Transcript Highlights:

• It was referred to the prosecutor, which we always did when we thought there was a criminal allegation
• I don't know what the starting pay is right now. I think it's in the 40 area.
• and I don't know what they all entailed, but small fine here and there, but to say it's cheaper to pay
• But again, the prosecutor of, I'm not quite sure what county, Potosi is in, but the prosecutor has not
• Assaults against corrections officers are not turned over to prosecutors at all.

Committee: House Corrections and Public Institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• It was referred to the prosecutor, which we always did when we thought there was a criminal allegation
• I don't know what the starting pay is right now. I think it's in the 40 area.
• and I don't know what they all entailed, but small fine here and there, but to say it's cheaper to pay
• But again, the prosecutor of, I'm not quite sure what county, Potosi is in, but the prosecutor has not
• Assaults against corrections officers are not turned over to prosecutors at all.

Committee: House Corrections and Public Institutions

Summary: The committee first took up several bills in executive session. House Committee Amendment No. 1 was adopted and rolled into a substitute for House Bills 3292 and 2171, which then received a do pass recommendation by a 10-2 vote. House Bill 2753 also received a committee substitute and was voted do pass 10-2. House Bill 2912 was voted do pass by an 11-1 vote. During this portion, one member criticized the Department of Corrections for not responding to inquiries or attending earlier hearings, and the chair acknowledged the concern. The committee then heard testimony on House Bills 1616 and 2832, sponsored by Representatives Allen and Collins, which would create an independent corrections oversight structure, including an Office of Corrections and Transparency or ombudsman-style advocate with authority to inspect facilities, investigate complaints, access records, and report publicly. The sponsors argued that DOC currently lacks independent oversight and that internal review is insufficient. They cited deaths, unsafe conditions, medical neglect, and the need for confidential reporting by staff and incarcerated people. Committee members questioned whether the bills would duplicate existing processes, what the fiscal impact would be, and whether the proposal had enough enforcement power; the sponsors said the office would be small, likely around $300,000, and were open to amendments. Supporters testified that independent oversight is needed because of repeated deaths in custody, lack of trust in internal complaint systems, retaliation concerns for staff, and large taxpayer costs from lawsuits and settlements. Witnesses from Empower Missouri, Missouri Justice Coalition, the NAACP, ACLU of Missouri, and FAMM all supported the bills, with several emphasizing that prisons are closed institutions with inherent power imbalances and that external oversight would improve transparency, safety, and accountability for both incarcerated people and staff. The hearing ended after testimony in support, with no opposition presented and the committee adjourning without taking final action on the oversight bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm paying attention to all of you as well.
• I was actually raised in the shadow of the Capitol.
• Hi, mother, I was raised in the. I currently reside in Albuquerque.
• As an analyst majority, I was born and raised in Santa Fe.
• As said, Senator Maestas started out as a prosecutor just like I did, you know, as baby prosecutors.

Committee: Senate Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• criminals</c><01:04:49.599><c> on</c> prosecutor who prosecutes criminals on prosecutor who prosecutes
• Now, ordinary police and prosecutors.
• . prosecutors. prosecutors.
• Um, how many prosecutors do you currently have?
• Um, so you have seven prosecutors right now?

Bills: HF3423 , HF2354 , HF3634

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't just raise those This bill goes a step further. It doesn't just raise those risks.
• Now it raises some legal challenges. I think it raises some constitutional challenges.
• In my knowledge, not even being an attorney but also but but pay close attention.
• Family law matters where there may not be a prosecutor. There may not be a defense lawyer.
• We're down Greste food in those local communities pay a price for it. They lose the foot traffic.

Transcript Highlights:

• So about a 10% raise on aggregate for the three individuals there, correct? That's correct.
• The one thing that the state of Oklahoma lacks is prosecutor buy-in.
• Prosecutor buy-in.
• And again, what's so frustrating when I see them come from a rural community being raised, born and raised
• She was a tough prosecutor. She and I may have battled a little bit.

