Video & Transcript Research : 'defendant rights'

Page 1 of 500
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 8th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • The defendant might have consumed the alcohol afterwards, after the accident, right?
  • What if the defendant just says, I refuse to testify, I don't want to testify, I'm invoking my right
  • And so they're not able to defend themselves because they're maintaining their right to remain silent
  • The defendant still has to sign this affidavit that waives their right.
  • This bill also strikes the right balance by acknowledging the needs of indigent defendants.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Justice May 14th, 2025

Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • Thank you for all right to hear my questions. Any other questions?
  • The right to be free before trial is deeply rooted in our history and legal traditions in Texas and the
  • This right is especially important when the presumption of innocence applies.
  • Good morning, Kirsten Budwan, policy attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, in opposition to this
  • ...files, everything's removed and they're sealed, right? Yeah, essentially.
Bills: SB3073, SJR87
Summary: The Senate Committee on Criminal Justice met with a quorum present and took up three bills tied to bail reform and law enforcement records. Senator Huffman presented SJR 87, a proposed constitutional amendment that would require denial of bail for people accused of certain serious felony offenses if they have a prior conviction for, or are already on bond for, one of those offenses and there is probable cause to believe they committed another listed offense. Supporters said it would give judges a needed tool to detain repeat violent offenders; opponents from the ACLU of Texas and Texas Civil Rights Project argued it would mandate detention without individualized due process and weaken the presumption of innocence. The committee voted 7-1 to report SJR 87 favorably, with Senator Miles voting no. The committee then heard SB 3073, which would require magistrates who find no probable cause after an arrest to enter written findings supporting that determination. Senator Huffman said the bill was a narrow cleanup measure to improve transparency and provide guidance to law enforcement and prosecutors without limiting judicial discretion. With no invited or public testimony, the committee voted 6-1 to report SB 3073 favorably, again with Senator Miles dissenting. Finally, the committee considered SB 781, a committee substitute dealing with law enforcement file management and personnel records. Senator King explained that the bill would standardize policies already used in many Texas cities and under civil service rules, separating public and sealed personnel information while preserving access for criminal defense discovery. Senator Miles raised concerns that sealing exonerated allegations could hide patterns of misconduct and allow problematic officers to move between agencies. The committee adopted the committee substitute and voted 6-1 to report SB 781 favorably, with Senator Miles voting no. The committee then recessed subject to the chair’s call.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • The right to be free before trial is deeply rooted in our history and legal traditions in Texas and the
  • This right is especially important at When the presumption of innocence applies, it is, as the court
  • I am here on behalf of the Civil Rights Project in opposition to this SJR.
  • and I discussed, that if not found to be proven guilty, the files are removed, and they're sealed, right
  • For example, right now in many communities, on an open records request or other requests, you could get
Bills: SB3073, SJR87
AL

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, 2025

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • All right. Good morning still.
  • All right. Bill's good for report. All right. Bill's good for report. Thank you.
  • All right. Thank you. Thank you, committee members. All right. Uh, HB449, Committee members.
  • Very right.
  • All right. Hearing none, any... Let's Right. Hearing none, any opposed?
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 22nd, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • All right. Thank you. Oh, wait. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 1, 2, 3. Um, well, hold on just a second.
  • Louderback voted against the bill, right? Here's the thing.
  • All right. Representative Money? All right. Representative Moody? Representative Rodríguez-Ramos?
  • All right. So, Mr.
  • That's not ours though, right? That wasn't in our subcommittee, right? This wasn't in ours. Mm-hmm.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 22nd, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • And let me be clear, the accused person does not have a right to have a lawyer in the grand jury defending
  • That's still not fair to the defendant. All right, and I don't think you...
  • Right.
  • Or is he going to have to give up his right to get the discretion? to defend his case.
  • This is not about limiting defendants' discovery rights.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence May 6th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • That are modified by statute, right?
  • Cook is right. Thank you, sir.
  • But right then and there, you shouldn't be having to file paperwork to obtain information on a defendant
  • All right, 6 by 4. OK. OK. All right. Yeah, so let's go ahead and vote.
  • Aren't we right? OK. OK. So was the vote count right? Yes. Yes. OK.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Judiciary Committee Meeting - 2026-04-09

