1 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Gary Winfield, Representative Steve Stafstrom

SENATORS: Kasser, Anwar, Champagne, Flexer, Haskell, Lesser, Sampson

REPRESENTATIVES: Blumenthal, Fishbein, Callahan, Conley, Currey, Dillon, Doucette, Dubitsky, Fiorello, Fox, Gilchrest, Godfrey, Harding, Howard, Labriola, Luxenberg, O'Dea, Palm, Pavalock‐D'Amato, Porter, Quinn, Rebimbas, Riley, Simms, Veach, Young

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Alright, good morning everyone, I would like to call to order the Judiciary Committee Public Hearing for March 10 2021. By way of introduction, we have an aggressive agenda today. And we have a lot of interest in it. We have a hundred people signed up to testify today.

So, I will again ask for Members to be as concise with the questioning as it's practicable, so that we can get to all the members of the public who want to testify at some reasonable hour of the evening. With that, any remarks from my Co-Chair or Ranking Members?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, good morning.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right. If not, then we will start with Chief State's Attorney Colangelo. Richard Colangelo, good to see you.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Thank you, sir. Good to see you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Representative Fishbein and the 2 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to address you this morning.

The Division of Criminal Justice submitted testimony on House Bill 6594, Senate Bill 978, Senate Bill 1018 and Senate Bill 1019. I'd like to focus my testimony today on House Bill 6594 and Senate Bill 1018. But I can answer any questions you may have on the other pieces of legislation.

House Bill 6594 is a result of cooperation and collaboration by the Division of Criminal Justice and the Office of Chief Public Defender. I'd like to thank them for their willingness to listen to our issues and the things that we discussed with them, and as we did with them on the issues that they brought to the table.

The Judicial Department, Sentencing Commission, the Attorney General's office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles were also involved in those discussions. So, I urge the Division of Criminal Justice supports all the Sections of this Bill and urges a Joint Favorable Report from this Committee.

Senate Bill 1018, AN ACT CONCERNING PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. That's where I'd like to focus the majority of my testimony. I had the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the advocates that supported the Bill and asked them one question that still has not been answered. What is the issue or issues that we're looking to fix with this type of legislation?

As you all know, in 2019, this Body unanimously passed the Prosecutorial Transparency Bill, which the Division supported.

We moved heaven and earth to get our case management system up and running, and everyone trained by January 1st. And I'm happy to report that as of January 1st, for the first time in the history of the Division, we are capturing data of what 3 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

prosecutors do live throughout the cases that we're handling day-to–day in the system.

This data can be used to inform us what issues need to be addressed. But as I said, we just started capturing it at the beginning of this year. I think a lot of the portions of this Bill might be premature and those are the things that I would like to talk about today.

Senate Bill 1018 as Sections addressing policies, training, performance, appraisals in the terms of state's attorneys. All of these sections are going to change the criminal justice system as we know it.

Policies, it seems to be that they're looking to legislate prosecutors out of our discretion. There's really no one size fits all criminal justice system. Someone committing an offense in Tolland might be treated differently than the same person committing that same type of offense in Stamford or Norwalk based on the needs of the community. The issues that state's attorney particularly is trying to address are the particular facts about that particular case.

When you look at the training portion of the Bill, I'm happy to report that Division of Criminal Justice wasn't standing by when we were looking at implicit bias training. We had two years ago, probably three years ago now, Chief Justice, Robinson, and Justice Kahn present implicit bias training to all of our prosecutors. And we have training set up to do implicit bias training for every jurisdiction as soon as we are safely able to get there.

Performance appraisals, it looks like they're looking to hold state's attorneys accountable for things that we have no control over. Like the number of diversionary programs that are granted on our jurisdiction and the number of people that successfully complete those programs.

4 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Lastly, as far as terms go, as you know the Division was set up by constitutional amendment and to insulate prosecutors from politics. Eight year terms were there to outlast the sitting Governor, so that the Governor couldn't stack the Commission to maybe not reappoint a prosecutor, and we need that time to be able to address the needs and assess what our jurisdictions would like us to do. Lastly, I just like to highlight some of the things that Division has been doing -- Yes sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Chief State's Attorney, Colangelo, we're past the three minutes. I gave you a little bit of leeway, but I know there's going to be some questions for you, and I know --

RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You submitted written testimony as well. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Attorney Colangelo. Were there any other points in your introductory remarks that you wanted to make that are not addressed in your written testimony? because we do all have that and I just wanted to get that out.

