires a prosecuting agency to sign a statement regarding evidentiary disclosures in a criminal case for a felony offense. So, I, I, I know the prosecutors don't like the bill. All we're asking them to do is tell the court we didn't break the law and obtaining the evidence that we're using to bring this criminal penalty. Um, and with that, I'll kick it to Mr. Bullock for a minute.

3. Kanosh Bullock48:31

   Thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, uh, Senator Weiler and committee members for your time. Uh, just as a quick clarification, I was the director of the league for 32 years, Three decades. Yes. Um, the reason I mentioned that is I gave my entire career to the betterment of this organization and to working with the legislature to improve relations between cities and the, and the legislature, which I think I accomplished. Um, we're a society of rules. I think that's a, that's a given. Uh, the legislature is a perfect example of that, and probably the most important institution that we have that needs to follow rules and law is our judicial system. I think we could all agree on that. Um, there are some things in society that we have to get right. Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enhan enforced and independently adjudicated. I I didn't come here to cast a gate. All prosecutors, I believe that the overwhelming majority of them are good people that are trying to do their job and do it the right way. Um, my goal is to simply ensure that we can eliminate, or at least minimize what happened to me. Uh, when there are egregious examples of violations of the law, we should by those we expect to uphold the law is why I'm here today. I'm here to ask you to pass a law that would require the state auditor's office investigators that work with prosecutors and prosecutors to sign an affidavit, to simply sign an affidavit that they followed the rules of, uh, the rules of law. One of the lobbyists, uh, was, uh, opposing this bill told me that there's always going to be bad actors. And it's interesting to me, that's a, it's an excuse that's always used until it happens to you. Then all of a sudden it becomes a crisis. Where my 30 plus years of representing the league, uh, most of my, the legislation up here that dealt with cities was because there would be a few cities who didn't want to comply with state statute. And they said, as an, as an example, uh, developers would work with a particular city. The city would tell 'em, here's, here's how we want things to be, which would be in con contradiction to what state statutes were. And they would simply say, well, sue us if you don't like it, sue us. Which then meant that the, the following year there would be legislation to reign in those half a dozen or dozen cities that, uh, seemed to not care about what, what rules you were establishing. And that behavior was quickly corrected. Um, one of the issues that I think is important, and it relates to cities also, is you pass a law and there's no consequences for violating it. Um, and I, I think there's, there clearly needs to be a standard set, especially for a flagship county like Salt Lake County and the state auditor's office. Um, uh, Mr. Chair, will I have an opportunity to respond to those who have No. No. Okay. Well then let me just quickly, Let me just clarify. Sit LER will have an opportunity to respond to who No, no problem. I'll, I'll address a couple things that have been brought to my attention. Uh, there, I've been told that there is a process that you could go through with, um, filing complaints with the bar for prosecutors by going to post for, uh, investigators. And my point is simply is, uh, I, I think individuals like myself don't have a lot of con confidence in that. Uh, a very prominent attorney that I know simply stated as I talked to him about filing a bar complaint, is that the bar's primary obligation is to generate dues and membership. And I found, I found that to be the case. Um, the bill is very, very concrete. You either do the right thing and simply say, I filed the rules or you didn't. Um, it also has been suggested that this is, uh, a very onerous, onerous process for prosecutors. Uh, no one is being held accountable for someone else's actions. It's simply yours. The prosecutor's responsible for his, the, uh, investigator's responsible for his, as well as the auditor's office. It's not the prosecutor responsible for those who are providing him information. Uh, just real quickly, and I know you can all read, uh, I provided a handout for you that I would like to just point out to just a few things. Uh, on page three, uh, it states, sometime in November 3rd, 2017, Jeremy Walker provided, had a meeting with, with, uh, Blake Nakamura, the Chief Criminal, the chief Deputy over the criminal division in Salt Lake County. I, I mentioned November 3rd because it's very critical date that, uh, when auditor, not auditor, but the staff auditor, Jeremy Walker, met with Blake Nakamura Nakamura on November 3rd, then meets with his, uh, investigator Marcus Illa, and provides him as it states right here. Uh, in doing so, he transferred the link, which mi Mr. Racia described as containing very large and included every aspect of the auditor's investigation. So November 3rd, 2017, page four, Mr. Nakamura, uh, is, uh, giving all these documents to his staff and