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • Right?
  • </c> We never knew it existed, right? We never knew it existed, right?
  • I assume you want to adopt that right away, right? Madam Chair, thank you.
  • All right, everybody. We're all used up All right, everybody.
  • All right. Please [laughter] Okay. Okay. All right.
Summary: The Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the minutes from March 25 and March 26, then took up House File 4077, a bipartisan bill authored by Representatives Greenman and Roach. The bill would prohibit municipalities from entering into non-disclosure agreements with private entities that restrict disclosure about land development, economic development, or publicly funded projects, while preserving existing Chapter 13 data practices rules and trade secret protections. The authors argued the bill is needed to prevent secret agreements and backroom decision-making that undermine public transparency, and they moved that the bill be re-referred to the general register. Several local officials and residents testified in support, including a St. Louis County commissioner, the mayor of Lonsdale, and residents from Farmington and Hermantown. Supporters said NDAs had been used in connection with data center and other development projects to keep elected officials and the public in the dark, eroding trust and limiting community input. They described the bill as a common-sense transparency measure and said existing law already protects legitimate trade secrets. Opposition came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership, which argued that NDAs are often necessary in early-stage economic development discussions to protect sensitive business information and remain competitive with other states. They warned the bill could discourage investment, jobs, and tax growth, and said it would impose a one-size-fits-all state mandate that limits local discretion. Committee members then debated whether the bill was too broad and whether it should be narrowed to data centers; supporters responded that the issue extends beyond data centers to other forms of economic development. A roll call vote was requested on the motion to re-refer the bill to the general register, but the final vote result was not stated in the transcript excerpt.
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

03/25/2026 - Senate Judiciary and Elections

Judiciary and Elections

Transcript Highlights:
  • Right, Ortiz? Got it.
  • Bill of Rights.
  • That's precisely what it does because victims no longer have a right to petition a court to show a defendant
  • All right. Uh-oh. Right. Mr.
  • All right. All right. All right. 2589. Move.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Administration of Criminal Justice Apr 1st, 2026

Administration of Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • right?
  • So you're right to know in advance what the state is going to introduce, right?
  • on the defendant.
  • Louisiana currently affords defendants the constitutional right to waive a jury trial.
  • All right.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 29th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • rests on whether or not a defendant has access to counsel.
  • of indigent defendants in the United States.
  • Reserve the right to close.
  • You're not allowed to shoot at the police, right?
  • Is that right? I was, we just started talking. All right, we got to talk; I started.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 29th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • Right.
  • of the defendant.
  • Right, but you still... We're retrying it starting Monday, right? We are.
  • This provision is essential to protecting defendants' rights. and maintaining the integrity of the court
  • All right. Thanks. Thank you.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 3/24/26

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • </c> All<00:02:09.920><c> right.</c> All right.
  • </c> All right, more cookies all right. All right, more cookies all right.
  • </c> can get it right. can get it right.
  • All right.
  • Right. We don't want to be the compact. Right.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Civil Law and Procedure May 11th, 2026

Civil Law and Procedure

Transcript Highlights:
  • to waive his right to a trial by jury.
  • The right to trial by jury, in our view, is a fundamental constitutional right, and as such, the waiver
  • right.
  • No means no, right? So I guess the No means no, right?
  • That's right.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Administration of Criminal Justice Mar 31st, 2026

Administration of Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • of criminal defendants in that matter.
  • All right. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you so much. Seeing no objection, it's so ordered.
  • How many are getting 30 days right now?
  • But for right now, the board is clear.
  • But for right now, the board is clear.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Administration of Criminal Justice May 6th, 2026

Administration of Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • But if you're not represented by the public defender, right, and you are hiring a lawyer, right, which
  • It’s a constitutional amendment to require the prosecutor’s consent for a defendant to waive his right
  • If this bill passes and they, the defendant, waive their right so they can go to a speedy trial, the
  • If this bill passes and they, the defendant, waive their right so they can go to a speedy trial, the
  • You are correct, Madam Chairwoman, each and every one of these defendants had a constitutional right
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Housing Finance and Policy Committee 3/10/26

Housing Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • It's it's that it's that of time, right?
  • So, no one's being short changed right?
  • </c> process rights under the law. Thank you. process rights under the law. Thank you.
  • All right. Last on my list will be Co-Chair Howard.
  • All right. Last on my list will be Co-Chair Howard.
Bills: HF3600, HF3809, HF3608
NV
Transcript Highlights:
  • It's the right thing to do.
  • They oversee the public defender themselves, the state public defender, who is also a state employee,
  • Right now, the governor appoints the state public defender directly, and then that person is responsible
  • Right, I see that.
  • Right.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Justice May 20th, 2025

Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • This bill also strikes the right balance by acknowledging the needs of indigent defendants.
  • All right.
  • That's right. You've got it because somebody has to do the investigation. Right. Okay.
  • Right, you've got it, because somebody has to do the investigation. Right.
  • All right, so much. It sounds like a song. Yeah, yeah, I all. All right, all right.
Summary: The Senate Committee on Criminal Justice met with a quorum and heard a long agenda of bills on criminal justice, public safety, mental health, victims’ rights, and related administrative issues. Early bills included HB 47, the omnibus sexual assault survivors bill, which would expand post-assault care, require courts to consider delays for adult survivors, bar sex offenders from rideshare driving, allow lease termination regardless of where an assault occurred, and require more reporting from sexual assault response teams. Testimony was generally supportive, though one witness raised concern that the bill’s reporting requirements could jeopardize county grant funding. HB 171, the Annel Borrego Act, would set a minimum period for court-ordered chemical dependency treatment; NAMI Texas supported it. HB 908 would require missing children reports to be sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children within two hours, and HB 1443 would criminalize possession and promotion of childlike sex dolls; both drew supportive testimony and were left pending. HB 567, changing juvenile board chair selection in Parker County, and HB 4263, a TJJD workforce retention bill, were also heard and left pending after brief discussion and adoption of committee substitutes where applicable. The committee also heard several bills focused on jail and prison safety, court process, and victim protection. HB 2282 would raise the arrest warrant fee from $50 to $75; constables supported it as a cost-recovery measure, while the Texas Fair Defense Project opposed it as a regressive fee that burdens low-income defendants. HB 3464 would increase penalties for correctional employees who bring drugs or alcohol into prisons, with support from Harris County jail officials and a formerly incarcerated advocate who described the dangers of contraband and retaliation. HB 285, “Poncho’s Law,” would add criminal negligence to non-livestock animal cruelty offenses; animal welfare advocates said it would close a loophole that lets pet service businesses avoid accountability, and the bill was left pending. HB 2355 would keep certain Crime Victims Compensation records confidential when held by the Attorney General, and HB 2637 would standardize jury exemption ages and clean up jury disqualification reporting; both were left pending after limited testimony. Mental health and competency-related bills received significant attention. HB 305 would require a pretrial hearing within 14 days after a defendant is restored to competency, aimed at reducing repeated decompensation and the forensic waitlist; NAMI Texas supported it. HB 1741 would tighten procedures for not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity outpatient commitments by requiring a stronger nexus to the receiving county and clearer supervision authority; law enforcement and mental health witnesses said it would improve public safety and treatment success. HB 2492 would make the four-hour family-violence post-bond cooling-off period mandatory rather than discretionary, and HB 1445 would allow a managed assigned counsel director to designate someone to approve certain payments for indigent defense attorneys; both were left pending. HB 1024 would require prompt execution of warrants for parole violators on superintensive supervision, and HB 1306 would extend first-responder-style benefits to death investigation professionals; neither drew opposition in the hearing. The committee also heard a series of public integrity and technology bills. HB 449 would expand the deepfake sexual content statute to include sexually explicit images, with Public Citizen supporting the change as necessary to address a rapidly growing problem. HB 1902 would create a new offense for “jugging,” or following bank or ATM customers to rob them; the Texas Bankers Association supported it. HB 2697 would require sureties to notify prosecutors before surrendering a felony defendant’s bond, and HB 2001 would sharply increase penalties for misuse of public information for financial gain and related coercion, with prosecutors and Texas Rangers describing bid-rigging and public corruption investigations as difficult to prove under current law because of short limitations periods and limited penalties. HB 1866 would grant Texas peace officer authority to National Park Service rangers within Texas park boundaries, and HB 4996 would increase penalties for fraudulent liens filed against public servants. Throughout the hearing, most bills were left pending after testimony, and several committee substitutes were adopted without objection.
HI

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

EIG-TRS, EIG-JDC Public Hearings 04-07-2026

Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • Congress to pass legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the
  • Congress to pass legislation to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the
  • <00:05:10.480><c> 54%</c><00:05:11.400><c> of</c> Human Rights Campaign, uh 54% of Human Rights Campaign
  • ><c> looking</c><00:08:47.160><c> not</c><00:08:47.360><c> only</c> &gt;&gt; Right.
  • And then we're looking not only &gt;&gt; Right.
Bills: SCR11, SR9
Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs, Transportation, and later Judiciary heard two sets of resolutions. The first, SCR 132 and SR 124, urged the City and County of Honolulu to take steps to finalize the Makakilo Drive Extension Project. Testimony from a Makakilo resident emphasized the lack of a second access route and raised safety concerns about being trapped in the area in an emergency. Both committees voted to pass the resolutions unamended. The second set, SCR 11 and SR 9, requested that the U.S. Congress amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, federally funded programs, credit, and jury service. Supporters from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, IMUA Alliance, and Pride at Work in Hawaii argued that stronger anti-discrimination protections are needed to reduce vulnerability to violence, housing insecurity, and exploitation, and to provide federal protections that mirror state law. One senator asked whether state protections already exist and was told the resolutions seek federal-level protections because federal law can supersede state law. Both committees adopted recommendations to pass SCR 11 and SR 9 unamended, with votes in favor and some members excused.