RICHARD COLANGELO: No, sir. The last thing that I wanted to highlight was just the policies and procedures that we put in place. We're not sitting idly by ESI. We're looking to expand that. I know that you, all of the Members know what that is. The fact that we are proposing a conviction integrity unit.

And lastly, you know, we heard loud and clear the advocates and the legislature with respect to state's attorneys not being evaluated. But for that, you know, during that eight year term, so the state's attorneys, we established a policy to allow for a 360 degree evaluation process of each state's attorney every two years. It'll be done by a panel, 5 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

including the Chief State's Attorney, the Deputy Chief for Administration and another sitting of state's attorney, and include contact their conversations with employees, judicial branch members, law enforcement advocates, defense attorneys, public defenders and like.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that. I want to bring you into 1018 and specifically -- Do you have the Bill in front of you?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you. Lines 174 through 175 and that says uniform prosecutorial ethics standards in addition to the ethical standards pertaining to all attorneys. Now, what does that propose within the context of this Bill? To have a new set of rules?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I think so, sir. We do have -- the practice book does have particular sections that are applicable to prosecutors. We do have ethics -- ethics policy and ethical guidelines that we established in the Division that are also in place. I don't know if it's in addition to those or trying to establish a new set of rules, I'm not sure.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, because all lawyers have a set of ethics that they're supposed to abide by. My takeaway, please correct me if I'm wrong, from this is that there would be different or additional ethics standards that would fall upon prosecutors. Is that what this contemplates?

RICHARD COLANGELO: It seems to me, yes sir. And there're already standards for us along those lines in the practice book on top of the rules that lawyers have to follow.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And is there any part of this Bill or anything that's before us that would have 6 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the same sort of standards for defense attorneys or public defenders?

RICHARD COLANGELO: No, sir. Not that I've seen.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Now in line 176, it has to do with employing a grand jury system in Connecticut, which is my understanding we don't have for state cases.

RICHARD COLANGELO: We do in a limited access. It's -- if we want to impanel a grand jury in Connecticut, we have to apply to a three judge panel. We have to show that we've exhausted all of our investigative means that we have, and that there are individuals out there that have information, but they're not forthcoming with it. We do have the ability to do that, but it is very limited and it's strictly controlled.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Can you recall the last time it was utilized in Connecticut?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir. There was one, I know that when I was state's attorney in Stamford and Norwalk, the Cold Case Unit had a grand jury that we were able to do for gun violence and homicide cases that were occurring in the City of Norwalk. They were able to arrest two individuals on homicide charges and in cases that were just stalled, but the Norwalk Police couldn't get any of their information --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And how long ago was that?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Sorry, Representative, probably at least three or four years ago, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And is it your understanding that this, what is shown in the line 176, would it be an expansion or contraction of that process because of this new language?

7 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RICHARD COLANGELO: I just -- I do not know. There have been other grand juries that the Cold Case Unit has done since that one that I highlighted, but I can't remember the specific dates, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Then, staying with 1018, I want to bring it to line 293. And this has to do with the review of prosecutors. In line 293, what in Connecticut is a non-judicial sanction?

RICHARD COLANGELO: A non-judicial sanction, Representative Fishbein, going to be the type of things that prosecutors do in cases that aren't accelerated rehabilitation or programs. You know, somebody comes in and I feel like if you do community service, I'll drop your charges. If you apologize, I'll drop the charges, those types of things. A lot of what we do in the early screening and intervention cases would be considered non- judicial sanctions.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, the sanction is not upon the prosecutor. It's how the prosecutor addresses the case.

RICHARD COLANGELO: That's the way we've been looking at that language. Yes, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Because I couldn't glean that from this language. It just says two words non-judicial sanctions. It doesn't say, you know, in employing the case. But I thank you for that.

One of the things also in 1018, in line 299 is the sentence lengths. How is it possible for one to be reviewed based upon sentence lengths for various cases, because every case is different. How would you see that being employed?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I honestly don't know, because if you look at what we do in the criminal justice system, 90 plus percent of the cases that we handle 8 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

are plea bargained. Majority of those individuals are represented by attorneys. So, it's an agreement that we come to with their attorney and ultimately that sentence is approved by a judge.

So, I don't know how you can evaluate prosecutor on sentence lengths when so much goes into that, that we have no control over. A judge could say, "No, we don't agree with the sentence. I want to shorter or longer." A judge could turn around. And again, defense lawyers are agreeing to these sentences also if it's a plea bargain.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And certainly, different criminal courts have different scale of cases. New Haven does Part A, Meriden does not, you know. So, prosecutors in New Haven Part A at least handle different or more severe cases.