so forth, and asking them to, uh, continue the investigation. Um, and they asked Mr. Walker, um, did you have permission to give us all of these documents? And he says, uh, unless specifically told not to, I was going to give you everything. He's acknowledging that the state auditor at the time, Mr. Dougle gave him permission to do so. And then he goes on and says, uh, I've never been limited what I could distribute to you guys. On page five, um, deputy District Attorney Mark Mathis, there are approximately 28 boxes of evidence that they had, 28 to 38. They have two references of that. And Mathis goes, well, uh, can I get this information in a, uh, access today in a folder, uh, Walker States? The only way I could do that is so the go Google Drive that I gave to you, and, uh, Mathis asked, okay, is that something we can get access today? Walker again, states. Yeah, when I get back to the office, I can add that to the Google Drive. Blake Nakamura, the Chief Deputy Directs, um, Mr. Or ask Mr. Wa, uh, Mr. Walker. Now Jeremy, we know where we got this. It, it was ultimately from you, Walker responds yes. And this is another key point, okay, Nakamura says on the ask, and then you provided them, but they were not provided originally. Not only is Mr. Nakamura lying, as he stated in November 3rd that he got this information from, uh, Mr. Walker. Now he's telling Mr. Walker to lie. This is the chief deputy of the criminal division of Salt Lake County, asking his expert witness to lie when he provided him this information. And the reason we ask Mr. Another, uh, assistant District attorney Kanosh Davis says, the reason I ask you when we got this is because there are some legal ease issues that are associated than when we get this. So they know there's a law, they know they're breaking it on page, um, nine. Um, Mr. Mathis again says, we probably need to have at least a roadmap of where we want to go. And I hope, uh, and I'm hoping you can point us in that direction. The chief investigator, Mr. Akia, says it's like the Bible for our case. These documents that are incomplete working drafts are given to, uh, the District Attorney's office, unauthorized, incomplete. And this is their, their their, uh, position that this was, the information was like of the Bible for their case. Um, this next piece is extremely important. In June of 2019, 18 plus months later, um, one of the, the Attorney generals assigned to the state auditor's office comes down and, and presents in a preliminary hearing. And his, his testimony is, unbeknownst to the auditor's office employee, Jeremy Walker had sub subsequent meetings with the individuals from Salt Lake County, et cetera. The Salt Lake County's attorney's office had not made any formal request to the auditor's office for records. The records officer for the auditor's office was not informed of the release of these records. And going to page 12, records that were disclosed would disclose information relate regarding to relating allegations of personal misconduct, mismanagement, or illegal activity of a governmental employee. They cannot be co corroborated by the state auditor. Then this is absolutely essential for you to understand. In the last paragraph, um, underlined, it says, charges could not be corroborated by the state auditor. So the information that's being presented to them, that's incomplete, draft works, et cetera. The auditor says, the AG representing the auditor says this information, there was nothing there that could substantiate the charges against me. Um, why a signed statement? You have to think about those who come into court. We ask witnesses to stand and swear an oath that they're gonna tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We ask jurors to do the same thing except not prosecutors. The, uh, and I know, uh, Mr. Senator Musselman, I don't know if you're an attorney or not, but, um, Senator Brammer and Senator Weiler are well acquainted with this. This is the Supreme Court's oath as they're sworn in, I su I that I will support and obey. I do solemnly swear that I will support and obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, that I will discharge the duties of attorney and counselor at law as an officer of courts with honesty, fidelity, professionalism, civility, and then I will faithfully observe the rules of pro professional conduct and standards of professionalism and civility, promo promulgated by the Supreme Court. We have prosecutors, and well just, I'll use this as an example with prosecutors. In order to become attorney, an attorney, you have to get into an accredited university. You have to apply and be received into a law school. You have to pass numerous classes to graduate from a law school. You then have to take a bar exam, pass that, then you swear an oath to follow this call. The constitution and the laws, I'm strictly, uh, just simply asking that it, they sign an affidavit that they've followed the rules, they've been educated in how to do so. I've been told I don't understand what this bill does, that it doesn't do what I, I think it does. It does exactly what it, I think it does. And it's exactly what my intention is that prosecutors and investigators and the state auditor's office sign an affidavit that they simply follow the rules. Thank you for your time. That that concludes our presentation computer.

