Video & Transcript : 'pretrial hearing' :

Page 28 of 500
HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

JDC Public Hearing 03-09-2023 10:00am

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

JDC DEFER, JDC Public Hearings 02-17-2023 9:30am

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

HHS Public Hearing 02-06-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

PSM Public Hearing 02-06-2023 3:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

PSM Public Hearing 02-03-2023 3:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

HHS Public Hearing 02-03-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

TCA Public Hearing 02-02-2023 3:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

CPN Public Hearing 02-03-2023 9:30am

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

WTL Public Hearing 02-01-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

HOU, HOU Public Hearing 02-02-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

HHS, HHS-CPN Public Hearings 02-01-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

AEN Public Hearing 02-01-2023 1:00pm

HI
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

GVO Public Hearing 01-31-2023 3:00pm

TX
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 8th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • I guess that's kind of what we hear loosely, not...
  • I hear you.
  • The chair, hearing none, the substitute is adopted. Mr.
  • And so you asked the question at the hearing in March 2016.
  • Hearing none, House Bill 2282 will be left pending. Thank you.
Bills: HB 1194, HB 1221, HB1738, HB1913, HB2177, HB2178, HB2180, HB2229, HB2282, HB2448, HB2492, HB2777, HB2984, HB3357, HB3553, HB3602
Keywords: emergency protection order, protective order, magistrate, criminal procedure, victim safety, family violence, domestic violence, stalking, assault, magistrate's order, temporary protection, court order duration, defendant restrictions, Article 17.292, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, emergency restraining order, victim protection, firearm restriction, pretrial intervention, reimbursement fee
WA
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits Jan 7th, 2026 at 01:00 pm

Transcript Highlights:
  • Third, although having high-quality, accessible pretrial data is important for evaluating pretrial outcomes
  • The pretrial reform task force recommended courts implement a wide variety of pretrial services to maximize
  • pretrial services, and actions Washington courts could take to increase the use of pretrial services
  • or their next pretrial conference.
  • the point of their next hearing or their next pretrial conference.
Keywords: 904, all
Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee held a hearing on a State Auditor’s Office performance audit about expanding pretrial services in Washington. Audit staff said most of the 14 courts reviewed wanted to expand or implement pretrial services but faced barriers such as funding, limited community resources, and public safety concerns. They also reported that only three courts could provide usable data, that pretrial service use varied across courts, and that some demographic disparities appeared in the data, including lower rates of pretrial services for Hispanic defendants at two Spokane courts and for Black defendants at Spokane Superior Court. The audit also found that many courts do not collect pretrial data in an accessible format and recommended clearer guidance, better data systems, stakeholder outreach, and evaluation of program effectiveness. The State Auditor’s Office also noted that the Administrative Office of the Courts’ pretrial pilot program had received legislative funding and was being expanded. Representatives from Spokane Municipal Court, Grays Harbor County District Court, and Yakima County discussed their local programs and data. Spokane officials described a robust integrated system and said their pretrial services unit, launched in 2021, had reduced bail use, jail time, failure-to-appear rates, and recidivism, while helping judges make quicker release decisions. Grays Harbor staff echoed the audit’s findings on cost savings and said data collection is labor-intensive for limited-jurisdiction courts, especially without dedicated staff. They also described using risk assessment tools and pilot funding to support alternatives to jail. Yakima and Spokane participants emphasized that stable funding and standalone pretrial services units would improve program consistency and outcomes. Committee members asked about how pretrial services reduce detention time, how courts can better communicate cost savings and public safety benefits, and why statewide data collection is difficult. Audit staff and court representatives said early assessments, better information at first appearance, and integrated case-management systems help reduce jail stays and improve release decisions. The hearing ended without formal committee action, and the chair adjourned the meeting after inviting written public testimony on the audit topics.
WA
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Committee to Hear SAO Performance Audits Jan 7th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • Third, although having high-quality, accessible pretrial data is important for evaluating pretrial outcomes
  • In the same year, the Pretrial Reform Task Force recommended courts... ...the Pretrial Reform Task Force
  • eligible for pretrial release.
  • pretrial services, and actions Washington courts could take to increase the use of pretrial services
  • AOC pretrial pilot project.
Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on expanding the use of pretrial services in Washington. Auditors said most of the 14 local courts they reviewed wanted to expand or implement pretrial services but faced barriers such as funding, limited community resources, and public safety concerns. The audit found variation in how courts use pretrial services, potential disparities in who receives them, and major data limitations because most courts do not track pretrial outcomes in an accessible, standardized way. Auditors recommended that local courts engage stakeholders early, improve data collection and evaluation, and that the Administrative Office of the Courts provide more standardized guidance and support. They also noted the legislature had funded an AOC pilot program to help courts expand pretrial services. Court representatives from Spokane Municipal Court, Grays Harbor County District Court, and Yakima County described their own programs and supported the audit’s general conclusions. Spokane officials said their pretrial unit, funded locally and built around risk and needs assessments, had reduced bail use, detention time, failures to appear, and recidivism, but emphasized the need for stable funding and better public understanding of pretrial alternatives. Grays Harbor staff similarly said pretrial supervision and least-restrictive alternatives save jail costs and reduce reoffending, but that collecting data across all cases is labor-intensive and difficult without dedicated staff. Yakima and Spokane also highlighted the value of integrated case-management systems and centralized data tracking. Committee members asked about how reduced detention time occurs, how courts can communicate cost savings and public safety outcomes, and why many courts struggle to track pretrial data. Auditors explained that early risk and financial screening helps judges make quicker release decisions and that better data and stakeholder communication are key to building support. No formal action or vote was taken; the committee held the required hearing and then adjourned after public testimony was invited and written testimony information was provided.
ND
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Judiciary Committee Apr 1st, 2026