RICHARD COLANGELO: The more serious cases are handled in Part A, yes sir. Absolutely, you'll get more significant sentences for a murder case than you would for a case in the Geographical Area GA Court like Meriden. Absolutely right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And one last thing before I turn over to my colleagues, shifting to 6594.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I'm looking at lines 215 through 232, which has to do with electronic stalking. And I know one of the Bills before us today also has to do with something similar with the GPS tracking situation. Can you just explain what the difference is between the two? They seem to overlap or have elements of each other?

RICHARD COLANGELO: They do. The Online Harassment Bill is just focusing on that one particular instance of harassment. So, you could charge that based on one instance. But looking at the stalking Bill, we're looking at repeated instances, would be 9 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the first, you know, the first difference that I would point out, sir.

They do cover the same type of conduct. We do not have a statute right now that treats that conduct as a felony. We are seeing it in more and more of our cases unfortunately, and people are getting bolder and bolder. So, we believe that this is something that would help us deter that. And if we can't deter it, at least punish the individuals in a way that's appropriate or commensurate with what they're doing. In our testimony, we highlighted a case that I was involved in before I became Chief State's Attorney.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I recognize that. One of those things that would allow for a chargeable electronic stalking is the intent to kill, which I think we all can agree is a very bad thing. It would appear to me that there would be other laws that that individual would violate. If one could prove intent to kill, why would you need that here? Because obviously there's others who just injure, harass, intimidate, which are certainly lower bar also of concern. Why is intent to kill in there?

RICHARD COLANGELO: To cover the situations where someone was talking about that in the conversations with for the tormenting of the individual. I understand your concern. I'm not wedded to that intent to kill, but the other -- there are situations where it could come up in a statute. That's why we -- is a crime. That's why we included it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood. Understood. And then my last thing is you are proposing that this be not a class B misdemeanor, but a felony, why?

RICHARD COLANGELO: To be able to punish the individual commensurate to their conduct and the torment that they put the victim through. That case that I highlighted in our testimony. Had a woman go out on a few dates with someone, basically stopped 10 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

seeing that person. He then took it upon himself to follow her around, texting her about being at the gym, going out to dinner with friends, Oh, you wore this and this thing to work today. He would use different VPNs that mask himself, so that, you know, she wouldn't know who it is, different accounts. Ultimately, we were able to determine who that person was. And then trying to charge this person, all we could charge him with misdemeanors.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): In your experience though, it will. At least in my experience, when I see a very high penalty, I see judges many times are more apt to not convict or to issue that penalty because it is a very hard charge. Your example is certainly an egregious example of this bad conduct, but we also would have bad conduct that is not as severe, that would fall within this. So, you know, rising it up to a felony, I think the natural is that less people would be convicted under this.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, I think it gives us the ability to -- and as you know, the D felony is up to five years. In no way am I saying that that person deserves five years, but having the ability to, you know, felonies also have a longer period of probation so that we could ensure that the victim is safe, even if the person doesn't go to jail for a period of time.

And jail might not be the answer in this case. You know, the victim just wanted to be left alone and, you know, not to be scared of and looking over her shoulder. And so often, are we seeing cases like this in the system where we have victims that are not taken care of by these types of offenses or in these types of events, sir,

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Isn't that concern addressable if the individual is convicted of, let's say a class B misdemeanor for the court to issue a long-term protective order? isn't it -- Then 11 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

probation doesn't have to get involved unless it's a violation. There's protection for the victim. Why --

RICHARD COLANGELO: A standard criminal protective order might not fit all of the situations that this occurs in. She didn't have a long relationship with this individual. She, you know, it was a very short dating relationship, you know. Like I said, less than two or less dates, so it might not fit. It would be harder to convince a judge that it was appropriate in that situation to do. So that's why we thought adding the, or increasing the penalty, allowing for increased probation supervision to give the victims that peace of mind as appropriate.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Because I can tell you that I've had a case almost the same thing, and that's what the judge did. The issue -- actually it's a non-ending criminal protective order on a conviction of a class B felony, a class B misdemeanor. It just seems like that would be more expedient and everybody would be you get to where you want it to be. So, thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Colangelo for the discussion.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. REP. CALLAHAN.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Colangelo.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Good morning, sir.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Regarding -- I'm really focusing on 1018 on some of the provisions that are being proposed for the state's attorney's office. When it comes to pretrial programs, those are all decided -- the eligibility and supervision is usually kicked over to probation, correct?