Summary: The Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety and Judiciary heard presentations from several agencies. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner reported full National Association of Medical Examiners accreditation, major improvements in turnaround times, staffing growth to 18 forensic pathologists, and expanded rural coverage, but warned that a flat budget would leave it short of funds by August. The agency requested $4.5 million in recurring funding for professional staff and operations, citing rising supply, transport, IT, and facility costs, and said failure to fund the request would cause a catastrophic collapse. Members asked about cremation fees, other revenue sources, and the consequences of not funding the request; the chair said the recommendation would be forwarded but not necessarily adopted. The Council on Judicial Complaints said complaints against judges have roughly doubled since 2018, with most complaints involving dissatisfaction with judicial rulings rather than misconduct. The council emphasized its goal of responding within 90 days, its new judges college to prevent ethics problems, and the cost of removal proceedings. It requested an additional $125,000 on top of its current $300,000 appropriation to cover rising operating costs, a lease increase, judicial college expenses, and salary adjustments. Senators asked about case prioritization, turnover, staffing, and whether a specific courtroom incident could be investigated; the director said it would be an appropriate complaint to review. The Oklahoma Indigent Defense System described heavy caseloads in rural counties, a mix of satellite offices and county contracts, and a need to reduce attorney workloads, especially in Norman and Lawton. It requested funding for six resource navigators, a project manager, direct-care support, eight additional attorneys, internal training, and continued county contract funding, while also discussing possible diversion programs and grant opportunities. The Department of Corrections requested increases for county jail backup per diem and ICON maintenance, highlighted contraband interdiction, centralized visitation, mobile check-ins, and tablet-based efficiencies, and discussed an ICE detention contract at Watonga that brings in monthly revenue and jobs but is not counted in the budget request. The Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs presented a revised legacy-fund request tied to purchasing and remodeling a building shared with OSBI, saying the new plan would cost about $25 million total and save money compared with new construction; it also noted declining wire-transfer revenue tied to fewer grow operations and other enforcement changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• More often than not, it's defense counsel raising the issue. The child is referred to an evaluator.
• The first two years were in juvenile court as a juvenile court prosecutor.
• Generally, that means we have to pay more to have people do the job.
• Are we not paying them enough? Are we not making the job attractive enough?
• Which is, for it to be, and you see the prosecutors even nodding their heads, yeah.

Committee: House Courts, Corrections & Justice Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• A huge burden on these DAs and these prosecutors to get this stuff in the queue.
• It does not require any governmental entity to pay for the costs associated with it.
• And so, raising the age from 16 to 18 is protection for our youth.
• We have our own special agents; we have our own special prosecutors.
• Many patients self-pay for their care.

Bills: SB41 , SB33 , SB32 , SB30

Committee: Senate Senate Health & Public Affairs

Keywords: sexual crimes, statute of limitations, criminal justice, victim rights, child abuse, individualized treatment, investigational treatment, health care, life-threatening illness, patient rights, physician recommendation, informed consent, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, child protection, prosecution, crime amendments, SB30, induced abortion, abortion reporting

Transcript Highlights:

• Um the question was raised members.
• :38.400><c> another</c> merely gives our prosecutors another merely gives our prosecutors another tool
• No, it has to be sued and pay back.
• You pay your fine, you keep doing it.
• Um, they get reinstatement, they get back pay, interest on the back pay, compensation for any special

Bills: SF0087 , SF0088 , SF0092

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> very little incentive for a prosecutor very little incentive for a prosecutor to<00:03:07.760><c
• </c><00:23:06.559><c> this</c> who for years has been raising this who for years has been raising this
• So prosecutors are making consideration.
• </c><01:26:40.320><c> Um,</c> pay a fine or something like that.
• Um, pay a fine or something like that.

Bills: HF3465 , HF3782 , HF4075 , HF391 , HF3946 , HF2976 , HF3350

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• transcript, they have to pay more money.
• , they have to pay more money.
• , they have to pay more money.
• Um so they're they're paying for them.
• So, we may want to, out of curiosity, talk to some of the county prosecutors later.