4. Committee chair (presiding)1:01:39

   Hold on one quick second here. Senator Wire, given you stated that concludes your presentation. We'll come back to the committee for clarifying questions. Senator Brammer.

5. Sen. Brammer1:01:50

   Thank You. Yeah. Um, I think the, uh, first of all, I'm very sympathetic. I, I think I've had a pretty long record of being critical of some of the Salt Lake County, uh, prosecutions that I've seen and how they've acted. Um, I was, you know, I, I watched closely on, uh, you know, I, unfortunately, I've seen other prosecutions with similar behavior out of Salt Lake County. And what I worry about on this is, um, we oftentimes fall into the risk of somebody breaks the law. So let's make it super illegal. Can you tell me how that is different than what happened here? Um, you know, they're already under oath to, to use proper evidence. There's under ethical duties. They have, there's motions to suppress, there's lots of things that could have been done. Um, but there's also a lot of violations in the middle of all of this violations as far as the dissemination of public information. So there were clearly breaches of the law. Why does this fix it as opposed to just recognize that it wasn't appropriately handled?

6. Sen. Todd Weiler1:03:09

   Yeah, I, I think that's a fair question, Mr. Chair. And, and, um, first of all, let me clarify. I was not counsel for Mr. Bullock, so I was not involved in, in the case, per se. I did read transcripts from some of the hearings. I read transcripts from some of the depositions and some of the interviews. Um, here's what I can tell you. In, in this instance, Mr. Bullock and his very competent counsel we're waving their arms and yelling, Hey, none of this was proper. The judge didn't care. The prosecutors didn't care. Nobody cared. Nobody cared that the law was broken, uh, to prosecute him for doing something that he had permission from his board and his treasurer to do. Well, let, let me frame it a little differently. So, um, when John Swallow was being prosecuted by the same office, that office gathered all of the documents that included his attorney-client privilege documents, and they failed to use a taint team. And if you're not familiar with it, a taint team is essentially, uh, where they go through and they say, these are ones that our prosecutors cannot look at because it's attorney-client privileged information. So they looked at the whole legal strategy for John Swallow improperly, and the judge didn't care, and the pro and the Salt Lake County District Attorney's office didn't care. Yeah. Um, does passing more laws actually change that, or is there a problem in the executive function of the office when something like this comes up? Um, I think I, I'm, I think that I, I, and let me retract a little bit and say I agree with Mr. Bullock. I think that the vast majority, um, well over 95% of our prosecutors are, um, good faith actors and, and are following the confines of the law. But I, I, um, and I am very sympathetic to the concern that we can't make something double illegal or triple illegal. What I'm seeing here is there are no consequences whatsoever for a prosecutor who decides to use evidence that was not legally obtained. And I do think that if you require an affidavit with a consequence on the front end, it will require a gut check. It will require, uh, someone to come back and say, well, wait a second, before I sign this affidavit, do, am I sure I have all my ducks in a row. Um, and by the way, Mr. Chair, before I forget, I do need to move the sub. But, um, so, so that's the best answer I have for you. Um,

7. Sen. Brammer1:05:45

   And, and I guess this is the last, last question. The, the concern that I have is, you know, there's already the oath for the attorney. There's already, you know, what the judge should have done in terms of caring about it, Or could have done at least Yeah. Or could have Done. Uh, there's already what the bar, you know, should do in terms of their enforcement of these. There's already what, uh, you know, the prosecutor's duty, you know, to do justice as opposed to just serve their, they have an extra duty within the framework of attorney, uh, attorney duties, um, to do justice as opposed to just serve their client's best interest. There's all of these things, and it's like, okay, they're willing to break four of them, but if we make them do a fifth, it's gonna solve it.

