2023-09-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
2023-09-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on the Judiciary
(Part 1 of 3)
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[PART 1]
SPEAKER1 - My name's Christine Barber. I am the house vice chair of the joint committee on the judiciary. I'm pleased to welcome you all to today's hearing. We're conduct we're conducting a hearing on a variety of legislative proposals pertaining to criminal procedure. I'm joined today by my colleagues from the house. To my left is rep flicker Oakley, and joining us virtually our representative Carrie and representative Hendrix.
Additionally, the senate co chair senator Jamie Eldridge will be joining us in just a few minutes.
SPEAKER2 - I know how to change because if I log in, I'm logged in.
SPEAKER3 - It's me on here,
SPEAKER2 - and we agent or fly.
SPEAKER1 - Before we begin, I just wanna remind participants and viewers of some ground rules. We wanna make sure that everyone who has registered has a chance to testify. As you can see, there's a lot of people here to testify today. Testimony will be limited to 3 minutes, and we will hold you to those 3 minutes to ensure that everyone here gets to speak. As this customer customary in the legislature, I will be taking elected officials out of turn. And additionally, around 2:30 PM today. We are going to be hearing from incarcerated people at a number of facilities. So we we will be switching from testimony here to hybrid testimony from incarcerated93 folks, at 2:30 pm, and then coming back into the room. As a reminder, written testimony may be submitted by anyone to either our
stowe@mahouse.gov.
So we have over 125 people signed up to testify today. So I ask you to take this into consideration when you come up to testify and really be respectful of others' time. To that end, I'm also going to limit any applause or other outbursts because the applause, actually takes away time from others testifying And it could also be used to perhaps intimidate others who may not share the same opinion. So 1 last thing to note is you're gonna be called up based on the bills that you signed up for, everyone is allowed to come up once to testify, but you might be you can testify on multiple bills when you come up. So when you come up, you testify on all the bills that you signed up for, at that time. So with that, we're pleased to be joined by the attorney general, Andrea Campbell. And, general, I wanna bring you up first to testify.
Thank you.
SPEAKER4 - I actually get Yousse's175 hard chair.
It's so great to see all
SPEAKER5 - of you. Okay. Hold on a second. Thank184 you Chair
SPEAKER4 - Barber. It's good to see you. And, of course, Chair Day who I think is, online. Is that correct?
SPEAKER1 - No, his staff are here.
ANDREA CAMPBELL - AGO - HB 1710 - SB 942 - SB 1049 - Okay. Then thank you Chair Barber And thank you, of course, to the rest of the committee. It's great to see my Representative, Brandy Fluker-Oakley, it's great to see you. She represents my district, so I have give her a shout out.208 She's working hard on our behalf. I really appreciate you taking me out of turn to be able to testify today on some214 important pieces of legislation and, of course, proposals relative to the juvenile and criminal legal reform issues of the day. And I also wanna thank the people223 who are sitting behind me because I recognize that225 people got here early to testify. So thank you to them for allowing me to go out of turn. Today, I'm here to convey my strong support in particular House bill 1710 and Senate 942, an act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults more commonly known as legislation to raise the age.
I wanna thank representatives, Jim O'Day Manny Cruz, and Senator Brendan Crighton for their leadership in filing this bill which over the course of five years would raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to258 include 18, 19, and 20 year olds. This phase in timeline will allow state agencies to adequately plan and prepare266 for transition. Raise the age would promote positive outcomes for our youth, reduce recidivism, and improve public safety across the commonwealth. My office and I personally are deeply acquainted with the compounded harm and risk to public safety that results from incarcerating youth in adult correctional facilities. As a former lawyer for the EdLaw Project who represented clients and sneered in the school to prison, and actually, I would say the cradle to prison pipeline, I witnessed firsthand the harm that results from imposing overly punitive consequences on our young people. And303 as some of you may know, my own personal story is connected to the incarceration system. I309 still have loved ones who are incarcerated. Much of those folks, including my twin brother,313 got involved in that system as a juvenile. And as some317 of you know, my twin brother Andre died 11 years ago while the custody of the Department of Correction. Clearly, a system that did not work then for him and many others.
Young people are particularly susceptible to the influence of their environments. Incarcerating youth in the adult system can have irreparable effects on their physical and mental health and disrupt their education, path to graduation, or career altogether. And incarcerating young people in adult correctional facilities does not make our communities safer. In fact, young people have the highest, not the middle, not somewhere in the bottom, the highest recidivism rate of any demographic in the357 adult system, with 76% rearraigned in the next three years, with a disproportionate and devastating effect on the365 impacts or impacts, I should say, on youth of color and their369 communities. By contrast, new admissions to DYS dropped from375 344 to377 90 between 2013 and fiscal year 2021. And as we all know, that's when Massachusetts decided to raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 17 year old. During that same time, there were similar decreases in juvenile arrest and summons since the Legislature last raised the age.
The latest science is clear that teen brains and adult brains operate differently. The adult brain, especially the prefrontal cortex in particular isn't fully developed until around age 25. And why this is important because it has implications for a young person's capacity for impulse control and self regulation. And at the same time, the young brain is more elastic and receptive to rehabilitation. And I wanna just stress that the bill before you, of course, doesn't push it to 25. It reasonably suggests that we move to 18, 19 year old, and 20 year olds and do it over a period of five years which is, of course, reasonable. Consistent with this research and with a positive youth development approach, DYS provides rehabilitation services. Therapeutic treatment, education, job training, all of which support young people and their successful reintegration into their communities. This system provides the right balance of accountability and rehabilitation all at the same time. We cannot miss this opportunity and moment to invest in our young people, and frankly, to do462 something that has been advocated by advocates, residents, those who were formerly incarcerated in so many others for so many years.
We know it works, and it's about time and I think that we all work in partnership to build a system that will support these 18 year old 19 year old and 20 year478 olds in a reasonable way and with the supports we know will generate a system that produces accountability and rehabilitation. Lastly, and, of course, we stand ready to support the trial court, DYS, all agencies, and all of you in doing490 this work. Lastly, I492 wanna just lift up and take a moment to lift up another piece of legislation, this is Senate Bill 1049, an act relative to diversion for primary caretakers filed by Senator Liz Miranda. I equally and strongly support this bill which creates an opportunity for pretrial diversion for primary caretakers of children, primary caretakers of aging or sick immediate family members, and pregnant persons. Incarceration of primary caretakers inflict both financial and emotional harm on the defendant's children, making them far more likely to be suspended from school, removed from their home, and eventually incarcerated themselves.
There is substantial data here that speaks to that, and we can share that, because I would know we've run out of time, but we will share that with this committee because it is useful, And I'm sure the senator has as well. But these bills go hand in hand and are both, I think, a step in544 the right direction when it comes to juvenile justice546 reform and criminal legal form. Thank you again for taking me out of turn, Senator Eldridge it's great to see you. Thank you for your work. And I just have to acknowledge these two incredible team members, Liza Hirsch who runs our children's justice unit is at the front lines of doing this work every single day. And David is a, AAG and the an assistant attorney in our civil rights division who also prepared an incredible memo on the second bill that we will share with you as well that is helpful. They work really hard, and I wanna acknowledge their hard work, so thank you all. Happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, attorney general Campbell. Thanks to581 your team as well. Really appreciate all of your work in this area. So thank you for your testimony today.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - I wanna welcome, Chair Eldridge to the commission to the committee. And if you have questions.
SEN ELDRIDGE - Great. Thank you so much Chairwoman Barber, and to the members of the committee, and to Attorney General. My apologies599 for being late and thank you so much,601 Attorney General, for coming before603 the committee to testify on these two very important pieces of legislation. And I just wanna say, with respect to an act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults, as you know, as someone, myself that goes into the prisons very frequently is that so many of the men and women that are there for decades when I sit down and talk to them, for the most part, many of them have committed that first offense when they were 17, 18, or 19. And I do just think of how different their lives could be if they were sent to a juvenile facility versus state prison. So, really appreciate your focus on this and coming before the committee.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
you. Good to see you soon.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions? Virtually. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER4 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we'll have a panel of legislators So here we have a leader Jim O'Day, Senator Brendan Kreighton, and I believe rep Manny Cruise is, virtual.
SPEAKER4 - Yeah.
SPEAKER7 - You wanna
SPEAKER6 - And, madam, chair, I just wanna recognize, that Senator Villas, a member of the judiciary committee, is here virtually, listening to testimony. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
REP O'DAY - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Thank you. Good702 afternoon. Representative Jim O'Day. I'm here with my good friend, Senator Crighton. Thank you very much Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, who is unavailable here this afternoon, and certainly, Chairwoman Barber, you're doing a wonderful job, thank you. Thank you for allowing me to testify today on House 1710, an act relative to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults. This legislation, as was just stated by the attorney general, would gradually increase the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18, 19, and 20 year old individuals with the exceptions of serious crimes like first degree murder. Currently, young men and women ages 18 to 20 have the highest recidivism rate of any age group in the adult correction system. Part of the reason for that is, I believe, is that once we arrive or once they arrive at the adult system, a lot less rehabilitation, a lot less education, a lot less about job training goes on in those facilities. And being able to maintain those types of services in juvenile facilities, I think, is one of the or two or three of the things that truly will make a great difference in the lives of those who because of developing brains until the age of 25 sometimes act out of character, sometimes act hastily, sometimes act in a manner that can change theirs lives forever. And so as a result of that, we hope that lowering or raising this age to between 18 and 20 will help prevent those issues from reoccurring in our youth that wind up in the system.
What's more, in 2013, Massachusetts ended the practice of automatically prosecuting 17 year olds as adults. And I think, again, the attorney general pointed out that a number of statistics, negative statistics, have changed for the better since that occurred. So, I think we have good standing and good precedent to argue that changing the age now from 17 to 18, 19, and 20 is in the right direction. By undertaking the common sense reform to the justice system, our state has the potential to account for the developmental needs of emerging adults while simultaneously achieving the goals of accountability, racial equity, and rehabilitation.862 For these reasons,864 I respectfully request that the committee issue a favorable report868 for this legislation as they have done in the past two sessions, and I thank you for your strong consideration.