12 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely. Eligibility is determined by CCSD now and supervision is either done by probation or CCSD. Absolutely.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): CSSD is Court Support Services Division for --

RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): For the panel who might not know. And when it comes to the supervision of the pretrial programs and as you know, there's numerous pretrial programs from Accelerated Rehabilitation to supervise Diversionary Program, to CADAC, to alcohol education program. Actually, someone could probably get arrested in Connecticut up to how many times, seven times or more without a conviction?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Easily, sir. Yes, sir.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And when it comes to the successful or unsuccessful dismissal of those programs, is that ultimately up to you or the judge?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, it's up to the individual if they comply with all of the conditions, if they do, then the probation will recommend that, you know, so that it's successful and recommend a dismissal. And the judge usually dismisses it.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): But if it's someone having and as the some on the panel know, I spent almost 30 years with probation, as a supervisor for almost 20, and we got numerous, numerous pre-trial programs referred to our offices. If the person is non- compliant with a pre-trial program, probation -- in your experience, sir, you do not send these cases back to court for spitting on the sidewalk. There're usually numerous, numerous issues in non-compliance.

RICHARD COLANGELO: People are given multiple opportunities to participate in the program and get 13 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the help that they need. Absolutely. As they should be.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And I agree totally because it was a -- it's probation's job to rehabilitate and keep people out of jail. But when they do get sent back to court, it's on a negative report. Is it up to you or the judge whether that program gets revoked?

RICHARD COLANGELO: The judge, sir. That's their decision.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): But it seems to me in reading 1018 they're almost trying to hang that moniker on your office.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, they want to -- It seems like they want to hold us accountable for things that we're not -- we don't have control over. Absolutely right.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And then if you'll indulge me, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one more point. I know we have a long day. When it comes to prosecutorial discretion, there are different, many different GAs around the state and you've got a place. Like I worked in Danbury and Stamford, or you've got New Haven, Bridgeport that have very, very different busy dockets. You would agree?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely. And based on the, you know, looking at our high volume courts of Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, you know, they might value something differently than one of the smaller courts because the smaller courts can take more time with it. The larger courts have anywhere from 300 to 400 cases down a day in a GA. Stamford might have 200. The smaller courts might have less than a hundred, sir.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): So my reason for that question is, isn't it -- from my experience, isn't 14 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it sometimes, most of the time true that you get a better deal in the bigger courts because they have bigger dockets and they're trying to move more cases. And it almost seems to me like this, the advocacy here, they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot because already the cities are getting better deals than some of the outlined GAs, in my opinion. Do I -- is that -- am I correct?

RICHARD COLANGELO: That could be an assessment of the system. Absolutely. That the larger courts are in the cities more volume, so they are moving cases quicker than the smaller courts and doing things differently, giving people more breaks if you will.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you. And just one more question, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's important during the process of deciding how to sentence someone. I assume you've seen as I've seen hundreds or thousands of pre-sentence investigations.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And when probation gives you and the judge and the defense attorney the pre- sentence investigation that sometimes sheds different light and perhaps the result is a different sentence for someone.

And I will tell you a quick, quick story is that if you have a burglary situation, two different burglary situations that I dealt with and did pre- sentence investigations on. One gentleman broke into someone's condo, smashed through their sliding glass door and took a TV. He was a heroin addict. He had a lot of remorse. He made restitution before the pre- sentence investigation, even got ordered. He offered to help fix the door, didn't damage anything else in the house and sent a letter of apology.

The other case was a burglary in a different town in RGA where it was a younger kid broken, took condoms out of the refrigerator, sprayed them all over the 15 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

house, did all kinds of damage to the house, smashed family pictures, refused to make restitution and refused to write apology letters. Is that possible that those two similar crimes could get different sentences?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, they should be treated differently. And that's one of the things that discretion allows us to do. But if these policies are put into place with strict limits on what we can do, and we're going to be held again, part of the performance appraisal is going to be how we comply with the policies that are put in place. I don't think those people would be able to be treated differently under this new law.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Colangelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make those points. I appreciate your indulgence.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative Callahan. Representative Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Colangelo, I wanted to ask you and it's along the lines of what Rep. Callahan was speaking, but. So, in my town we just had a big rally about Isolation Kills Too, and that is about how strict regulations at senior homes, you know, really did not assess people as people. And there were, you know, a lot of heartbreak and real consequences for human lives.

And I wonder if you could speak more about how this one size fits all that you're saying is not the right approach. What could be the unintended consequences or the real human harm that is done when prosecutors aren't allowed to assess the unique, you know, human situation of each person that comes before you?