Judiciary Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • So that's another advantage of pretrial.
  • So judges will hold hearings once or twice a week.
  • The constitutional challenge comes from it is a pretrial penalty or it's perceived to be a pretrial penalty
  • The constitutional challenge comes from it is a pretrial penalty or it's perceived to be a pretrial penalty
  • But I think it’s incumbent upon this committee, after what we hear and what we’ll hear more testimony
Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to continue its study of charitable gaming, especially the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations and the relationship between charities, site owners, and gaming manufacturers/distributors. Legislative Council reviewed the background memo and Attorney General’s Gaming Division explained the legal framework, including site authorizations, rent limits, allowable expenses, and restrictions on distributors and manufacturers. Members focused heavily on electronic pull tabs, asking about the large gap between gross proceeds and adjusted proceeds, how much is paid out in winnings, how much is retained for expenses, and whether the 60% allowable-expense cap is being used as intended. The AG’s office said e-tabs account for most gaming volume, that winnings make up much of the difference, and that some organizations do not use the full 60% while others may exceed it, though only the capped amount counts as gaming expense. The committee also discussed the number of gaming organizations that appear to own or be affiliated with bars, the ways those ownership structures are formed, and whether some arrangements may create conflicts or site-selection pressure. The League of Cities and the Association of Counties described the local site-authorization process and recent model policies adopted after the 2025 session. Cities said they can require signed agreements, limit games and machines, set qualifications, and charge up to $100 for site authorization, but cannot require charities to donate net proceeds or force a specific charity or site. They said the new policies are meant to add transparency and local control, though the more controversial parts involve requiring a local nexus or community connection. County representatives said the issue is mostly a city matter and that counties generally take a lighter-touch approach. Committee members raised concerns about whether local rules could unfairly exclude larger regional charities or create inconsistent standards across cities. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance said it supports the study and provided information on charities that own or are affiliated with bars, emphasizing that most gaming organizations do not own alcoholic beverage establishments. Its representative said some charities may pursue bar ownership for site stability and diversification, while others decide against it because operating a bar is difficult. He also said a ban on charity-owned bars could raise federal tax-law issues depending on how it is written, and agreed to provide more detail. The committee asked Legislative Council and the Gaming Alliance for additional information on ownership structures and federal-law questions before the next meeting. Later, the Racing Commission gave a separate update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, and related charitable partnerships, and the State Hospital superintendent reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, staffing, and wait lists; no votes were taken on these presentations.
MO
MO

Missouri 2026 Regular Session

Corrections and Public Institutions Feb 9th, 2026

Corrections and Public Institutions

Transcript Highlights:
  • So with that, we are going to move back into hearing.
  • crimes while they’re out on pretrial release.
  • The pretrial release office, because there's no right to pretrial release.
  • And usually the pretrial release, at least in, I'm sorry that happened to that gentleman, but pretrial
  • Well, then that concludes our hearing on House Bill 712.
Summary: The committee first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee substitute combining House Bills 2592, 2834, and 2787 into one measure. The combined substitute was then voted do pass by a unanimous roll call, recorded as 15 ayes and 0 noes after a brief correction to the tally. The committee then heard House Bill 1786, which would raise the Highway Patrol’s spending threshold for purchasing vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and related specialized equipment without returning to the legislature from $100,000 to $500,000. The sponsor and Highway Patrol witnesses said the current cap is outdated because boats, armored vehicles, bomb trucks, and aircraft equipment now cost far more than $100,000, while members asked about inflation, the revolving fund, and whether a lower increase might be more appropriate. No opposition testimony was offered. Next, House Bill 2885 was heard. It would redirect the first $1 million in annual boat registration fee revenue away from general revenue and into the Missouri Water Patrol Division. The sponsor and Highway Patrol said registration revenue has declined while operating costs have risen, and the division needs the money to support enforcement, search and rescue, dive operations, and boating safety programs. Members asked how much revenue is collected and whether the change would affect other programs; testimony indicated the bill would mainly earmark existing revenue rather than increase overall department funding. The committee also heard House Bill 2694, which would exempt four fee-supported funds from the end-of-biennium sweep to general revenue: the Highway Patrol Academy Fund, the State Forensic Laboratory Account, the Boiler and Pressure Vessels Safety Fund, and the Elevator Safety Fund. The sponsor and Department of Public Safety witnesses said the sweeps make long-term planning difficult and can disrupt training, lab support, and safety inspection operations, though members raised concerns about excess balances, guardrails, and whether fee reductions should be considered if reserves grow too large. Finally, House Bill 1712 was heard; it would make intentionally failing to charge an electronic monitoring device a crime, closing a loophole in existing tampering law. The sponsor, a sheriff, and other witnesses said the bill addresses deliberate attempts to evade monitoring, while members discussed battery warnings, rural access to electricity, and the costs and benefits of pretrial release. No votes were taken on the later bills before the committee adjourned.
NM
NM

New Mexico 2025 Regular Session

Senate - Judiciary Feb 3rd, 2025

Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • In this role, as a lawyer, we're always used to hearing one side of the argument and then hearing the
  • We get to be the judge by hearing both sides and letting the two sides hear what one another has to say
  • Our pretrial program really takes a public safety approach to pretrial.
  • entire pretrial justice puzzle.
  • I hope all cops hear this.
ND
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Judiciary Committee Apr 1st, 2026 at 09:00 am

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • So that trigger point is really either by word that we're hearing... ...by word that we're hearing and
  • So that's another advantage of pretrial.
  • The constitutional challenge comes from it being a pretrial penalty, or it's perceived to be a pretrial
  • So we're hearing the right words defined.
  • But I think it's incumbent upon this committee, I feel, after what we hear and we'll hear more testimony
Keywords: 908, all