8. Sen. Todd Weiler1:06:33

   Yeah. I, I, I, I am sympathetic to that concern. Um, and, uh, I I also think that, um, this one would be different because it would attach a misdemeanor, um, consequence to it. So that, that, that's the best I can answer. Okay.

9. Committee chair (presiding)1:06:48

   Thanks. Okay. Um, I guess I have one quick question.

10. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:06:54

    And Mr. Bullock, I'm, I'm not an attorney. I'm more Joe the plumber, um, on the, on the committee, both practically Joe, the real estate broker And, and symbolically. So when the attorneys pontificate on theory, I asked the more pedestrian questions of, of, uh, maybe process. Um, so just in, in a practical sense, uh, all, all, all the materials were gathered legally, but in the process of, of paperwork processing somebody forgets to sign, is, is the act of signing the misdemeanor or not signing the misdemeanor or the act of what, what happens at that point? Everything's gathered legally, they simply don't sign it. Now they guilty of a misdemeanor class a misdemeanor, $2,500. Fine. You're in jail. No, well, hold, hold on. Sorry. Excuse me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The question is for Senator Weiler. Okay. Okay.

11. Sen. Todd Weiler1:07:55

    So it, if you read line 46 and 47, it says, the, a government official make, let me make sure I'm on the sub. Let me get to the sub, because I, I presented the sub. So it says, an individual who fails to comply with sections two or three is guilty of the Class A misdemeanor. So sub subsection two says that if an auditor or investigator provides or obtains evidence in a criminal case that will be used to prosecute, the auditor investigator shall sign a statement attesting that the evidence was obtained or provided in compliance with the state until law. So there's no timing element here, um, Mr. Chair. And then number three, when a prosecuting attorney discloses evidence to a defendant in a criminal case for a felony offense, the prosecuting attorney shall sign a statement testing that the prosecutor, attorney, prosecuting attorney has complied with state and federal law on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defendant, including Rule 16. Uh, again, so there's no timing. So the, the way I would answer your question is, is if they forget to do it, um, when it's brought to their attention that they forgot to do it, they could do it, then I don't see, I don't see that it has to be within seven days of this or seven days of that. But so I, so the way I read it is that if they sign the statement, but the, but the statement's untrue, that's what would bring on the, the consequence.

12. Sen. Calvin R. Musselman1:09:15

    I see. Okay.

13. Committee chair (presiding)1:09:17

    I don't see any other clarifying questions from the committee. We'll go to public comment. Is there anybody from the public who would like to speak to this? Please raise your hand. I see 1, 2, 2. I see two. Is that fair? If I'm not counting that right, then I apologize. Come on up. Go ahead. And as you both know the drill, but please state your name, who you represent, and, uh, testify as quickly as you can. You can sign after.