RICHARD COLANGELO: If we have to follow -- Thank you for the question, Rep. Fiorello. If we have to follow specific guidelines and make sure that we, 16 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you know, check well, and this is the case here, this is where the person fits, this is where they fit and here's going to be the sentence. We're not going to be able to -- A lot of plea bargaining, if I get back up a second, is really a defense attorney coming in, trying to humanize their client, let the prosecutor understand that they might not be a bad person, but they were involved in a bad thing.

So, if we aren't able to utilize that process and give somebody a break for something with these strict policies, I don't believe we'll be able to do that.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Okay. That's it. Thank you for that clarity.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Champagne.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. My apologies. I'm running more than one meeting. Attorney, thank you for coming in today. I have some questions regarding basically your job. Can you tell me how hard is it for someone to go to jail in the State of Connecticut?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Senator, there's - as Rep. Callahan said there's multiple Diversionary Programs that people are eligible for first-time offenses and a lot of times you could stack those programs. So, you could get charged with operating under suspension, operating under the influence, use a program for that. Larceny, use a program for that. Have committed larceny due to mental health issue or for breakdown or another crime and use a program for that.

So usually it's the -- prosecutors don't start at jail. I mean, we just don't. I mean, that's kind of a misnomer in the system and I have people throughout the state every day. Of you look at the number of cases that we have in the system and the 17 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

number of cases that are nolled or dropped by prosecutors, it's a huge percentage of cases.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Yeah. You know, when I first became a policeman, you know, I came across some guy who had 17 arrests on his record and I thought, "Wow, that's a lot." When I left and retired, I was seeing people with 60, 70, 80 arrests on their record. How often do you see somebody with that many arrests?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Unfortunately, it is. It happens in every jurisdiction across the state. I'm hoping that if we were able to explain the early screening and intervention, then we'll be able to provide support for individuals to get them out of that cycle.

But sometimes there's nothing that we can do to stop them. And, you know, their lawyers are just as frustrated as the judge and the prosecutor are in those type of cases, because people keep coming back. And, you know, what is the answer when somebody keeps doing the same thing over and over and over again.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But isn't there a certain group that it doesn't matter what intervention. They're just going to keep going. You know, I think of this one case that I had, and it was quite the case. I mean, this gentleman, one of his original crimes was a bank robbery and he didn't want to share the money. So, he shot the guy, he was -- that robbed the bank with him. And, you know, he did his small jail sentence.

Then he went on and, you know, estimated at hundreds of house burglaries, larcenies, he then gets sentenced to something like two or three years. And he gets his two-week leave from the judge to get his stuff in order. And one day he jumps in his car. He drives from Vernon to Colchester running over every street sign and it was a pickup truck, every street 18 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sign, every mailbox all the way down. He rammed up in front of a package store, moving it two inches off its foundation, and went to court. And all those crimes from that night were just folded right into the original case. So there really wasn't a consequence for that.

And I'm seeing a lot of cases throughout my time where there really isn't a consequence. How often do you see that? How many people go before the court and never actually get a penalty for the crimes they committed? I think it's quite with your caseload. Take a guess or percentage wise.

RICHARD COLANGELO: It's -- I did pull some statistics if you just indulge me for one second. I'm sorry.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Please, thank you.

RICHARD COLANGELO: In 2019, and that's probably the last year that we have solid data, right before the pandemic, there were a total of 70,795 criminal cases disposed of, 40% of those cases were nolled, 19% were dismissed. So, nolle is something the prosecutor does. The dismissals are probably judicial programs that people got granted --

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): What was the -- I'm sorry. What was the percentage on dismissed?

RICHARD COLANGELO: 19%, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): 19%, sir. Okay.

RICHARD COLANGELO: And 40% nolle. In that same year, same timeframe, there were 53,698 motor vehicle cases, 52% of them were nolled, 7% were dismissed, but if you add nolle and dismissals for mixed verdicts, that's another 6%. So about 13% were nolled or dismissed. Those are by adding the nolle and dismissals because dismissals are going to be the judicial programs. 19 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, if somebody gets an operating under suspend -- operating under the influence, I'm sorry, they have an infraction. Most times prosecutors will get -- they'll get the program, that charge will get dismissed. The prosecutor will nolle the infraction. So those are just strictly cases that were nolled or dismissed alone, or a mixed verdict for motor vehicle cases with the nolle or dismissal.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Out of 70,000 criminal cases do you have the percentage on who went to prison?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I don't, but I mean, you know, the proponents, the advocates talk about mass incarceration and in Connecticut, as you all know that, you know, we have at maximum our population was at 19,884.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Yep.