SEN CRIGHTON - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Thank you879 Chair Eldridge, and Chair881 Barber. Appreciate your work on this issue, and many other juvenile justice issues before the committee, thanks to members of the committee as well. And to my good friend, Leader O'Day, who's been championing this issue for a long time. It's an honor to join him now as the senate sponsor and to join Rep Cruz as well. I understand we have 125 people signed up, so I will be brief and try not to reiterate too much of what has already been said by Leader O'Day and the attorney general. As Leader O'Day had said, this bill's pretty straightforward. It's raising the age from criminal majority from 18 to 21, meaning that up until an individual's 21st birthday, they will be placed in a juvenile justice system rather than the adult criminal justice system. There's simply no solid scientific basis to draw a bright line for adulthood at age 18. Later in this hearing, the committee will receive substantial testimony outlining the research showing that peak criminal offending happens between the ages of 18937 and 21. With the939 proper supports, this age group tends to941 desist their criminal activity.
Becoming part of the adult system not only interrupts that natural946 pattern of desistance, but causes permanent harm to the development of our late adolescents. These collateral consequences include a permanent record leading to957 denial of housing, denial of jobs,959 interruption or end to their education, and mental and emotional trauma for navigating the adult facilities. Young people of of color, especially young men of color bear the biggest burden of these collateral offenses. 70% of young adults incarcerated in the state prisons and 57% of the young adults in county jails are people of color. According to the Sentencing Project, nationally Massachusetts has986 the 10th highest rate for black, white disparity in youth incarceration and the highest Latinx white disparity in youth and incarceration. Those who are in DCF custody and foster care are also overrepresented in the system. While only 0.6% of Massachusetts' youth are in DCF, about 50% of DCF involved youth are also court involved.
Many other countries have already put evidence based practices into play, acknowledging that punishment is not shown to rehabilitate individuals in this age group. This age group responds to rewards, recognition, pro show social programming, and individualized care plans that take into consideration their particular development as well as their environments into account. Raising the age is not only better for the welfare of young people and our economy, but it will hold people accountable at a developmentally appropriate level while decreasing crime. At its heart, this bill is both right for increasing public safety and restoring social equity. This legislation is supported by many organizations that you will hear more from later today. And I think, you know, as referenced earlier, it's been a decade since we had first raised the age in 2013. I understand the Legislature is a very deliberative body and one that takes scientific evidence as well as statistics and data into consideration when considering any policy. In this case, with raise the age bill, this is an evidence based policy that we firmly believe will lead to better outcomes for our youth and for safer communities for everyone. Thank you1085 and I hope the bill is, again, reported favorably. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. And I believe we're joined by a representative crews, virtually.
REP CRUZ - HB 1710 - SB 942 - Good afternoon Chair Barber, Chair Eldridge, distinguished members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be able speak today. I'm honored to be working with my dear friends and colleagues, Leader O'Day, and Senator Crighton, in support of legislation that we filed, H 1710 and S 942. As you've heard today, this bill truly represents a significant step towards our pursuit of justice, equity, and the well-being of our young adults. And as someone who is Afro Latino who was mentored, coached, and served as a support system for many at risk youth, myself having been one, I've seen the profound difference that the right interventions can make in the lives of our young people. And as I think about the opportunity to raise the age from to 18, 19, 20 year olds over this five year phase in period in our juvenile justice system, it's not only the right course of action but it's a critical one as we think about the future of our commonwealth and our values.
And I think my colleagues here summarized many of the key provisions, but I think as we think about the principles here and the evidence that you've heard it's very clear. This legislation will reduce crime, it will ensure that these young adults that are between the ages of 18 and 20, that are highly amenable to rehabilitation, will receive the best care that is available to them through the juvenile justice system where they're in entitled and required to participate in furthering their education, in restorative justice programs,1193 and to engage in rehabilitation. And as such, the opportunity to lower recidivism increases greatly. All the research is very aligned in this area whether we examine international models or data that comes from the CDC. It's very clear that when juveniles have the opportunity to be in the juvenile justice system compared to the adult system that we see lower recidivism is one of the shining outcomes that is produced here in our commonwealth and abroad.
And moreover, as we think about this particular group and as they're transitioning from essential youth to adults, their environments really do matter. When we place youth into adult jails and prisons, it exacerbates offending behaviors rather than deters it. And as we think about the resources that are currently being spent with this particular age group, we know that the outcomes are inequitable. And that these young adults who spend more time in the house of corrections end up on a thread and an arc that leads to higher recidivism, and an inability to reintegrate themselves into society. And most troubling of all for me as the father of two young Afro Latino children, and a mentor to many is that this bill has a disparate, it provides a solution to a group of young men specifically of color in Massachusetts who bear the harshest brunt of our current policies.
The House and the Senate have taken monumental efforts in the arc of a criminal justice reform to address the inequities in our system. But as we think about, the population, 25% of1296 our young adult population being black or Latino, the thought that 70% of young adults incarcerated in our state prisons and 50% of those in county jails are people of color, is incredibly alarming. So this particular legislation gives us a path forward to really tap into all the assets that we've built up in our commonwealth, a national model for our DYS system, and to ensure that we are putting these young people in a position to benefit from criminal justice reform. And conclusion, I urge, you, the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to please consider making our commonwealth one step closer to a more fair and equitable criminal justice reform by making this critical investment in the future of our youth by raising the age of criminal majority and favorably reporting out this legislation. I thank you for your time and for your consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Any questions for the panel?
Seeing none. Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. We've also been joined by Representative Sullivan Alameda virtually. Next up, we will call Senator Liz Miranda.
SEN MIRANDA - SB 1049 - HB 3955 - Chairwoman, chair and through you to the membership. I wanna also thank the Attorney General, Andrea Campbell, and all of the people behind me. For those that don't know me, I'm Senator Liz Miranda, I represent the 2nd Suffolk district. To the chairs, I appreciate your willingness to take these critical bills including today's hearing. I join you today to testify in support of two bills, S 1049, an act relative to diversions for primary caretakers and H 3955, an act for second look to request that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary report this legislation favorably this session. Since being elected to the House in 2018, I visited almost every DOC facility across the Commonwealth and I was the only House of Representatives member with an incarcerated sibling at the time I was elected. I can say, without question, that incarceration does not just impact those that are serving the time, but has a ripple effect on all of us who are in their families and communities. It is a resounding fact that as caregivers are found guilty and join our carceral system, our young people carry a significant portion of the punishment. Moving from home to home, school to school, trying to find stability in an unstable situation. As a state that prides itself on our family services, we must take more of an intentional approach on supportive legislation for youth impacted by incarceration.
Bill 1049, primary caretaker's diversion, now expands the definition of who a primary caretaker is in existing law to include caretakers that are both active and loving as well as caretakers of immediate family members who are sick and disabled. This will reflect the reality of guardianship in more families lives in our1489 entire Commonwealth. In conjunction, the Commonwealth has identified that prosecution and incarceration are not solutions to poverty or solutions to unmet mental health needs or substance use. Increasing access to pretrial diversion helps our state shift from punishment to public health and connect people with the resource they need to stabilize their families' lives. Ultimately, our bill diverts all caretakers out of the biased and overburdened criminal legal system into the services they actually need to heal. The bill truly helps to codify an alternative way forward and shifts us toward a public health response and not more punishment.
I want to further share my support for H 3955 which provides our incarcerated siblings serving lengthy terms the chance to petition their sentencing judge for a sentence reduction after serving at least 10 years in prison. Excessive sentences do not enhance our safety, excessive sentences do not enhance our safety. The overwhelming majority of individuals who commit crimes, including those of serious nature, naturally outgrow their criminal behavior as they mature, rendering severe sentences as ineffective and unconducive. Studies have shown to prove that harsh sentences actually dissuade individuals from participating in criminal activities. Instead, it is the assurance of being caught and penalized rather than the severity of the punishment that acts as a deterrent against criminal behavior.
My office prides itself as space for serving as space for serving our incarcerated constituents. From those who've only served a few months to1590 those who have spent several decades behind bars to get connected to the adequate resources once they have been reintegrated into our society. These resilient individuals who once left the world of rotary phones and dial up internet now enter the digital era, and jobs opportunities demand proficiency and computer skills that they do not have. Their journey to acquire these skills were halted when they were incarcerated now playing catch up every day since they reenter society. In closing, individuals released from extended periods of incarceration required increased support in their transition back to society. Many display a low risk of committing crimes, but face substantial psychological, financial and employment challenges which have significantly worsened by their prolonged time behind bars.
I believe that these bills represent an opportunity for us to restructure the criminal legal system, to actually support the well-being of our most vulnerable residents while thinking of communities that are actually most impacted as well. Embracing the power of change, we must acknowledge the profound impact our choices have in confronting that challenge in Massachusetts that exists of mass incarceration.1660 I believe both of1662 these bills represent significant strides to a more brighter and more just future1666 for incarcerated loved ones. Thank you to the chairs and through you to the membership for the opportunity to testify today. I humbly ask for your support and your favorable report of this committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for Senator Miranda? Seeing nothing. Thank you. Next, we have Representative Sabadosa.
REP SABADOSA - HB 45 - HB 1756 - SB 954 - Thank you very much Chair Barber, and Chair Eldridge, and committee members for hearing my testimony today and for taking me out of order. I'm here to testify on two pieces of legislation that I filed that are before the committee. The first is H 45, an act to provide sentencing parity in criminal law. And I have to begin my testimony by saying that this is legislation that I have worked on with the We Are Joint Venture group located at Norfolk Correctional Facility. I have to tell you the first time I visted Norfolk, I had1728 absolutely no idea what joint venture was, like none at all. And1732 I received a very quick1734 education from the people incarcerated there about what it meant and how many of them had been indeed incarcerated under joint venture theory. In the United States, we believe in proportionality and sentencing but joint venture theory does not permit that. And through the years now that we've worked on this piece of legislation, we've really come into a lot of challenges of how we take something that exists in common law but that is used to sentence people oftentimes to life in prison, and how we put that in statute to prevent, what I would say, is a miscarriage of justice.
So as such, I have a redraft of the legislation for you, and there are individuals in the crowd here behind me who are gonna testify about some of the work that we've done. And I know that there were several individuals who are incarcerated who wanted to testify today. I hope that they'll be able to speak because they can tell you a lot better than I can why this bill matters so much. The second piece of legislation is H 1756, an act ensuring integrity in juvenile interrogations. I've filed this piece of legislation with Senator DiDomenico but we are also working with Rep Lipper Garabedian who filed a similar piece of legislation, H 3922. And we view ourselves as a group trying to prevent deceptive practices in interrogation today. So, youth are more likely to admit to a crime that they didn't really commit. And we can see if we look at the National Registry of Exonerations that, when you look at people who are exonerated for wrongful convictions, 34% falsely confessed to a crime they didn't commit, and those are all children and that's compared to 11, I'm sorry, 10% for adults. And those confessions carry an awful1835 lot of weight in court. So if we think of a false confession we can also think of a false conviction.