14. Stuart Young, Criminal Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General1:09:40

    Thank you. Stuart Young, criminal Deputy Attorney General at the office of the Utah Attorney General. I don't do this often. I urge the committee to oppose this bill. It attacks in-house investigators and prosecutors unnecessarily. It's not needed, and it has serious problems of implementation. There is no state that I've found that criminalizes the, the discovery process. Well, I think it's great that Utah likes to push the envelope. Sometimes. This is not the area to push the envelope. Mr. Bullock's experience and story is unfortunate. I don't dismiss his concerns and has have em empathy for his story, but it's a wide overcorrection, uh, based on this case in the story, Senator Weiler and the prosecutor worked together last year to implement the Prosecutorial Conduct Commission. The ink is barely dry on the implementation of that commission. And now we're here with something else for his unfortunate case. There's a wide scope to this bill. It affects both all in-house investigators on a county level and at the office of the Attorney General. It affects every county prosecutor's office, as well as the entirety of the criminal prosecutors at the office of the Attorney General. I've already received notice that a number of prosecutors, even my office, have thoughts about possibly leaving the practice of criminal prosecution should this bill get movement, because again, it criminalizes the discovery process. Um, the bill requires the prosecutor to affirm that they've complied with state and federal laws on disclosure of ex exculpatory evidence. Um, I'm gonna push back on the characterization that's just been done, that this is only about each person affirming what they've done in their own lane. This bill requires the prosecutor to know all of the evidence of the prosecution team. And that prosecution team includes all prosecutors, the in-house investigators, and other law enforcement agency, uh, officials working the case, because according to state law, they're all part of that prosecution team. So the character, the characterization that this only affirm, this is only about kind of each person's lane. That's, that seems incorrect from this bill. There are at least three institutions that already police this conduct. We've got the courts, they can and will sanction egregious conduct. They will suppress evidence, dismiss cases, and possibly sanction prosecutors if evidence is suppressed in violation of constitutional rules. A gigia letter is put in the agent or the in in-house investigator's file. You've also got the Judicial Conduct Commission. Apparently, the, in Mr. Bullock's unfortunate case, the judge made a number of comments that were very concerning, you know, and, and that judicial conduct Commission can also, uh, sanction judges and deal with judges. You've also got the Utah State Bar. They can and will sanction egregious conduct. Referrals are made to the bar often, and the bar will take action they deem appropriate. And finally, not to belabor this point, we have the prosecutorial, uh, the Prosecutor Conduct Commission. This legislature has pen, has spent thousands of dollars to put that commission together. We have not yet seen how that commission will work, but that commission is a direct response from, uh, Mr. Bullock's unfortunate, uh, uh, unfortunate prosecution and so forth. Uh, additionally, there's no men's rea in this bill. Uh, it means that the recklessness standard applies. And given that men's rea, this bill will potentially, uh, criminalize the conduct of both investigators and prosecutors. If the court rules that some action has violated the fourth or Fin fifth Amendments on the backend. And I've got a, I've got a number of examples, but I've already talked, uh, ad nauseum and probably too long, um, because this unnecessarily pro penalizes investigators and prosecutors, when there are already appropriate methods to deal with Senator Wilder's concerns, we would urge opposition to this bill. Thank you.

15. Committee chair (presiding)1:13:30

    Uh, time is yours. Go ahead.

16. Carl Hollan, Executive Director, Statewide Association of Prosecutors and Public Attorneys1:13:32

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is he Been about the same amount of time he did it. I don't know what it was. Two Minutes. We'll

17. Committee chair (presiding)1:13:36

    Make it quick. Go ahead,

18. Carl Hollan, Executive Director, Statewide Association of Prosecutors and Public Attorneys1:13:38

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Carl Holland. I'm the Executive Director of Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Uh, Mr. Young has already made a lot of the statements that I think are appropriate, but I do just want to echo those. Uh, I do disagree that, uh, with the characterization of Mr. Bullock, that there are no consequences for violating the law in this arena. As I look at it, in the instant criminal case where something is happening, uh, the party has the opportunity to file a motion to suppress or exclude evidence, motions for sanctions, motions for contempt, uh, which can include up to 30 days in jail. Uh, they can file a motion to recuse the prosecutor's office, which we have seen actually several times in the recent history, uh, particularly in the fourth district court, when judges found that prosecutor offices were too close to an issue or maybe, uh, there was alleged misconduct and recused. An entire prosecuting office required other prosecutors to come in and handle the matter. Uh, on top of that, uh, after the conclusion of those, uh, remedies, uh, there are bar complaint processes as Mr. Young has set forth. There is a post complaint process against law enforcement officers who have violated the law. There are civil remedies in the state system. There is a 1983 claim that can be done in federal court. And for egregious conduct like this, uh, they, these people can always be referred for criminal investigation and criminal prosecution by another criminal, uh, prosecuting entity. Uh, my understanding, having spoke with Mr. Bullock, is that he pursued none of these options in his case. And so it's concerning to the prosecutors that, uh, he is now coming and seeking additional sanctions on prosecutors and saying that these remedies were insufficient when he didn't even explore them himself. Uh, as Mr. Young stated, we now have a prosecutor conduct commission, and not only is the ink still wet, the members of that commission haven't even been appointed. They'll be appointed next week by the Senate. Uh, so that commission, uh, really needs some time to show whether or not it is an appropriate remedy. I'd also disagree with the characterization that, uh, this bill doesn't hold anyone accountable for what others do. Under both state and federal law, prosecutors are impugned all knowledge that any investigator in the case has, whether the prosecutor has actual knowledge or not. And so, uh, as I've heard from several county attorneys, they fear that if this bill were to pass, they would have to hire investigators to investigate the investigation before they turn over the investigative materials in every single case. Could, could you, Could you wrap up please? Yeah. Uh, those are concerns. We urge, uh, that you, uh, oppose this bill, uh, and we would be willing to work with the sponsor if there are any fixes that could be made. We just don't understand what those could be under this framework.