Summary: The Family Court Subcommittee of the Children and Family Law Committee convened under Chairman Mark Pearson to continue work begun by the prior special committee on the family division of circuit court. Pearson emphasized a collaborative, consensus-based approach with the judiciary and said the subcommittee would build on earlier “low-hanging fruit” reforms while tracking how prior changes are actually working. He also explained that the subcommittee would likely form smaller working groups, with informal meetings allowed so long as they stayed within open-meeting limits. The main policy focus was House Bill 652, which was retained by the committee, along with broader questions about what additional changes family court should make. Members divided the work into two broad areas: pre-trial and trial issues. Pre-trial topics included alternative dispute resolution, mediation training and supervision, counseling/therapy for litigants with issues such as PTSD, and improving materials for pro se litigants, including New Hampshire Bar forms and instructions. The committee also discussed whether to use input from prior testimony, former litigants, other states, and legislative researchers, and whether some of the work should be assigned to two-person subgroups to allow flexible research and outreach. For trial-related issues, members identified additional training for family court judges, whether judges should be dedicated solely to family court, and how to handle the overlap between civil and criminal matters, especially domestic violence and divorce cases. Representative Raymond raised concerns about courtroom recordings and whether judges’ behavior and record preservation were adequate; Aaron Kan of the court system responded that circuit court recording practices and staffing had not changed, that circuit court lacks the court monitors used in superior court, and that resource limits prevent similar staffing. Raymond also raised the cost of obtaining trial transcripts for pro se litigants; Kan explained that transcripts are produced by private vendors because the court system no longer employs court reporters, and that the fees reflect that outsourced service rather than a court-imposed markup. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans to continue gathering information and assigning subtopics for further study.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, asset forfeiture proceedings are primarily handled by local prosecutors in the jurisdiction
• they pay $15 an agency plus a dollar for each notice and $2 for each order.
• So if they're posting information that should be expunged, then they pay a fine, which would encourage
• So I just ask you to re-look at that and make sure that new science can be heard no matter who raised
• So I just ask you to re-look at that and make sure that new science can be heard no matter who raised

Bills: HB115 , HB 115 , HB507 , HB1765 , HB1847 , HB2046 , HB2239 , HB2328 , HB2309 , HB2417 , HB2728 , HB2794 , HB3206 , HB3566 , HB3694 , HB3744 , HB4254 , HB4697 , HB4733 , HB4915 , HB5465 , HB2813

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

Keywords: public funds, lobbying, political subdivision, government spending, transparency, HB 115, taxpayer-funded lobbying, local government lobbying, county association dues, municipal lobbying, lobbyist registration, Chapter 305, Government Code Section 556.0056, Local Government Code Section 89.002, county government, city government, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, state association of counties, sheriffs association

Summary: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence reconvened with a quorum present and announced it would likely not vote that night because of confusion over the bill list; members were told a definitive list would be circulated the next morning and a formal meeting would be scheduled later. The chair then heard a series of bills, generally taking testimony and leaving each pending without action. House Bill 1847 would set maximum caseload standards for private attorneys handling indigent criminal appointments through the Texas Indigent Defense Commission; House Bill 2417 would expand compensation eligibility for some wrongfully imprisoned people; House Bill 2813 would require earlier and more specific victim notice of scheduled court proceedings; and House Bill 2309 would expand state and local authority in certain civil asset forfeiture cases involving human trafficking, health care fraud, and organized crime. Each bill was laid out by its author or a member, with no opposition witnesses registered, and each was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 4733, which would require sealing records for people acquitted of charges when they were not convicted on the related allegation; House Bill 2328, which would modernize expunction service by encouraging electronic notice, setting a standardized fee when electronic service is unavailable, extending clerk retention of expunction orders, and preserving certain mental health commitment orders; and House Bill 115, which would revise Texas’s “junk science” post-conviction writ law by providing counsel, changing the relief standard, requiring written decisions, and easing procedural barriers. Testimony on HB 2328 was mixed: county clerks supported the bill as a cost-saving modernization, while legal advocates warned that permanent retention of expunction orders could undermine true expunction and create privacy risks. HB 115 drew support from innocence and defense organizations, with some concern about a provision affecting subsequent writs. All were left pending after testimony. Later, the committee heard House Bill 2046, which would allow affirmative family-violence findings for any Penal Code offense rather than only Title V offenses; testimony from a Dallas County prosecutor and a committee member emphasized that family violence can involve arson, burglary, fraud, and other non-Title V conduct, and the bill was left pending. House Bill 1765 would tighten restrictions on no-knock warrants by requiring higher-level approval, judicial review, and identifiable officers; members discussed the dangers highlighted by the Harding Street raid and similar incidents, and the bill was also left pending. The meeting ended with the chair noting that some bills had been removed from the agenda at the author’s request and that members should be prepared to finalize the vote list the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, some states are different, but under Florida law, a prosecutor simply has to sign
• It doesn't just raise those risks.
• It doesn't just raise those risks.
• I personally believe that SB 1804 currently raises some legal challenges.
• I think it raises some constitutional challenges, and I also believe that it raises some ethical concerns