Again, with this legislation, we learn as we go. So we are going to be providing the committee with additional written testimony but also a redraft. One of the things that we've learned moving forward is that we'd really like to see the recording of these interrogations. Best practices in the state now say that law enforcement is encouraged to record all custodial interrogations of suspects in serious felony cases. We feel that given the fragile nature of juvenile interrogations, that that should be extended to those interrogations as well. So we will be submitting those drafts, and I look forward to working with the committee on both of these complicated but really important issues. And I'm just very grateful that you took me out of turn. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Nice. Nice job with the timing. Thank you.
SPEAKER13 - Thank you.
SPEAKER12 - I was trying.
SPEAKER6 - There are
SPEAKER12 - a lot of people behind me.
SPEAKER1 - Any questions for reps? Seeing none. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER12 - Thank you so much, everyone.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Senator Tarr.
He just saw. District attorney
Ryan?
MARIAN RYAN - MIDDLESEX DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - HB 1644 - SB 1001 - HB 1646 - Good afternoon Chair Barber and Chair Eldridge. Thank you for taking me out of turn. I am submitting written testimony on a number of bills today, but I testified early with respect to two. One is House Bill 1644, and the other is Senate bill 1001 and House 1646. Both of these see very common sense measures that seek to increase the equity in our court system. The 1646 deals with the after hour bail procedures. It does two important things. Right now, the bail bondsman who arrives at a police station to set bail after hours is entitled to $40 in compensation. The payment of that $40 is the responsibility of the individual seeking to be bailed. Even if an assessment indicates that the person should be released on personal recognizance, they can't be released without the payment of the $40. So they may be not necessary that they be released on bail, but they can't pay the $40 and they don't leave.
The second piece is, that often the bail magistrate has to travel from police station to police station just to administer the oaths before they can set bail. This bill would do two things. It would require that the $40 compensation be paid by the trial court so it is no longer the responsibility of the prisoner who's seeking to be bailed. That not only increases the number of people who can be released, but this bill has the support of law enforcement as well because it lowers the number of people that are being held in jail cells in the police station often over long weekends and that sort of thing. And the second piece is it just really recognizes the world we live in. As witnessed here today, people participate by Zoom. There is absolutely no reason those oaths can't be given by Zoom, and that would cut down, especially in a big county like Middlesex, the amount of time that someone spends traveling around to administer those oaths.
With respect to 1646, that has a similar aim of increasing the equity in the system. Right now, judges in the district court cannot grant immunity to a witness who may be seeking protection before they offer testimony. That means a couple of things, either a case has to go to the Superior Court where the judge can grant immunity when there might be no other reason for it to go there. Cases in the Superior Court take much longer, so there's really no need, especially now as we are in a post pandemic world, to tie up the system with a case that doesn't need to be there. Or the other alternative is someone may choose not to testify, not to seek protection for themselves, because they can't get full immunity, or they testify with only a non prosecution letter from the district attorney's office, which does not afford them the same protection that a grant of immunity would do. We believe in this commonwealth that a judge of the district court is equal a judge of the Superior Court in so many ways. There is no reason that they should not also have the power to grant immunity. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you so much, district attorney. Any questions for D. A. Ryan?
SPEAKER4 - Thank you
SPEAKER1 - very much.
SPEAKER14 - Thank you for taking me out of turn.
SPEAKER1 - We've been joined by represent Representative Rita Mendez Brockton. Thank you, Rita.
Next up, virtually, we have, representative Ruth Balzer.
REP BALSER - HB 1391 - Thank you Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for taking me out of turn. I am speaking in support of House Bill 1391, an act relative to treatment not imprisonment. This bill would prohibit incarcerating people who are on probation who suffer a relapse of their alcohol or substance use disorder. Let me just quickly give you the context for this. I think many of you know that I'm a clinical psychologist by profession. And a top priority for me in the Legislature is something I refer to as decriminalizing mental illness and addiction. It is important that we as a Legislature, we as a society recognize that mental illness and addiction are illnesses and not crimes and this bill is part of that agenda. Often, when someone is on probation, remaining sober, not using, becomes a criteria for staying in probation.
And when someone relapses2204 they can get yanked back and sent to jail. What that misses is that relapse is part of the disease and needs to be treated, not as a crime but as part of the disease. And so what this bill would do is say, if someone relapses that individual needs to be redirected and re engaged to treatment and not punished. Punishment incarceration will only create a trauma, interrupt recovery, and make recovery all the more difficult. So, I ask the committee to support this bill in recognition that addiction is an illness and2246 not a crime. And let's help folks who are on probation succeed with their recovery and with their reentry in the community. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much, leader Balzer. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you so much for your testimony. And next, we have Senator Senator Bruce Tarr.
SEN TARR - SB 1129 - Thank you Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman, and through you to the members. It's great to be here with you today, and I wanna express my appreciation for everything you'll do today, to hear testimony from so many people, which is so critical. I know that you're in for a very long day. I will do my best not to make it any longer than possible or than need be. I am here, Madam Chair, in support of Senate 1129, which is a bill that represents an evolving discussion that we have been having about making sure that we have the proper tools in place to protect public safety and enable the Judiciary to take measures that are necessary in order to maintain that safety. You're gonna hear2311 today from a number of victims, and I2313 wanna express my appreciation for them sharing their testimony with you. They will make the case far more compellingly than I could as to the necessity of taking this action and creating these tools. I will merely, enumerate them for you and, again, ask you to2330 continue the conversation so that2332 we can find the right balance here and that we can move a bill relative to these subjects to the governor's desk so that we can have the tools that are important for the goal that we share of public safety.
So, the first section of the bill would make it a felony to destroy a GPS monitoring device or one of the tools that are used in probation. Those tools are very important, and they're an important part of the sentencing structure, and they're an important part of the oversight structure. And when they are tampered with, it's important that there be a serious consequence to that. The second portion of the bill would increase the number of items for which a dangerousness hearing can be held. I would point out that this is a list that, again, has been evolving. It started when Governor Baker originally filed this bill as a much larger list. We have been engaged in a very good conversation with members of the House and the Senate to be able to refine that list so that it's only the most appropriate items that would be eligible for this tool which would depend on judicial discretion. And I would point out that this committee has historically been a very strong proponent of judicial discretion, and this tool would enable that to occur.
And then last, a measure that might seem simple, but something that's very important, the bill would require that at least six hours be provided of notice to an alleged victim before an alleged perpetrator was released on bail for a specific set of crimes. And those are very serious crimes and not to be taken lightly, but again, would enable a victim to prepare adequately for the fact that someone who they believe might be threatening to them is gonna be released on bail. Very simple tools, very important tools. And again, I look forward to continuing to work with you. I appreciate the opportunity to be taken out of turn and I wish you well as you continue what is surely going to be a very long afternoon. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you sticking to time as well. So thank you. Any questions? Chairman?
ELDRIDGE - Thank you Chairwoman Barber. Thank you Senator Tarr for coming before the committee, and no doubt we will have robust discussion on this bill as we certainly did last session. I'm just curious if the bill you filed, is it different from what former Governor Baker filed last session? Is there differences?
TARR - It is different, but it is also different, Mr. chairman, from the bill that the Senate had approved as an amendment in a debate I'm sure you remember very well. It is smaller than what the governor filed, larger than what the Senate had approved.
ELDRIDGE - Okay, thank you very much.
TARR - And again Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the question. Again, there's a balance here that we need to work on and identify the right set of things to be in that category. And I'm certainly open to further discussion about what that right set should be. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER6 - Great. Thank you so much. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Any other questions? See you, none. Thank you.
SPEAKER9 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - We'll now be joined virtually by Senator Cream.
Senator cream when you're ready.
So we're not able to hear you, Senator.
SPEAKER18 - Okay. I'm a can you hear me now?
SPEAKER1 - We can. Go ahead, Senator. Thank you.
SPEAKER18 - Okay. Thank you so much. I'm sorry that button was hidden.
SEN CREEM - SB 942 - SB 940 - SB 931 - Okay, thank you. I appreciate very much, Chair Eldridge, Chair, and for taking me out of turn. First of all, I wanna speak on raise the age, which is Senate 942. I want an act to promote public safety and better outcomes for young adults. This would raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 21. I chaired the Senate task force in emerging adults and I heard testimony from many experts in support of increasing the age. Several studies found that emerging adults are generally more prone to impulsive behavior. In fact, research shows the brains of 18 to 20 year olds are more similar to the brains of younger teenagers. Keeping 18 and 20 year olds in the juvenile system would help eligible young adults avoid the burden of adult felony,2607 conviction, and certainly be good for recidivism. The DYS has already experienced in serving youth up to age2615 21, and the current law contains youth who commit an offense under age 18 are eligible to remain at the DYS Facility.
So, the juvenile arrests and arraignments have gone down. I had testimony on committee that the juvenile court could take all of the cases that would matter. But in a practical way, many of these people are still in high school. So to have the age 18 and have one year of those students that are already in high school not be also considered juveniles, really makes no sense. I don't think that was ever the intended. This is something to help kids, to keep them out of the criminal system. Statistics show that when you put them in the criminal system, it gets worse. Their recidivism is greater. These are really mainly high school students who should be treated as their other peers in high school. The second issue is the juvenile diversion, Senate 940. I wanna testify in favor of that. Again, part of the 2018 criminal justice reform law, we allowed judges to divert juveniles prior to arraignment. We recognize that effective diversion programs can hold youth accountable and direct them2699 to services and opportunities for community involvement. However, the 2018 statutory excluded from consideration from diversion several offenses that depend on under individualized facts that the case may warrant diversion. So under current law, juvenile diversion is prohibited and if the youth is indicted as a youthful offender charge with an offense that an adult would be sentenced, charge to an offense ineligible for continue without a finding and other things.