19. Committee chair (presiding)1:16:41

    Thank you. Seeing no further here in person, we'll go to one online. Nate Mutter, time is yours. If you know the drill, state your name, who you represent, and where you're from, given you're online.

20. Nate Mutter, Chief Criminal Investigator, Office of the Attorney General, representing LELC1:16:53

    Yes, sir. Uh, thank you. Uh, chair Pro Tim, uh, Nate Mutter, chair of the Law Enforcement Legislative Committee, as well as, uh, the Chief of Investigations at the Utah Attorney General's Office. Um, both of which, uh, uh, oppose, uh, this bill, uh, you, you've heard a lot of the concerns already. I, I, I want to talk about the, the process. Um, our office receives, um, information from all, all sorts of entities. And, um, uh, there is a process in place for, for criminal investigators, uh, every step of the way. Um, when we go to open a criminal case with the courts, we have to write, uh, an, an affidavit. So we're swearing an oath to the court that everything in the affidavit is true. Uh, when we, when we go gather evidence, whether it be through subpoena or search warrant, we're signing an affidavit saying that everything in that affidavit is true. If any of that is violated, uh, or in violation of law, not only are we subject to criminal penalties, but we are subject to Brady, uh, Juab issues, uh, post certification issues. And, and when those things occur, uh, we are at risk of losing our careers. Um, so to, to suggest that there, there, you know, is no process or, or no penalty for, for investigators, um, for, you know, unlawfully obtaining evidence or, or producing evidence, uh, that, that's just simply not the case. Um, and, and because of these, uh, reasons, we, we ask that this committee opposed the bill. Um, and, uh, if there are any questions, I'm, I'm happy to answer.

21. Committee chair (presiding)1:18:35

    Thank you. Thank you. With that concludes our public comment. We'll come back to the committee for any further clarifying questions and or committee action. We are on, we, we do need to move the first sub, is that

22. Sen. Todd Weiler1:18:48

    Correct? Yeah. So I'll, I'll go ahead and move to delete Senate bill 2 59, title and Body and replace it with first substitute, uh, Senate Bill 2 59.

23. Committee chair (presiding)1:18:55

    That motion is in order. Um, is, is there any, um, further comments from the committee as it pertains to just moving the sub? Seeing none, I'll place that order or place that a motion. The motion is to delete and tiit by SB 2 59 and replace it with SB 2 59. First substitute. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed to it? Hearing none, I rule that motion passed unanimously. We are back to the we are.

24. Sen. Todd Weiler1:19:24

    And Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a verbal amendment on line 43 of the first sub.

25. Committee chair (presiding)1:19:29

    Okay. Hold on one second. Are you ready for that line? 43? Go ahead.

26. Sen. Todd Weiler1:19:38

    Where it says class A, I'd like to change the A to a C. So that would change it from a class A to a class C misdemeanor.