Committee: Senate Fiscal Policy

Summary: The committee took up a series of criminal justice, health, and public safety bills, with several measures reported favorably after brief sponsor presentations and mostly no opposition. CS for SB 1782 on dangerous excessive speeding, CS for SB 306 on Medicaid provider network access, CS for SB 716 on mandatory minimums for certain sexual offenses by registered offenders, CS for SB 1084 on intimate image dissemination and digitally forged images, and CS for CS for SB 1604 on corrections-related litigation and sentencing changes all passed the committee. Members also approved CS for SB 1838, which increases protections for court officials from tampering, harassment, and retaliation, and CS for SB 1252, which directs FDLE to study a statewide pawn data database. CS for SB 468 on fleeing or eluding, CS for SB 490 on off-duty concealed carry for certain officers, and CS for SB 890 on blood clot screening and treatment also received favorable votes, with SB 890 drawing supportive testimony from the bill sponsor, medical and patient advocates, and family members affected by blood clots. The most extensive debate centered on CS for CS for SB 1804, which would create a capital offense for adults trafficking children under 12 or mentally incapacitated persons for sexual exploitation. Senator Martin defended the bill as a response to especially heinous crimes and argued it fit within constitutional punishment principles, while several members raised concerns about the Eighth Amendment, the risk of lengthy and costly litigation, and the possibility of retraumatizing victims. The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified in opposition, citing moral objections, due process concerns, and constitutional precedent; the bill nevertheless was reported favorably. The committee also approved CS for CS for SB 572, the “Pam Rock Act,” which tightens dangerous-dog rules, adds enclosure, microchip, insurance, and penalty requirements, and allows stronger enforcement actions after serious attacks. The Rock family and animal control supporters testified in favor, describing the bill as a response to fatal dog attacks and urging stronger accountability for owners. For SB 572, members discussed insurance requirements, the role of local authorities in classifying dangerous dogs, and whether the bill would affect ordinary pet insurance or only liability coverage after a serious attack. The sponsor said the measure is not breed-specific and is aimed at dogs that have already caused significant harm. The committee also heard testimony from family members of Pam Rock and other victims, along with supporters from animal control and sheriff’s offices. All of the bills taken up in the meeting that were voted on were reported favorably, and no roll-call votes failed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The criminal process began and competency was raised.
• The criminal process began and competency was raised.
• The criminal process began and competency was raised.
• The criminal process began and competency was raised.
• /c><00:53:28.240><c> department</c> through prosecutors and the department through prosecutors and the