This bill would reduce the number of offenses that are statutory ineligible for pre arraignment diversion in two ways. First, the current law prohibits consideration for diversion if the individual is charged with the offense for which a penalty of incarceration is greater than five years may be imposed. However, the majority of our criminal statutes recognize the underlying facts of incidents depending on their severity can result in period court jurisdictions for a felony charge usually five years or more, or concurrent jurisdiction in the district court when the facts do not rise to the level of felony. This bill would allow a juvenile to be considered for diversion, again, considered if the offense included such an option for district court jurisdiction. It's important to emphasize that changes only get a juvenile over the first hurdle. That means that2789 they're not categorically denied the opportunity, but the facts of the case can be reviewed and considered for diversion.
That's all we wanna say is, there are cases where the judge should hear the facts. All cases are different, there are cases where the judges would make a decision for a diversion. We just wanna give them that ability. I'm speaking quickly because I know my time is limited. The third bill is the juvenile justice data collection, Senate 931. This would make much needed improvement to how juvenile justice data is collected. Our state is failing to collect important data at key decision points through the juvenile system. Having this data would better informed policy makers so we understand who's in the systems, what's happening, and whether the system involvement is helping or hindering our kids. The bill would require SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Senator, you're well over time. I appreciate all of your testimony. Would love for you to have written testimony as well. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER18 - Thank you. I chair judiciary, and I hated people that went on and on. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER4 - Thank
SPEAKER1 - you. Any questions for Senator cream? Same young. Thank you so much, Senator.
SPEAKER18 - Thank you. Good luck. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Representative Lipper Garabedian. I believe also virtually.
Sorry about that. In person.
REP LIPPER-GARABEDIAN - HB 3922 - HB 1756 - SB 954 - Thank you Chair Barber, Chair Eldridge, members of the committee for taking me out of turn. I'm here to speak today on a bill that I filed H 3922 an adult preventing false confessions in adult and juvenile interrogations. As you heard from Representative Sabadosa, I so strongly support2902 her bill, H2904 1756, and Senator DiDomenico's, S 954. I wanna thank the New England Innocence Project and the National Innocence Project, particularly as well as Strategies for Youth and the Committee Public Council Services for their participation in this legislative effort. I'm grateful for the compelling and supportive testimony you will receive in writing and in person criminal justice experts, law enforcement officials, police training organizations, and exoneree representatives. Under H 3922, law enforcement would be prohibited from knowingly or recklessly engaging in deception in order to compel a confession. Think of statements relating to evidence that doesn't exist or a false promise of leniency. If a suspect thereafter makes a statement influenced by this type of deception, there would be a presumption that such a statement is involuntary, and therefore, in admissible. A statement would still be admissible if the prosecutor demonstrates that a suspect's statement is still reliable and voluntary.
By prohibiting knowing a reckless deception, the bill would, in the reliance on a tactic that jeopardizes investigations and the truth when other and more effective approaches are available. Ongoing research has identified the use of deception as a significant factor that pressures suspects into waiving their rights and making false conceptions. The reason for prohibiting deception in juvenile cases are broadly relevant for adults, including for those adults with mental disabilities. For all adults research underscores that the psychological realities of interrogation can result in false confessions, most common because of overzealous police but also including a desire to protect someone else, guilt over a previous misdeed, and personalities highly influenced by suggestion. Deceptive practices have played a significant role in causing false confessions over 400 wrongful convictions being identified since 1984, excuse me, since 1985. In 1984, so not even among those 400, Earl Washington Junior, a black farmhand with significant intellectual disabilities, was convicted in Virginia of a murder he did not commit based solely on his confession. Spent 18 years in prison and came within days of execution before an ultimate gubernatorial pardon, a saga that my mother covered as a journalist and author.
In Massachusetts, at least six people have been wrongly convicted after our justice system failed to identify their false confessions. These innocent people collectively spent more than 100 years behind bars, while the true perpetrators of those crimes generally remain free, denying justice to victims, and risking public safety. False confessions leading to wrongful convictions have cost taxpayers millions in civil settlements and state compensation awards. H 3922 also requires the electronic recording of any custodial interrogation unless it can be shown that the recording was not possible under the circumstances. Without the recording of interrogations, it's impossible to determine whether law enforcement officers deceive suspects resulting in false statements. Electronic recordings were strongly recommended by the SJC in 2004 in an opinion in which it stated, quote, recording all interrogations would improve the efficiency, accuracy, and fairness of criminal proceedings, end quote. Given the seismic technological advances in recent years with all law enforcement officers sharing mobile devices with recording functionality, the feasibility of recording custodial interrogations is all the more possible when the SJC considered the issue essentially 20 years ago. For these reasons, I strongly encourage your favorable review of H 3922. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, representative. Any questions? Seeing down. Thank you so much for your3102 testimony. Next moving virtually, we have Senator John Villas.
Senator Villas?
Thanks. Joining us in person, DA Quinn?
SPEAKER7 - I'm actually, not in person. If you can hear me.
SPEAKER1 - We can hear you. Go right ahead.
THOMAS QUINN - BRISTOL COUNTY DA'S OFFICE - HB 1492 - Okay. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. I'd just like to speak on behalf of House bill 1492, an act relative to the dangerous offenses. Court decisions have made it necessary to revise the statute to include specific offenses. The proposed amendments in the statute are common sense changes that do not impact the defendant's due process rights but allow prosecutors to obtain dangerous defendants who undermine public safety in particular, with respect to children. With the respect to the governor's bill that I supported it generally, but my main focus was adding offenses and also changing the time frame. Just some of the offenses, especially by court decision, rape of a child,3203 aggravated by age. We have a trial going on this moment. It's a 10 year minimum mandatory. Court decision said that's not one of the offenses you can conclude and the Legislature would need to add it.
I think again, that's a common sense offense. You could have a defendant with a horrendous criminal record who was a sexual deviant, but the commonwealth would be precluded from moving to detain the person. It would just have to rely on a judge holding defendant on high cash bail. Manslaughter is another case that we litigated, a serious offense, could involve by motor vehicle or other means. The court has restricted our ability to move to detain somebody. That's an offense that has to be added, including, some firearms offenses and other crimes against children, indecent assault, and battery3257 on a child, several pornography charges. I would say, this is limited in scope, in narrow, so that it could, because it is really designed in a common sense way to give us the ability to request that the court detain people. It's not designed to undermine anybody's liberty, but these aren't, as some of this practice, we're over 35 years on both sides, these are necessary to make the statute fairer to the administration of justice and victims.
The last change would be, under the law you have six months to bring a defendant to trial in Superior Court held as a danger and four months in the district court. I request merely that that be changed to one year. That's not some odd arbitrary figure, but it is the current rule of court. Rule of 36 of Criminal Procedure allows any defendant to be brought to trial within one year. Many of these crimes in Superior Court you cannot bring the person to trial3323 within one year given the nature of the system and the complexity of the cases, murder as an exception, there was no right to bail. Again, that's already on the books. It's a common sense change that does not impact anybody's due process. As someone who's been involved in this for his whole career, I'm not looking to undermine anybody's due process. But adding these offenses and allowing us one year to bring people to trial, if somebody wants a speedy trial, they can request it. I've never seen it in 35 years that somebody wanted one. So, I would ask you to consider this again specifically tailored to, I think, things that people could agree on that are reasonable, and I hope that these can be enacted. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER20 - Thank
SPEAKER1 - you. Thank you, dear, Glenn. Question. I think chairman Aldridge.
ELDRIDGE - Yeah, thank you very much Chairwoman Barber. Thank you District Attorney Quinn for testifying on this bill before the committee. And, certainly appreciate you're highlighting some concern crimes, but I do have a question. Would this bill then apply those crimes in terms of a juvenile being able to be held under the dangerousness law?
QUINN - Well, I guess, it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, I would say, yes. You have crimes of manslaughter, and these other serious crimes that juvenile, in some cases, firearms, and shooting offenses that currently on a case by case basis people, we would move to detain some people, given the gravity of the offense, so in some cases. But I mean, I would say yes in some cases, but I think with respect to juveniles, I'm sensitive to the age of people, with respect to this bill, their limited, maybe, appreciation of what they're doing. But we do have to keep in mind that very serious crimes are committed by juveniles in some cases. We're not talking about low level offenses. So in those cases, we need to have the ability, if appropriate, to try to detain them pending the outcome of their case, either as if they're transferred as an adult, but generally it would be as a youthful offender subject to adult penalties after a procedure they have to go through.
ELDRIDGE - Great. I don't wanna put words into your mouth, but I think that's a yes. And my specific question is, this bill is adding a list of crimes in which a person could be held under the current dangerousness law, so that does mean that a juvenile who committed any of these new violations, if it were to become law, could be held as a juvenile, correct?
QUINN - Yes. I would say yes to that. I'm not trying to, yeah. But many of these crimes, as I would say, I just want to point out, because of two court decisions that one we were a party of and it's very technical language, we're basically enforcing on intent, the court really wants the Legislature to specify the crimes, like manslaughter. I just use rape with the child because it's the most common thing. That is without force, it's a 10 year mandatory, it's a serious crime. Again, it's up to a judge. I just wanna be clear, it's up to a judge. This isn't the DA saying, okay, I want this person held. It's giving us the right to petition as someone, and I must say with all sincerity, I'm not interested in seeing people3546 held who shouldn't be held. I review thousands and thousands of bail hearings, and that's not an exaggeration, and I can sense whether it's appropriate or not. So, but juveniles, in appropriate circumstances, would be subject to these offenses, and that's something you can consider. But the shootings, and stabbings, and sexual assault, those are very serious crimes, whether they're committed by someone who's 15 to 17 or 19 or 50
So I think it's going to be looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. So, I mean, I think that's my answer, but I think that I thought, you know, focused on this, this has been a big issue to me for 35 years. It's essentially focusing on giving prosecutors the ability to keep people off the streets who don't belong there in a very simple way. And that is based on the facts and the record, not anything else from my perspective. So, we look at a record, we look at the facts, we have the judge. Many of these cases, as you know, and I would point out, Senator, a3612 lot of this is just recodified which is already in the statute. These aren't on 80 new crimes. Domestic violence, which is really the purpose of the initial dangerousness statute almost 30 years ago. We're trying to protect women and children. These sexual crimes against children, we have a number of trials with many DAs going forward. We're trying to protect people, if it's warranted, at arraignment based on the facts and circumstances of the case. So, yes the juvenile, but obviously, the juvenile in some of these case, if it's a minor, you know, it's an offense, the court's got discretion to respond. And clearly, the vast majority of juvenile from my understanding are not petitioned against or detained as these, other than serious crimes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Do do
SPEAKER6 - you agree with?