27. Committee chair (presiding)1:19:47

    That motion would be in order. I'll restate the motion. The motion would be on line, what was it, 43 on line 43 to change class A or actually just the A to a C. Is there any discussion to that motion from the Kemp committee? If your light's on now, it's a discussion on the motion to amend from A to C. Seeing none, I'll, uh, would you like to speak any further

28. Sen. Todd Weiler1:20:14

    To that? No, just that Class C is lower than a Class A.

29. Committee chair (presiding)1:20:18

    It's a lesser offense. Fair enough. All those in favor of that verbal emotion, that verbal motion, um, of changing from a class A to a Class C? Say, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? See, seeing none, I rule that motion passes unanimously. The, um, SB 2, 2 50 nines first sub is amended.

30. Sen. Todd Weiler1:20:44

    And then just to speed things along, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move, um, that we favorably recommend first substitute Senate bill 2 59 as amended to the floor of the Senate.

31. Committee chair (presiding)1:20:53

    The motion is order to replace the motion is to favorably recommend SB 2 59 first substitute evidence declaration amendments as amended. Would you like to speak to that?

32. Sen. Todd Weiler1:21:03

    Yeah. So, um, as amended on the first sub, this bill really comes down to lines 37 and 38. The prosecuting attorney shall sign a statement attesting that the prosecuting attorney has complied with state and federal law. Mr. Chair, this bill is asking the prosecutors to comply with the existing law, and they have come up and said, we can't possibly, we can't possibly tell the court that we've followed the law. We would have to hire more people if you're going to make us tell the court we follow the law. That's my, my, that's my summation.

33. Committee chair (presiding)1:21:43

    Thank you. I will, uh, restate the motion. Um, seeing no further committee discussion, actually, that was your sum. So we'll just restate the motion. The motion is to favorably recommend first substitute SB 2 59 evidence declaration amendments as amended. Um, let's, I'll just call the vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Senator Brammer, go ahead. Yeah,

34. Sen. Brammer1:22:11

    I think this is kind of the, the bigger concern on this for me, I, these are already within, in this is a, a further signature saying what you'll do, what you already took multiple oaths to do all along the process. And that's the frustrating part on this. You know, the, the prosecutor that was involved in Mr. Bullock's case, you know, I've, I've seen some of his work before and it's, I have concerns. Um, and I think that there was some really shoddy work and it was cutting corners and doing, um, in my opinion, things that were not in compliance with the oaths that were taken. Um, I, I'm not comfortable saying, now sign another document confirming the oath that you already made subject to the penalties that you already should be subject to. And so I, my my concern is just it feels like this is let's you know they did something wrong and they got away with it. And for that, I'm really sorry, Mr. Bullock, I've been sympathetic to, to your cause. And I, I am, I'm on your side on this, but I also think that this is not, I don't think this gives the solution to what, what we're talking about. I, I think that, you know, people need to follow through on the O'S that they already took, and they need to be held accountable to the O'S that they already took. And the bar needs to hold them accountable to the O'S that they took. And the courts need to hold them accountable to the OS that they took. And the procedures allow for all of that. And signing another document for people who are not following the OS that they're already breaking doesn't fix this. And, and I like, I know, I don't want you to take this as you know, that I'm a no because of, I don't believe your, your story or, or what's happened. I'm a no because I'm disappointed in the rest of the system. I want it to step up rather than, rather than claim that this, uh, that just signing another document is going to catch the people that already broke multiple oaths. And so, you know, for that reason, I'm gonna be a no on it. Thanks.

35. Committee chair (presiding)1:24:23

    I'm gonna actually restate the motion and come back to the committee on a roll call vote just for clarity purposes. But I will state that I get a sense of where this may be going. I'm not certain, but sometimes the act of bringing it in here brings things to light with passion that is appropriate to shed the light on a circumstance that is clearly, clearly, um, maybe the word is too strong to say unjust, but certainly not appropriate with that roll call vote Represent, or sorry, Senator Vickers. Baldry Brammer. No. Escamia. No Fillmore. Oh no, sorry. Musman. No Pitcher. No. And Senator Weiler. Aye. I rule that motion fails. One to five.