RICHARD COLANGELO: In January we hit 9,083. So, we've reduced our prison population from 2008 to this year by 54%.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Which is huge.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): It is huge. I mean, and when you look at 70,000 criminal arrests, and you have only 19,000, 59% of those are just gone. And so that basically leaves you with, you know, 41%. And out of the 41% of those, you know, we still only have 19,000, so the number is really small. And we keep, you know, this talk of mass incarceration, this doesn't make sense.

And, you know, one of the points I want to make as well is that, you know, as a police officer, I never looked at what happened to my cases because I know most of them are just going to go away. And, you 20 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, when you talk about breach of peace, there could be a small fine and that wouldn't be a nolle or dismissal. Right. A small fine. That would be --

RICHARD COLANGELO: That would be a conviction. That's correct, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. So, you know, when you're talking about that, you know, I wish we had the percentage of the ones that just had a fine. I think that would be -- Do you have that?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'm sorry. I do not have that number, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. Well, you know, I'm looking at -- when I look at this, you know, concerning prosecutorial accountability. When I look at that, I always say as well, I guess you guys are the next ones in the site. You know, the police were the first ones, now it's this, but the fact is, you know, as, you know, even what your numbers that you gave it, it's hard to go to prison.

So how many --you may not know the answer, but how many arrests does it take to actually go to prison? And I'm not talking -- you know, obviously murder, hopefully you're going to prison, but for misdemeanors, it's pretty, it's pretty hard. Isn't it?

RICHARD COLANGELO: The last resort for us as prosecutors is to send someone to jail. Absolutely right. I mean, you have to do, either committed a very serious offense or, you know, have a history of, you know, not complying with probation or the Diversionary Programs or in repeat offenses to get to jail.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. It's just a continuation. So, for drug rehabilitation, alcohol rehabilitation, how many programs are available for 21 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

you to send people for long-term? Do you have any idea? Are you guys able to use that?

RICHARD COLANGELO: We do. There's a community service labor program, job education program, the alcohol education program, accelerated rehabilitation. CEDAC is still there. It doesn't get used a lot. So, alcohol and drug treatment program, that is, so those are the four that jump out at me off the top of my head.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): First time offender that is one as well.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Or, you know, for operating under the influence, you could use the program and you could, you know, use it and 10 years later use it again, multiple times.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. So, I'm trying to see what brought this about, you know, and I don't understand it. You know, you guys are doing the best you can, when you have 300 cases in front of you on any given day in the City of Hartford or Bridgeport, those are staggering numbers. And, you know, when you tell me that 59% of all the cases are just gone by dismissal or nolle, I mean, that's -- I still don't see the problem. I'm not seeing a problem. I think it's a problem being created that [inaudible] with this.

RICHARD COLANGELO: On the data I could try and get you those numbers. I know the Senate Commission completed a report on the Diversionary Programs that we could get to the Committee. And also, the number of, as far as arrests go, I hesitate because our case management system is just up and running. If this was two years from now, I could pull that data from, you know, our numbers and be able to tell you that, you know, it took on the average, you know, five arrests before somebody was sentenced to prison and --

22 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right.

RICHARD COLANGELO: That's something that we should be able to do and we'll be able to do with the system, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): That would be great. And can you just get me the amount out of those 70 plus thousand for 2019 that actually went to prison? I'd be interested in that number if you could figure that out somehow.

RICHARD COLANGELO: I will make sure. Yes, sir.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): All right. Thank you very much and you have a good day.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Attorney Colangelo, just a brief follow up on that. Of the 70,000 number you just gave, are those defendants in the system or charges in the system?

RICHARD COLANGELO: These were dockets and a docket is described as a particular file. So, as you know - - That's a great question, Chairman Stafstrom. Some of them could have multiple dockets. So, the numbers that I gave you on the 70,000, those were the disposed of cases. Number of dockets, it could be, I could get you the number of distinct people that it was, but it was just -- the nolle number is just dockets that were nolled on all charges in each of those cases. And the dismissal is also the same thing, just everything was dismissed in file. I didn't give you the combined numbers at all.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I guess what I'm getting at is whether those numbers take into account the situation where someone is charged with four offenses and three of them are nolled and then the person pleads to the fourth offense.