SPEAKER4 - Thank
SPEAKER1 - you. Thank you so much. Thanks for sir.
SPEAKER6 - Thank you. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. So moving on, we have a panel now on how 14 90. Chief justice, Jeffrey Locke, Steve Duncan, and Joe Jackson.
JEFFREY LOCKE - MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT - HB 1490 - HB 1406 - SB 1073 - Good afternoon Chair Barber, Chair Eldridge. I'm Jeffrey Locke, chief justice of the trial court, and I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I will speak very quickly on three separate bills, the first of which I'm joined by Steve Duncan, who is our chief of technology in the trial court, and deputy court administrator for the district court, Joseph Jackson. And they are present to answer any questions that the committee may have as it relates to House bill 1490, an act to authorize electronic signatures on criminal complaints. You may know that in 2015, the Trial Court modernized the issuance of3738 criminal complaints by creating an electronic application process through which police departments could electronically submit an application for a criminal complaint. And this eliminated many of the data entry functions ordinarily performed in a clerk's office first thing in3757 the morning. However, the change did not alter the requirement that a police officer, and typically a police prosecutor or liaison to the court, was required to physically sign, that is give wet signature to an application for complaint.3777
The bill before you really is the logical next step in converting the application and issuance of criminal complaints to a fully electronic system by permitting an arresting officer to electronically sign the application for criminal complaint and to do so under pains and penalties of perjury. The legislation enhances the comprehensive IT bond bill that was passed last year. As you know, the bond bill envisions the conversion of the court process to a paperless system, a paperless courthouse, and the instant legislation will allow us to further that goal. So, it is a fairly technical change. It actually has the benefit, in addition, of permitting an officer with personal knowledge of the underlying facts for the complaint to be the one attesting to it, rather than a police liaison officer who often has no actual knowledge or personal knowledge of the underlying facts. While I still have the floor and a little bit of time remaining, there are two other pieces of legislation that we have requested and that legislators have filed on our behalf I'd like to speak to. First, House Bill 1406, and companion Senate bill 1073, an act regarding conditions of release in Superior Court.
And I wanna thank Representative Cahill and Senator Moore for sponsoring these bills on behalf of the Trial Court. These bills would essentially provide a Superior Court judge with the same authority to impose bail and bail conditions as currently exists for the District Court and the Boston Municipal Court under Chapter 276 Section 58. There really is no logical distinction between the bail conditions imposed on a Superior Court release and the bail conditions imposed on a district or a municipal court release. And the conditions, such as GPS monitoring, imposition of a curfew, or similar conditions often bear on the likelihood of a defendant to appear at subsequent proceedings, and often enable a judge to impose a lower cash bail when complemented by conditions of release. So we'd asked the committee to favorably consider that legislation. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank thank you, Justice Lock. If you could wrap up your testimony since you
SPEAKER21 - had time.
LOCKE - The third bill District Attorney Ryan spoke to, and I won't go into it in any great detail, but it is a Trial Court proposal. The trial court would observe the cost of bail, after hour bail considerations and take that off of the back of an individual under arrest, and often disproportionately impacting those unable to afford a cash release, the Trial Court would absorb and compensate bail commissioners and magistrates. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER4 - Thank you.
SPEAKER21 - Are there any questions, regarding the electronic application process, to deputy administrative checks.
SPEAKER1 - Are you a tax are are you gonna tax testify as well?
JOSEPH JACKSON - MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURT - The only that I would add to the chief's testimony is that, since the start of 2023 almost 80000 applications have been submitted by local and state police departments to the District and Boston Municipal Court departments. We're on par this year for 120,000 applications which represents about a 20% increase over what we received last year. The bill, if approved, would allow them, police officers, to electronically sign the criminal complaint application. Currently, as the chief mentioned, they have to appear at the court to do this. It would certainly shorten the process, make the day easier for them, and it would assist the court in processing the day's work. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Mister Duncan, or do you have testimony as well?
SPEAKER9 - Nothing's bad. Okay.
SPEAKER11 - If there's
SPEAKER9 - any questions, happy to
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Are there any questions for the panel? Seeing none. Thank you so much for your testimony. Appreciate your time. Next, we have another panel, on house 1406,
chief justice Heidi Breiger. And Justice Lawrence Pierce?
HEIDI BRIEGER - MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT - HB 1406 - Good afternoon Chair Eldridge and Chair Barber. It's a pleasure to be here in support of House Bill 1406 that Chief Justice Locke just described to you. I'm here on behalf of all of my colleagues on the Superior Court. I can tell you that nothing is simple. We both know that you write the laws, I have to read them. And the reason we are here in support of this bill is to correct a very simple oddity in the legislation that governs our bail conditions. As you just heard and as is the current law, the District Court has more authority to set conditions of bail in any case than the Superior Court does. We can set conditions of bail only in domestic violence cases. This hampers our ability to find appropriate ways to release individuals into the custody of their families or their jobs, and sometimes result, I believe, in folks being held pretrial that perhaps would be better released under appropriate conditions. My colleague, Judge Laurence Pierce, is going to describe in a little more detail the legal issue for which he is very well prepared because he served as a District Court judge before he became a Superior Court judge and therefore lost some of his discretion, Judge Pierce.
LAURENCE PIERCE - MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT - HB 1406 - Okay. So, I've been a Superior Court judge. Laurence Pierce, regional administrator judge in Middlesex County. I've been a Superior Court judge for 10 years. Before that, I was a District Court judge for five years. And as a District4179 Court judge, I was accustomed to crafting release4181 plans for defendants mostly designed to safeguard victims and witnesses and defendants themselves. These plans allow time for tempers to cool, for necessary arrangements to be made, and for the dust to settle, quite frankly. And such plans could and often do avoid lengthy periods of incarceration under the dangerousness statute 58A. When I got to Superior Court, I was surprised to find that the Superior Court bail statute, which most judges assume confers the same authority as the District Court statute, was different in one important respect. And with the statutory amendment in 2006, that gave the District Court authority to impose conditions to protect victims and witnesses. The same authority was not extended to 57, which applies to the Superior Court.
I've looked at the issue, I asked for help from others looking at the issue. I believe that this was inadvertent. It may have been no more than a mistaken belief that 58 applies also to Superior Court, one doesn't know. There is nothing to suggest that it was intentional to put the District Court and the Superior Court on different footing when it came to conditions of release.4267 So to get into the weeds a little bit here, that is not to say that the superior court can't impose conditions of release, we can. The chief mentioned domestic violence cases. We can impose conditions or release under our bail statute in those cases. And in addition, we can impose conditions of release as all the Trial Courts can under 87, but the condition of that is that it's with the ascent of the defendant.
So there are two problems when a judge relies on Section 87 to impose conditions of release. The first is the defendant may refuse the conditions, notwithstanding sort of the circumstances, a busy probation officer might refuse to get the defendant's signature on a form, or a judge may forget to obtain the necessary consent. And in the real world, as business moves quickly through the courts, these things do happen. The second problem with relying on Section 87 is the viability of the consent. And the Supreme Judicial Court recently has referred to this in the Norman case, where it casts doubt on whether a defendant can meaningfully give consent signing a probation form due to the coercive of nature of the whole circumstance. You're essentially saying to a defendant, agreed to these conditions, or we have an alternative which4358 involves higher cash bail. We urge your support for the measure. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much. Okay. Appreciate it. Any questions? Singan. Thank you so much. Next, we have a panel, representative Farley Bouvier virtually. Berkshireshire Sheriff Fowler and Barbara Gallo in person.
REP FARLEY-BOUVIER - HB 1476 - SB 1102 - Thank you so much Chairs Barber, and Eldridge, and members of the committee. I'm here today to testify on H 1476, an act relating to threats of suicide while in court custody or Stavri's Law. I have filed this bill in partnerships with Representative Brian Ashe and Senator Jake Oliveira in memory of Stavri Yanka, who died by suicide in the Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction on November 7th, 2021. His heartbreaking death was preventable. If only law enforcement officials had access to civil commitment petitions and orders, and we in the Legislature have an opportunity to make what is truly a technical fix to prevent other suicides like Stavri's. I'm gonna really turn this all over to the people who know this issue the best. And that is my partners in this, Stavri's mother, Barbara Gallo, and Sheriff Bowler. Sheriff Fuller has partnered with Sheriff Cocchi from Hampden County, and the rest of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association to support this bill. And I turn it over to them to testify with the details and be available to you to any questions that they have, Sheriff?
THOMAS BOWLER - BERKSHIRE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - HB 1476 - SB 1102 - Thank you. Thank you Chair Eldridge and Vice Chair Barber. Thank you to Representative Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Senator Oliveira, and Mr. Ashe also for their assistance on this. If I may, just give a brief synopsis of why are we here today, in November 4, 2021, Stavri Yanka, a 34 year old man, was committed to the Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction by the District Court. Jail officials conducted a routine security, medical, and mental health intake on Stavri, but he did not disclose any information that would indicate that he was an increased risk of suicide. He denied any suicidal thoughts or behavior or any history of such thoughts or behavior. Jail officials checked any suicide Q fives, which are reports of self harm or suicidal behavior while in law enforcement custody, and there were no such reports. Given the lack of any indicia of suicidal ideation, Stavri was placed on routine monitoring, he was checked every 30 minutes.
On November 5th, one day later, a District Court ordered Stavri to be held at the jail for 60 days. A mental health clinician met with Stavri following his return to jail from court and Stavri gave no indication of suicidal ideation, excuse me, ideation. Stavri committed suicide, unfortunately, two days later while in custody on November 7th, 2021. The suicide was the first suicide at the Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction in over 35 years, and it had a profound effect upon Stavri's family and upon the correctional personnel, officers, medical, and mental health staff who worked there. Unknown to the correctional facility, Stavri had appeared before the court on a Section 35 petition a few months before his incarceration. Family members petitioned for the 35 commitment because Stavri had tied zip ties around his neck. The court denied the 35 petition. Had correctional officers been aware of the recent potential suicide behavior by Stavri, they would have placed him on a heightened watch status.