Summary: The committee approved the minutes of its June 10, 2025 meeting and then heard testimony on House Bill 198, “Angela’s Law,” sponsored by Representative Samara Hein. The bill would add a new aggravating circumstance in death-penalty cases when an offender abuses the corpse of a kidnapping or murder victim by engaging in deviate sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse, or sexual contact. Representative Hein and the victim’s parents described the case that prompted the proposal, saying the current law did not allow the conduct to be treated as an aggravating factor because the sexual act occurred after death. They emphasized that the bill would not require a death sentence or life without parole, but would give judges and juries another sentencing factor to consider. Doug and Angela Kerr gave emotional testimony about their daughter’s murder and said the current sentencing options were inadequate given the facts of the case. Several members expressed sympathy and supported the bill’s purpose. Senator Wheeler said the measure would signal that the Commonwealth will not tolerate such conduct, and Representative Petrie said he supported the concept but urged careful drafting so the language would not be too narrow or unintentionally reach co-conspirators or others whose conduct differed from the principal offender. The committee then received an informational presentation on KRS Chapter 202C from Judge Lisa Payne Jones and Shauna Mitchell of the Kentucky Judicial Commission on Mental Health. They explained that 202C was enacted in 2021 to address a gap in Kentucky’s civil commitment laws for defendants found incompetent to stand trial after serious offenses. The presentation outlined the process: a Commonwealth’s attorney must file a petition for qualifying offenses, an evidentiary hearing must be held quickly, and if the respondent is found by a preponderance of the evidence to have committed the offense, a commitment hearing follows with a higher burden of proof. They also described the 2024 amendment changing the commitment criteria from requiring all four factors to only one, and noted the statute’s review-hearing schedule and the availability of later review if circumstances change or new evidence emerges.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:55:20.119><c> the</c> regardless of their ability to pay the regardless of their ability to pay
• </c> not insensitive to the concerns raised not insensitive to the concerns raised by<01:15:19.560><c
• </c><01:52:00.400><c> objections</c> supervisor over prosecutors objections supervisor over prosecutors
• </c> response to pre previous concerns raised response to pre previous concerns raised we<02:06:52.960
• </c><02:07:56.719><c> concerns</c> raises serious constitutional concerns raises serious constitutional

Summary: The joint Commerce and Consumer Protection and Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committees heard HB 756 HD1, a measure on flavored tobacco products. Supporters included the Attorney General, Department of Health, Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, youth advocates, public health groups, and Kaiser Permanente. They argued flavored tobacco and menthol are used to attract and addict young people, cited rising youth and young adult vaping rates, and pointed to public health harms and evidence from other states that flavor restrictions reduced e-cigarette sales. The Attorney General requested oral amendments to correct a statutory reference, repeal a county preemption provision so counties could enact stricter flavor bans, and restore appropriations, positions, and the original effective date. Opponents, including retail and wholesale businesses, argued the bill would hurt small businesses and state tax revenue, push sales to the black market, and remove a harm-reduction option for adult smokers; they urged stronger enforcement instead of a ban. After testimony, the committees took up amendments and recommendations. The chair proposed correcting the statutory citation to HRS 26-38, adopting a Department of Health amendment on disposal of electronic smoking devices and e-liquids as hazardous waste, and noting the appropriations, FTE, and effective date in the committee report. Members then voted to pass HB 756 HD1 with amendments in both committees, with the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee recording one member as supporting with reservations. The transcript then moved to HB 806, relating to fireworks, which would appropriate funds for the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct sting operations on Oʻahu to enforce fireworks laws. The Department of Law Enforcement and Honolulu Police Department supported the bill, saying undercover enforcement is costly and additional funding is needed. A community testifier also supported stronger enforcement, citing illegal aerial fireworks, noise, and impacts on pets and kupuna. No final vote on HB 806 was shown in the excerpt. The Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee also heard HB 438, which would create a Due Process in Immigration Proceedings Program to provide legal representation in immigration court for income-qualified individuals. Support came from civil rights, legal aid, ACLU, and law school clinic representatives, who said counsel is needed to ensure due process and fair access to justice, especially because immigration proceedings can lead to deportation and family separation. Opposition testifiers argued taxpayer-funded counsel for people in immigration proceedings is inappropriate, unlawful, or unfair to citizens and legal residents. One law school representative suggested a technical amendment to broaden language about training and education. The excerpt ends before a final vote on HB 438 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:08:57.040><c> Yeah,</c> Yeah, prosecutor.
• Would a prosecutor be willing to use their budget and pay for such attorneys?
• When I was a prosecutor, I was assigned to this court.
• By increasing the funding limits and raising the expenditure caps, the partial public funding program
• This bill is important because it aims to close the pay-to-pay loophole by stopping state and county