23 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RICHARD COLANGELO: In that case, sir, where you have a guilty verdict and nolles of other charges, that was 19% of those disposed of cases, where you have a guilty and all of the other charges were dropped that was 7% of the cases. So those are, that's how I have it broken down to get to those combined charges in a particular docket, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. Representative Gilchrest.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello, Chief State's Attorney Colangelo, it's good to see.

RICHARD COLANGELO: You're welcome.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): So, I just wanted to touch base on House Bill 6594. I appreciate your support for Sections 2 and 3. I think it's important that we change that language from patronizing a prostitute to soliciting sexual acts.

And then with Section 11, the severe cyber stalking. This is a huge positive as I see it because far too often having done the work I do, I've heard from women who have experienced this type of behavior, but because there has been no threat, you know, there's not much law enforcement can do. And we know that these behaviors that are included in severe cyber stalking are risk factors for violence to take place. And so, it always seems very odd to me that we have to wait until there is that threat. So, I appreciate this.

My question has to do with Senate Bill 989, the second degree harassment. The language in the Bill says electronically sent messages via digital media account. Would that include social media posts and comments such as a Facebook post and a Facebook comment?

RICHARD COLANGELO: It should. I believe it's contemplated. 24 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Okay.

RICHARD COLANGELO: And so actually that's something that I think should be included in the Bill. I mean, in society today, we're looking at situations where people are getting bolder and bolder on, you know, whipping up people to act against someone or some group. So those things absolutely should be included.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): And having worked with law enforcement on a situation like this, I know for them, it seemed the only charge they could use was breach of peace, and not knowing enough about how that plays out. This does seem a step in the right direction, considering unfortunately, this behavior is happening more and more.

RICHARD COLANGELO: That's true. That's what we're seeing. That that's why we wanted to increase the penalties and capture what we're seeing in the cases. It really is a gap in not only supervision for people, but for victims in the way they're being treated and the psychological torment they're going through in these types of cases.

REP. GILCHREST (18TH): Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Colangelo, just a few follow-up questions. First, I want to publicly thank you as well as I will the Office of the Chief Public Defender as folks in this Committee know we get a number of requests for proposal every year for Bills and we can only take up a small fraction of those.

As usual, both the State's Attorney's office and the Public Defender's office came to us with a number of worthwhile proposals. And the Chairs of the Committee asked those two offices to work collaboratively to pare down the requests this year, 25 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

given the pandemic and try to come to a degree of compromise.

And I frankly am blown away by the work they did in putting together the consensus proposal of 6594 and also reaching out to other interest groups and stakeholders as well. So, I want to, again, begin by thanking you Attorney Colangelo and your office for your work on that Bill.

I want to just ask a brief question on 1018 and the issue of some sort of code of ethics for prosecutors. I think in your dialogue with Representative Fishbein, you mentioned some practice book provisions that already cover this. And I just want to make sure I'm not mis-characterizing that, but is it your position that there already is a prosecutorial code of ethics embodied in the practice book someplace? Or did I mishear you on that?

RICHARD COLANGELO: No, sir. I'm sorry that if I misspoke. There is the additional practice book sections that apply specifically to prosecutors, but we also have an ethics policy that the Division enacted, and ethical guidelines that we enacted for our employees. So on top of the practice book, we have policies already in place.

And if I could just thank the Chairs for focusing the Public Defender's office and the Division this year. I'm hoping that we can continue that collaboration. It was great working with them, kind of getting insight into what they were looking at it for their proposals and being able to explain what we were looking at and being able to come to this consensus for the community. So, thank you for focusing us.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sure. So, I'm aware that the American Bar Association has promulgated kind of modern model standards for prosecutorial functions. Are the key provisions of that policy already 26 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

incorporated into the practice book or your internal policies in place?

RICHARD COLANGELO: They are. If you look at the ABA model --

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): They are or not?

RICHARD COLANGELO: They -- most of them are -- and the issue that we had with the -- and we used that to form our policy. But a lot of the ABA policies revolves around elected prosecutors and having elected officials and what they can or shouldn't do ethically. We picked out the policies or the -- we kind of worked around those because we're not elected in Connecticut as you know and used the policies from the ABA model policy to craft our ethics policy, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): But my understanding is the ABA policy has certain sections in it on dealing with victims. Is that incorporated into your policies or into the practice books in someplace?