Stavri's law is designed to help avoid deaths in custody by alerting law enforcement officials to suicidal behavior evidenced in Section 35 petitions and commitments. Moreover, currently court officials do not enter suicide Q5 information in the sieges for individuals who engage in suicidal threats or behavior while in court or in the court lockup. Entering such information into sieges would alert law enforcement agencies so they can take appropriate protective measures to minimize the risk of suicide should they come into contact with such individuals. Additionally, chiefs of police with this information would have access to the Suicide Q5 information in4640 sieges in determining whether to grant or renew firearms licenses. We respectfully request your support on Stavri's Law, House 1476 and Senate 1102, an act relating to the threats of suicide while in court custody. Together, this legislation will help to fill the gaps in notification and most importantly, save lives. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
BARBARA GALLO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 1476 - SB 1102 - Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the proposed law that would bear my son's name. As was said, November 7, 21, my son, Stavri, completed suicide by hanging in the Berkshire County House of Correction. Less than five months prior to my son's death, he was seen at Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield where he was brought via ambulance for having fastened zip ties around his neck.4690 My husband and I took a4692 harrowing ride that day to4694 the hospital, and with understanding our sense of mental health in substance use history, proceeded to the Pittsfield District Court to petition for a Section 35 commitment. I have been employed by the Hampden County Sheriff's Office for about 15 years since mid 2008. I'm an academy trained employee, meaning that I'm trained as a correctional officer. And I have more than a layman's understanding of how the county jail system works.
Additionally, I've worked with families struggling with the effects of a loved one with substance use disorder for more than 15 years.4729 My son was booked into the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office on 11/4. Though concerned about the events that led up to this, there was a certain relief that he was safe from himself into his choices for a while. Countless times, I have told families over the years when they were in my position, go home and get a good night's sleep, he said. This left me ill prepared to receive the news about my son on the evening of November 7th of that year. I and my fam family were devastated, hurt and angry. I wanted to blame Sheriff Bowler and his staff for not performing their primary responsibility of care and custody. When my husband and I met with Sheriff Bowler, I wanted to know why my son had the time and materials to complete this act when he had a documented suicide attempt five short months earlier.
Because my son had appeared in court and even within the same county, I felt secure that they were privy to this information. And it is well known that practicing the behavior leads somebody into a significant increased risk for suicide. Sheriff Bowler told us that his office was unaware of the previous attempt and my son's assessment did not provide any information that would place him on an increased risk status. How could this be? Judges and courts who oftentimes only see an individual for less than a half an hour have all of the information necessary to make the decisions they render. Sheriffs' offices who have custody and care responsible for the custody and care for individuals like my son for months or even years need this vital information in order to keep them safe. Ladies and gentlemen, this is common sense and a pretty simple fix. I would have called the jail and asked that4843 they watch my son closer if I had any idea they did not have this information. That's something I'll have a chance to relive for the balance of my days. Please help me feel that I've4855 at least made a difference for someone else.4857 Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. I'm very4859 sorry for your loss. Thank you for your testimony.
REP ASHE - HB 1476 - SB 1102 - Thank you Senator Eldridge, Vice Chair Barber, my distinguished colleagues. As well, I wanna thank my friend and colleagues, Senator Oliveira and Rep Farley-Bouvier for their leadership on this piece of legislation, as well thank you Sheriff Bowler, and thank you so much, Barb, for having the courage to be here. We file a lot of pieces of legislation over the years, and sometimes they're controversial, sometimes there's pushback, and sometimes it just takes a long time to get something done. Rarely do we have something that can make an immediate impact and that can take the smallest bit of weight off Barb's shoulders. To me, this is for a few different reasons. One, Barb and her husband, Joe, that are my constituents. Two, I worked at the Hampden County Sheriff's Department for 15 and a half years, and I fully understand the importance of classification, the importance of passing on information, and how important, especially on suicide watches that4923 is.4923 And third and foremost for me is, Barb and Joe are friends of mine. And it breaks4929 my heart when I found out about Stavri and it breaks my heart to hear her have to share this information over and over again. This is something we can do, and it will save lives, has an immediate impact. I ask that you move this favorably, thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, representative. Senator.
SEN OLIVEIRA - HB 1476 - SB 1102 - Thank you Madam Vice Chair, thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. And also thank you for just the courage and strength you Barbara, for coming here today and describing your story. And also, Sheriff Bowler, thank you so much for taking this common sense approach and for reaching out to both of us and to the Sheriff's Association and Sheriff Cocchi, who has been a strong champion for this bill as well. And to my colleagues in government, Representative Ashe, we represent the Gallo family, the Yanka family. We wanna make sure that there are protections in place. And also to my friend and colleague from Berkshire County, Representative Tricia Farley-Bovier, for filing this bill as well. I did not know Stavri, but I know Saveri's sister. I went to school with her at Ludlow High School, he was a few years behind me.
This is something that touches so many families, and I don't wanna go over the specifics of the bill, but just to call attention to the high rate of suicide and suicidal thoughts that are permeating through our society. Since the pandemic, and according to the CDC, in 2021, 12.3 million adults in the US thought about suicide, 3.5 million made a plan, and 1.7 million attempted suicide, and one death occurs by suicide every 11 seconds in this country. About 75% of those that are incarcerated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and our country require mental health services. This is closing a simple loophole about sharing information, information that can keep people safe. Nothing that we can do in this Legislature and this session can bring back Stavri. But what we can do is put in place the proper procedures to ensure that our sheriffs have the tools necessary to keep people safe. I would ask that this committee report out favorably both House 1476, and my bill Senate at number 1102 to prevent tragedies like this from happening ever again. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Great. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate your time today. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, we have Senator Friedman.
SEN FRIEDMAN - SB 982 - Thank you Madam Vice Chair, and Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. A sort of a side is that it might be time for us to do a deep dive in what HIPPA really means and what kind of data we can share and can't. So many people are suffering because we don't communicate, and I don't think that was the intent, so. But I'm here to talk about an act relative to treatment, not imprisonment, S 982. And I think you heard from Rep Balser already, so I don't wanna go through what the bill does. I know we have been before you for several sessions, and I know we've worked hard to really clarify what this bill is trying to do, and it's very simple, if you're in treatment for substance use disorder and you relapse, you don't go to jail, not an option.
We don't do that with any other disease or illness, and we shouldn't do it with this one. We're not saying if you commit a crime you don't go to jail, we're not saying if you don't wanna do treatment you don't go to jail, we're simply saying that jail is not a place for somebody who relapses when they have a substance use disorder. We have all the data, we understand the medical parts of this, we get the process. Relapse is a piece of it and if the only thing we can do for people who have mental illness or substance use disorder is throw them in jail then we are in a sorry, sorry state. So, this has been worked on a lot, and I just please urge you and beg you to move this out of committee. I think it really represents the best of all of us trying to make sure that the right thing is being done. So I appreciate your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Senator. Any questions? Cigna. Thank you, Senator. So now we'll be moving to testimony by individuals who are incarcerated in correctional facilities in the commonwealth, and then we'll come back to additional testimony we're gonna start at MCO Norfolk.
And this is regarding house 3955. I believe the first person testifying is James Freeman.
SPEAKER2 - I'm sorry.
SPEAKER29 - We have, Brian Gracie. James Freeman will be next, if possible. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Brian.
BRIAN GRACIE - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - Good afternoon. I would like to, thank you for allowing me to testify today on why I believe you guys should consider passing the Second Look Act. On the early morning of July 29, 2012, I instigated a fight which led to the stab and death of Brennan Mahoney. I also severely wounded his older brother, Brian. I was arrested and charged with first degree murder, and attempted murder. I was 18 years old, recent high school graduate with no criminal record, and I had aspiration of becoming a Mass state police office. Now, there's not one day that goes by that I do not think about all the harm that I caused to the Mahoney family, the survivors of my violent crime, my community, the witnesses, and my family. I take complete and full responsibility for actions that night and everything that happened, and for that, and I am truly sorry.
Throughout my 11 years of incarceration, I have entrenched myself in programming with emphasis on bettering myself and to help recognize my issues and my flaws. I participate in the alternatives of violence program and violence reduction which has given me the tools necessary to understand my triggers, and I've learned ways to reduce and, on my anger and a positive manner. The restorative justice program has opened my mind, body, and soul, while teaching me about sympathy, empathy, and compassion for others. I'm a facilitator in RJ because I believe in its transformative policy. I trained 3 service dogs through the NEEDS5335 program for deaf and disabled American veterans. And I'm an assistant coordinator at, Program, and have spoken to over 1200 high school students about the negative effects of drugs, alcohol, and violence.
I didn't, employment through my aspiration of, I graduate from Boston University with a bachelor's degree in liberal Arts. However, even with all the good I've done, it does not negate the bad. I took a life and deeply impacted many others. There's no parole, no release date, and no forgetting the fact that I created so much pain, sorrow, and sadness for so many which will never heal. Knowing all the harm I caused, I vow to never create another victim, and I know many other men inside the state prison who feel and think the same as I do. We are capable of change. Passing the Second Look Act will not open the door for everyone. The courts and the parole board are very good at determining those of us who are no longer a threat to society and those who are. Passing the Second Look Act would acknowledge the possibility of redemption for those of us willing to spend the many years necessary to change and improve through program, education, and reflection. The possibility of a second chance is like a glimmer of life the end of a long tunnel. And it's a powerful motivator for self improvement and good behavior. Please consider supporting the Second Look Act because I believe that not everyone sentenced to life in prison deserves to die in prison. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Brian. Appreciate your testimony. Any questions? Thank you.
SPEAKER30 - No. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next, James Freeman.
SPEAKER6 - Yes.
SPEAKER1 - Mister Freeman, are you there? Uh-huh.
SPEAKER31 - Yes.
SPEAKER1 - Go ahead.
JAMES FREEMAN - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - This country was founded and built on second chances from slavery to segregation. There was even a time where it was okay to treat women like objects and gay bashing used to be a rite of passage. But this country created a way, a system to help the people to become better. Redemption, expiate, reconcile, these words were created to give people second chances. There should always be a system in place to help someone get back to their humanity and their families because we only live once. When I came to prison, my son was five, his son is now 12. I had to look at my life, and I realized at that very moment, in that prison cell, if I would've died right then and there, then I have done nothing in this world with substance. So, I look to utilize the programs to help educate myself to help me back to what was right. And I won't say that all prisoners have discovered this. That's why in the Second Look Act bill, the judge will have full discretion.