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 126, which would change civil asset forfeiture law. The Attorney General’s Office, Honolulu Police Department, and county prosecutors opposed the bill’s proposed SD1, arguing that requiring a criminal conviction and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed would weaken or effectively end the tool, create fiscal and law enforcement problems, and make it harder to address organized crime or cases where an owner cannot be identified. The Public Defender’s Office, Community Alliance on Prisons, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and other supporters argued the measure would improve transparency and accountability, protect property rights, and reduce abuses that disproportionately affect low-income people. The chair questioned law enforcement about fairness, storage of seized property, and access to counsel, and the discussion focused heavily on whether forfeiture should depend on a conviction. No vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 280, which would make the Community Outreach Court permanent and appropriate funds for it as a division of the First Circuit district court. The Department of the Attorney General and Judiciary supported the concept and described the court’s success in helping people resolve cases, clear license stoppers, recall bench warrants, and access services, but suggested amendments to remove the Attorney General from the bill’s definition and funding mechanism. The Public Defender, Department of Human Services, mental health and substance use advocates, neighborhood and community groups, and others strongly supported the bill, emphasizing its benefits for people facing housing instability, behavioral health issues, and transportation barriers. No opposition was voiced, and no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 370, which would increase partial public campaign financing for elective offices. The Campaign Spending Commission supported the original bill and asked the committee to restore the original percentage amounts, keep the proposed funding increases, and reinstate funding for two additional full-time staff positions. Supporters said the public financing system has not kept pace with inflation and needs modernization to be viable; a few testifiers opposed the measure. The committee reported 30 in support, two opposed, and one comment, and then moved on without a vote. Finally, HB 371 was heard, a campaign contribution bill that would bar state and county contractors, grantees, and certain related persons from contributing during the contract period. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is intended to address pay-to-play concerns and false-name contributions, while the State Procurement Office raised concerns about the burden of requiring agencies to provide contract information for all contracts regardless of dollar value. The testimony ended with the commission saying it was working with procurement and the Attorney General on implementation details; no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would Prosecutor Noggle please come up? If you would. If you would. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.
• Prior to taking this role, I was a prosecutor for 20 years, both as an elected prosecutor in Valley County
• and a deputy prosecutor in Ada County.
• And I would defer to Prosecutor Noggle if you'd want to comment on that further, but it's our intention
• So you raise the second point about parents knowing, or possibly knowing, and I think we all agree that

Committee: House Judiciary, Rules and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• THE FORMER PROSECUTOR, THE PROUD FATHER OF TWO, FATHER OF TWIN 18-YEAR-OLD BOYS.
• FORMER PROSECUTOR, I HAD SHOOTINGS AND HOMICIDES OF CHILDREN.
• Garcia: STATE SENATOR OF DISTRICT 36 ELINA GARCIA, I PROUDLY SERVE THE DISTRICT I WAS BORN AND RAISED
• THERE ARE MEN IN PRISON RIGHT NOW IN OUR STATE PRISON I WAS A PROSECUTOR OF.
• MOVE ON TO OTHER AGENCIES AND MOST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INCLUDING SOME STATE ONES PAY THE SENIOR

Transcript Highlights:

• So a good prosecutor, interpret what are their ethical obligations.
• So they're not raising any alarm bells, right? So everything is set.
• But then also to get the certified copies of minutes, you have to pay that.
• You have to pay the DA's office for a letter of no bill.
• They are paying taxes.

Bills: HB63 , HB91 , HB98 , HB108 , HB131 , HB151 , HB161 , HB294 , HB305 , HB310 , HB320 , HB336 , HB622 , HB789 , HB1040

Committee: House Administration of Criminal Justice

Keywords: HB63, Louisiana bail, bail bond, surety, failure to appear, FTA, bench warrant, NCIC, National Crime Information Center, criminal procedure, Article 331, defendant registry, surrender of defendant, rule to show cause, law enforcement records, pretrial release, bond forfeiture, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection

Transcript Highlights:

• From that point in time to the time of sentencing, the motion could not be raised.
• If new evidence should come to light that would raise an argument that a wobbler that was charged as
• And unfortunately this bill has raised a lot of opposition from individual district attorneys and prosecutors
• But to undercut our prosecutors seems to me not only to raise the risk of public safety and undercut
• I also, as a prosecutor, have done hundreds of preliminary hearings.