If a petitioner is able to show the judge that they have really changed, the judge can grant them a hearing, if not, the judge can deny it. But even in that denial, the judge will have the authority to be able to set requirements to help that petitioner to become better. That's America as it has been time and time again, creating policies throughout history to help the people to become better. Showing that even when you make grave errors in this life, whether it's a government or personally, that no human being should be given up on, This bill will give people a second chance. It's not guaranteed you will have to work hard for it. Judge McConnell in the Giovanni Laura case out of Providence said, when you do the right thing, people are not going to like it but it is still the right thing. And where do you stand in life? And I would like to end with these words, ladies and gentlemen, when someone looks to better themselves and evolve by studying and expanding their mind, it moulds them into this ray of sunshine. That should never be left to the darkness of a prison cell when they now have the positive potential to affect the world. May God bless5591 you all, may God bless America, and thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Mister Freeman. Appreciate your testimony. Next next, do you have Ian McGrath?
SPEAKER10 - Grapp.
SPEAKER1 - Mister McGrath, go go ahead.
IAN MCGRATH - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ian McGrath. I'm here to speak to you today on behalf of bill number 3955, an act for a second look. During my early 20s, I spent a lot of time drinking and driving around the city until one night I spent one selfish decision where I drove home from the bar and a life was lost. Now, coming to prison was a huge wake up call for me. If something like this didn't happen, I don't know where I would have ended up. Now, since I've been in prison, I've tried to use my time the most productive way as I can. I've been inside for about 18 months and in that time, I've done programs that work on myself such as violence reduction, emotional awareness, corrective recovery academy, and so on, while also taking part in programs which give back to the community, such as Project Youth, where we speak to local high schoolers about my story, other stories of individuals, to give them the knowledge to make choices.
While also taking part in the NEEDS program, training dogs, service dogs to go to veterans and people with disabilities. Now,5698 while I was involved with all these programs, I met numerous men who have been incarcerated and are serving much longer sentences than I've served in currently, who have put in so much work so much dedication, so much time into bettering themselves, to the point where they're not even recognizable to the same person that came in when they committed their crime. So I feel that the Second Look Act would not only give these men another chance at reentering society, but it also gives society a chance to look in at us and see the amount of change that's taking part inside these walls. And with that, I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you. Next, we have Yovanceki Solano.
SPEAKER29 - This is why I'm fine.
SPEAKER30 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER1 - Mr. Solano?
SPEAKER2 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER1 - Go ahead when you're ready.
GIOVANSKI SOLANO - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - Okay. Good afternoon everyone,5785 my5785 name5785 is Giovanski Solano. Since this incident that landed me in state prison, I've become a more self aware, empathetic, knowledgeable, and ambitious young man. With me being a father of two and realizing how much I was depended on by my family, I've come to understand the importance of a man in the household. I also see the impact and devastation I've caused to the counties I affected. I'm currently in barber training, the father's group, and many other groups. One of the best groups that I'm involved in at the moment is Project Youth. In this program, I inform youth about my life and my mistakes so that they don't become what I was, and we all become better. In this process, I'm working towards my road to redemption.
Redemption to me looks like taking a bad decision or a setback and turning that into success. It's an opportunity to show the world and yourself that the bad decision you made does not define you. What really defines you is how you learn from that bad decision and change your life for the better. Also, it's another chance to achieve your dream. Speaking of dreams, my dream for the future is to be the best father and man I could be for my family. Financial Freedom and owning property is also part of that dream. It gives my family a better chance to succeed, and it starts a generational pattern of success, and I'll leave this earth with a positive legacy. Another one of my dreams is5879 for the Second Look Act to be looked into, and I'll leave you guys with that. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER2 - Yep. Enjoy your afternoon.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Oasis Bridget.
SPEAKER33 - It's Bridget.
SPEAKER1 - Mister Pritchett? Good afternoon. Go right ahead.
OASIS PRITCHETT - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - My name is Oasis Pritchett, I am currently enrolled in EPI, which is Emerson Prison Initiative, I also engage in multiple other programs that predicate their time to further personal growth and education. I'm here today to speak on behalf of Massachusetts Second Look Act. The Second Look Act is not a guarantee for people to be free. What it does is it provides opportunity and a platform for those incarcerated individuals to have their rehabilitation and their growth examined through the courts. The court system will then take that opportunity to either set criteria for incarcerated individuals who show and prove their growth and development and rehabilitation and either grant them the petition for a reduction in sentence or either deny. But either way, they will set criteria that individuals will have to meet within the confines of rehabilitation and growth. Now, I've been incarcerated for 12 years and I've indulged in multiple educational platforms, multiple growth and development platforms now. For me, I haven't seen any platforms that give me the opportunity to show my growth and development. So, now knowing that our taxpayers are paying for rehabilitation programs, but there is no platform for me to show what6003 I have undertaken, it becomes senseless in a sense because I'm fighting for my right and I'm fighting for my development, but there's no way for me to exude that to the people that6015 it most matters to.
So, the Second Look6019 Act6019 is6019 a great platform that should be undertaking through legislation because it provides the understanding that the rehabilitation system is working. Now, the Second Look Act will provide society with human beings that are coming out from prison trying to negate and combat the negative things that the youth are doing out there now. 90% of the previously incarcerated people have been in multiple settings where they are trying to convert the urban youth or just any youth that is out. There committing crimes is probably6058 some people in your Bureau right now that have been previously incarcerated that are pristine citizens. So, that's why the second look It's vital to our society because I'm pretty sure there are members in your cabinet that have been previously incarcerated that are6075 doing phenomenal out there in the streets. And I thank you for allowing me this platform to speak my piece, and I hope that you guys take a further look into the second look. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate your time.
SPEAKER34 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have, Steven Quinlan
Mister Quinlan, go ahead.
STEVEN QUINLAN - MCI NORFOLK - HB 3955 - Alright. Good afternoon. As you heard, my name is Steven Farooq Quinlan, and I'm currently speaking on behalf of House Bill 3955, an act for second look. I've been incarcerated for 23 years, and I'm currently serving life without the possibility of parole. I've spent more than two decades amazed by countless real life examples of the human capacity to change even against the greatest adversity. Every day I walk these prison grounds, and I bare witness to the resilience of the condemned man, the man who was fueled by remorse and regret for his past action. The man who selflessly helps others and models what it means to take responsibility and6147 to be held accountable. The man who recognizes that no matter what he does to change himself, no matter what he does to make amends, he will live out his entire lifetime with no realistic reprieve, no parole, no release date, no mechanism for reconsideration, no second chances, no redemption, nothing.
I lived the early years of my incarceration in total rebellion. I was about to gangs, fighting, and drinking myself away from yelling. I was lost in shame and self hatred for the crime that I committed and doing everything possible to make a horrible situation even worse. Then after a one year stretch of solitary confinement, I made a commitment to begin to explore my positive potential. I set the ties with the gang and formally renounced my membership. I enrolled in Boston University and earned my bachelor's degree. I was6195 introduced to the principles and practices of restorative justice where I've worked directly with community leaders, law enforcement officials, and survivors of violent crime. I've gone more than 15 years without one major disciplinary fraction.
Today, nearly everyone I encounter expresses their belief that I deserve a second chance. My life without parole sentence forever denies me that chance. You see, the world that surrounds us isn't only meant to prevent us from getting out, it's also meant to prevent society from looking in. House bill 3955 opens up a window to see through these walls and witness the remarkable change, the stories of change that happen within these walls. See, I was once taught that justice isn't only punishing those who do wrong. It's also rewarding those who do right. No one is asking for a handout. All we're asking is for an avenue to earn a second chance, House bill 3955 opens up that avenue. So I ask this community to please consider providing everybody a second look further on in their incarceration to see if they are worthy of a second chance. Not a handout, the effort should be rewarded. So I thank you all. And, again, my name is Steven Farooq Quinlan, and I believe that second chances are possible. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate your time. So now we're going to house 45. And next, we have Valentino Facy. Good.
Mister Facy, go right ahead.
VALENTINO FACEY - MCI NORFOLK - HB 45 - Alright. Good afternoon everybody. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Joint Committee on the Judiciary for allowing me the opportunity to speak to an act about provide sentencing parity in criminal law, bill H 45. My name is Valentino Facey, I'm 38 years old. I was born and raised in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts. I've been incarcerated since the age of 21. I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a secondary to a murder, which means I was convicted as an accomplice, but I was tried in 2008 and I was sentenced to the national life sentence. I am currently at MCI Norfolk and I'm a part of the We Are Joint Venture organization. My position in building that organization is public relations. I'm here today to share with you all how joint venture has affected me from the very beginning. I was indicted for first degree murder, and I sat in the county jail for 10 months. The indictment read that I was the person that inflicted the death blow and killed the victim in my case.
I sat in there knowing that was the truth. And it would be impossible for me to be convicted as a murderer when I didn't kill anybody. So now when trial started, I was under the impression that the prosecutors were gonna say, this man was the guy that's responsible for the death of the victim, but that wasn't the angle that they went in. He went in as an accomplice. So that cripple my whole defense right then and there because I was under the impression that I was gonna be charged as the shooter, and that wasn't the case. So, as I sat in trial trying to figure out how to do damage control and how to fight this case from the compass position, it just wasn't gonna work that way because I was already under the wrong impression. My lawyer didn't give me the heads up that this was gonna take place. So with that happening, the confusion, I was deemed to be just as held as just accountable as the person that actually committed the murder.
So, the DA office they usually tend to do because, I've started to realize that this is an occurrence and a regular thing that's been happening to other joint ventures because they said the same thing had happened to them. So, us moving forward, I was trying to get6432 behind this bill with the work of We Are Joint Venture bringing awareness and fairness to the judicial system as far as when it comes to handling people that never killed anybody and the sentence that we've been getting. They've been very harsh, and we wanna just bring fairness to it and hold everybody accountable. I would like to be held accountable for my actions and not the actions of somebody else. As I sit in the cell and I'm realizing that this is the thing that is really, excuse me, this is really a problem that's going on in the black communities.
And with a lot of people that are here for joint venture are men of color, whether it is, I would like to say, Hispanic or Asian, we're6476 all going through the same fight. And we would like to just have you guys get behind this bill, H 45, to help change that because we think everybody deserves another chance. And by you all getting behind this bill, we can't bring this change and no longer call people murderers that never killed anybody. We just I believe in a second chance, and I believe that we all can get this done together if we all put our foot in the right direction. And I appreciate you all for having me, and I urge you all please to get behind this bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you, Mister Facy. Appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER32 - Alright, Tim.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
SPEAKER33 - Thank you all. Got it.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Neil Parham. Yep.
SPEAKER11 - Bet.
SPEAKER1 - Mister Param, go ahead.
NEIL PARHAM - MCI NORFOLK - HB 45 - Yes. Good afternoon honorable members of the Legislature. It is a privilege and honor to be given this opportunity to address you on my thoughts concerning the joint venture theory and how it is being applied in our criminal law system. My name is Neil Parham, I am serving a first degree life sentence with no eligibility for parole. I am 70 years old and I have served nearly five decades for a crime I did not commit. For example, when I went to trial in 1975, the district attorney was well informed that I was not the person6565 who actually committed the murder, yet I was still convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. Based on how the joint venture was applied in my case, I feel that I have been treated unfairly. It pains me much to know I have spend more time in prison for something I did not do.
The joint venture theory,6584 as it stands now, does not bring fairness to our criminal law system. A system where sentencing is directed at the person who action committed to crime and prioritizes justice, not solely incarceration. I have served over 45 years in prison. I feel our criminal law system needs to be revisited, so it will6605 bring justice to those of us who never murdered anyone. In closing, I thank you honorable members of the Legislature for hearing my concerns about the joint venture. Also, I am asking for your support on the joint venture bill, 2097, an act to provide sentencing parity for criminal law. I hope this panel of legislators will see the need to revise the joint venture rule to bring fairness to the justice and justice to our criminal law system. As a young person, I never imagined myself being in prison for the rest of my life. When my family asks me, when are you coming home? I can never tell them because I don't even know myself. The joint venture theory is the real reason why I can never go home. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much, Mister Parham. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. And next, we have Earl, Fulgium.
EARL FULGER - WE ARE JOINT VENTURE - HB 45 - Hello. Thank you guys for your time. I'll be speaking to sentencing parity, house bill 45. Thank you in advance and thank you for letting me speak. My name is Earl Fulger, the vice president of We Are Joint Venture. In hopes of not sounding too redundant, I won't dwell on the aspects of actual killer or the systemic racism factor. I'll be speaking more to due process and write to a fair trial. Before I go any further, I would also like to say in no way, shape, or form do we downplay that someone has lost their life. I too have experienced that losing my family member to violence. That is a pain that I wish on no one. With that being said, I would also6717 like to say, I feel like everybody has the right to a fair trial and I feel like a fair trial relies heavily on due process. I had never heard of joint venture till the day of my trial. On day of picking a jury, the DA goes to the judge and says to the courtroom that we'll be moving forward with the joint venture theory on myself and my co-defendant. And I remember sitting at the table and whispering to my attorney, what does that mean? Can they do that? He said, yeah, they could do that. I said, are you prepared for that? It's been 10 years since that happened, and I still find myself asking, what is joint venture and how did that happen to me?
See, I never really understood until I got involved. Joint venture was something that I lost my life behind. And even explaining it to my family members and explaining it to children is very hard because my children have a very innocent mind, they don't fathom someone being held responsible for something that they didn't do. It is important to say that as joint venture, we're not looking for it, get out of jail free card. We're more6779 looking for due process, fair6781 trial, and being held responsible for whatever actions that we actually did do. And I understand that people want justice for losing their family, as I said, I've lost my family too. But one thing that I all should tell is that, I would never want somebody to be6797 held accountable for something they didn't do especially at life debt with no chance of parole. In a lot of cases commonwealth has a joint venture sitting here with life with no parole, and the primary person who is the actual killer has never even been brought to trial.
There's a thing that we do6813 when we have our meetings where we have people stand up who have been held liable for joint venture. And in that meeting, when we stand up, I look around and it's hard to overlook that majority of the people are black and brown people. My name is Earl Fulger and I have6829 two life sentences with no chance of parole6831 and 17 years on and after because of a theory that I was found guilty6835 on that I never had chance to challenge. I feel like joint venture is a tool that makes it easy to convict black and brown people and have no chance of fighting or we have to risk our lives and sell our soul to a government. As I said, I never would downplay someone losing their lives. I always send the condolences to the victim's family, but as I started, I wouldn't want somebody held responsible for a murder they didn't commit. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Mr. Foljem. Appreciate your testimony.
SPEAKER31 - Yep.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Julian Green.
Good afternoon, Mister Green. Go right ahead.
SPEAKER20 - Good afternoon.
JULIAN GREEN - WE ARE JOINT VENTURE - HB 45 - Alright. Thank you Senator Eldridge, Representative Day, and the body in this committee. My name is Julian Green. I've been incarcerated for 16 years, and I'm the founder of We Are Joint Venture. Today, I am here with this committee as a convicted killer who never killed anyone. I'm 35 years old, I sit before you all as a man that has transformed his life through prison fellowship, education, and by participating and facilitating in restorative justice healing circles. For most of my life, I looked at the word impossible and never realized that it meant, I'm possible. Thus, I proved that a person sentenced to life for murder under the joint venture theory can overcome the label and find purpose in life. History has shown that our criminal justice system has shifted towards penalizing the color of the defendant rather than a crime of the suspect. After continuous study, I have discovered that in the past 51 years, our state has processed and convicted over 600 defendants for murder under the joint venture theory, meaning that prosecutors in most cases have acknowledged that these individuals did not kill anyone or in other cases, acknowledged that they do not know who's the actual killer. The truth is, Massachusetts is literally creating murderers through the joint venture theory, thus destroying many lives and families.
The disturbing fact is that in Boston, the joint venture theory is targeting our children, our children's offspring, as well as adults under the age of 20. We Are Joint Venture was able to gather data which revealed that the majority of these cases are coming out of low income communities. This data will be forwarded to each committee members shortly. Creating sentencing parity is not a loophole. House bill 45 would bring accountability. If anyone thinks that this is a get out of jail free card, I will point to the sentence of 25 years that House Bill 45 would inflict on the6991 defendant for participating in a crime that resulted in a homicide. This6995 practice has to start. A common law should not be the driving force of our moral principles. What's more prudent, a common law from Britain, or the law over this commonwealth? Why do we as joint ventures have to live with the burden of being labeled a murderer? Our children have to live with7010 this reality, our parents have to live with the7012 shame and judgment of a justice system that has marginalized members of society, deemed collateral damage in the process of distributing justice. More or less, our state is not safer when the court is locking up men and women for murder when they aren't the actual murderer. And in many cases, the Commonwealth knows the actual killer is at large, but I guess conviction is more important than public safety. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mister Green. And I I I spoke to refrain from applause just to keep time. Thank you.
SPEAKER20 - Yeah. Have a good day.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony.
SPEAKER20 - And I appreciate you guys.
SPEAKER1 - Next, we have Ed Carrock.
SPEAKER13 - Hello. How you doing?
SPEAKER1 - Fine, Mister Rod. Please go ahead.
EDGAR ROCK - MCI NORFOLK - HB 45 - My name is Edgar Rock, I'm 56 years old, I've been in prison 29 years for being convicted under the theory of joint venture. Basically, the commonwealth said that I was the driver in my case. I was tried with the principal in my case, the principal was acquitted of all of the charges, and I'm sitting here doing a natural life sentence without the eligibility of parole. The problem with the joint venture theory is that they charge you with an indictment of murder, but murder under the statute says that you either killed or beat somebody, and then that you murdered them. So I didn't kill or beat anybody, but because of the joint venture theory, because I was there, I'm held accountable and responsible for what my codefendant did. The problem with that is that the only way that I can prove that I didn't share my co-defendant's intent is if I'm allowed to testify. The problem with testifying is that I'm testifying to something that I do not know because as far as joint venture is concerned, it is inferred that you shared your codefendant's7149 intent, which I did not.
The problem with the joint venture bill is that people are sitting in jail who have not killed anybody, they're being charged with murder but they haven't killed anybody. But because of the joint venture theory, they're actually doing time for murder. I'd just like to actually to support the bill so that individuals are not sitting in here doing natural life sentences for murders that they didn't commit. If anything, the only thing I should have been charged with is accessory after the fact which is only a sentence of seven to 14 years rather than first degree murder. But even in that, I shouldn't have been charged for that but, basically, that's all I really have to say. I didn't really prepare anything. I just think that it's unfair that I'm sitting here doing a natural life sentence for murder I didn't commit and that the principal in my case is home. The Commonwealth has already consent it that I'm not the principal, that I didn't kill anybody. They said that, they stated that, but yet I'm still sitting here during a natural life sentence without any possibility of parole. So, if you could support the bill, I'd appreciate it. There's a lot of us that are in here similarly situated,7231 and it would allow us an opportunity at least half will be able to go home someday. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony, Mister Rock. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next, we have glorious Allah.
Good afternoon. Go right ahead.
Go ahead and with your testimony when you're ready.
SPEAKER36 - Alright. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you.
GLORIOUS ALLAH - MCI NORFOLK - HB 45 - Alright. So first, I would like to open up with a quote from Albert Einstein which says, the world that we have created today has problem which cannot be solved by the thinking the way we thought when we created them. In 1930, 93 years ago, joint venture criminal liability was deemed a problem. And I quote from Harvard Law Review, one of the legal problems of all age is the liability of master and principal for the unauthorized acts of a servant of another. 90 years ago, they view joint venture will be a problem. So we are here today discussing a problem that have been deemed to be a problem for the ages to the day in the criminal justice system. Joint venture criminal liability has its genesis in the institution of slavery. At night, in the 1700s, the slave master, right, was held liable to his slave and his properties. Now today, joint venture is being used by the prosecutors in this state as a backdoor to convicting a man or a woman, right, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or with the possibility of parole, but it's the backdoor.
At the time that this particular law of joint venture was conceived, my people, my ancestors were deemed as people who had no rights that the white man were bound to respect. When these laws were being formed and fashioned, there was not one black man, one black woman on the council there to determine these laws. So, it's not by chance or accident that the majority of the people who are being affected by these laws of people of African descent. Judge Jantz had it right that the joint venture law is a conflict with the constitution Article 12, that every individual should be held responsible with his own actions. So the problem that we face today is a simple problem. The problem is whether or not that the citizens of Massachusetts has, they has the loyalty, the honor, and the morals to stand up to what is right when it comes to the constitution, allowing every individual to be held accountable for his own individual act. Joint venture has caused so much harm as you already heard. So I am in support of the joint venture bill, 45. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.
© InstaTrac 2025