RICHARD COLANGELO: As far as victims go with the constitutional amendment in Connecticut, we're required to have victims reach out to us. We're required to follow the law and make sure that they're kept abreast of everything that's going on in the case, giving them an opportunity to address the judge. I don't have the ethical policy. But I believe we have a section on victims, in that we closely covered that. We use the ABA and we also use the National District Attorneys Association ethical policies and guidelines to craft ours.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay. At the risk of belaboring us or in trying not --

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'll get you the policy.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah. Would you be able to get me both the internal policies for the Division? 27 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Certainly, citations to the practice book provisions and then, if you could maybe just a comparison of that first the ABA and the National District Attorneys Association policies, you know. And I just think it would be helpful to the Committee to know kind of if there's gaps, and where those gaps are between what is already on the books and what some of the national standards recommend.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Of course.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to start off, in exchange with Representative Gilchrest, there was a question about the language and what it meant, and I worked on that language. So, the answer is yes, that's what the intention is. I was going to jump in at the time, but I figured out I would just go later.

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'm glad --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): It's pretty easy to fall in the right direction on that one. So, in an exchange with Representative Fishbein, there was a conversation about the increase in penalty to a D felony, and you said in no way, are you saying that the person deserves five years? And I just want to be clear about what it is you are saying, right? Because that is in supporting the policy, that's what you would be potentially allowing for. So, what are you saying there?

RICHARD COLANGELO: In these types of situations, Senator Winfield, the victim most of the time just wants to be left alone and they want the tormenting to stop. So, a lot of times that could be accomplished with a period of probation. And with a felony, we could do up to five years' probation. So that guarantees the victim five years of safety and sanity. 28 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

If the person doesn't have a criminal record and they're just using the electronic means to torment someone, it's going to be really hard for me to argue that they should be incarcerated for almost any period of time, if it's their first offense. And I don't know if a judge would do that, but allowing for the extended period of probation would accomplish a lot of what we want to have happened in these situations.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): There's no requirement that it's that period is probation. That's correct, right?

RICHARD COLANGELO: It's not a mandatory sentence at all. No, it's just a -- D felony comes with the maximum of up to five years, and you know, maybe making that portion suspended, you know, it'll be a big enough stick if you will, to make sure the person stops bothering someone.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): But I guess my question is there exists the possibility that someone could have a five-year sentence?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Absolutely.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And what -- so that's your perspective on this the way that it should be. And look, I'm in support of the policy, right. But I just want to be clear about, what it is we are actually saying. And so, what is a beyond the fact that probably most of us think that that five- year sentence is not what should apply in that circumstance? What governs that? How has that --

RICHARD COLANGELO: Ultimately, it's the checks and balances within the system. I mean, if I'm being unreasonable as a prosecutor, and I think the person should go to jail for five years, their defense lawyer is going to say, "Hey, Richard being crazy. That's not something that should happen." And, you 29 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, we go to have a pretrial with a judge and a judge will say, you know, "Rich, you're crazy. It's a first offender. That's never going to happen. I'll give him probation."

I mean, that's the way the plea bargain process works. And those are the checks and balances built into the system that will, you know, put a check on prosecutors if they are being overly aggressive.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I'll come back to the question that I thought it was a follow-up to that. I want to skip a little bit. So there was a question about how difficult is it to go to prison? I think it was framed as go to jail, but I think what we're really getting at, it's not that difficult to go to jail. I guess I would flip that question on its head so that I'm sure what your answer is. How easy should it be to go to prison or jail?

RICHARD COLANGELO: It should be difficult. As I said, I mean, you know, jail is not the first place, prosecutor start unless you're dealing with a, you know, a very serious offense, you know, the Part A offenses that we talked about.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And part of the reason I asked that question is because there was conversation about what's happened since 2008 or so to now and, you know, I've been a part of that. Right. This is clear that I've been a part of changing the system that we have.

And my perspective is that people should find themselves in prison when it's appropriate. And that, my belief was that prison was used more than it should have been. We can discuss potentially what that means, but that was my belief.

And so, I've been never to change the system. I think many people in these discussions have changed or at least nuanced their position on that. And so, I guess my question is the Division hasn't always 30 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

shared my perspective, but you represent that it should not be exceedingly easy to go to prison. And so, the Division has done things itself to increase the opportunities for people to not find themselves in prison easily, right. ESI is actually a part of that. Isn't it?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. So, and the reason I'm asking that I can get it. I'm trying to get clarity because it seemed from the questioning and the answers that would follow on from that questioning that the system, we now have is a problem itself, right? And I think that since the Division itself recently not at the beginning of this chain, but recently came and talked about ESI, but it is not the problem that it would seem if you just listen to the questions and answers as they laid out. Am I -- And I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that because I don't want to put words in your mouth.

RICHARD COLANGELO: No, no Senator. I actually agree with that. And you know, I've been a prosecutor going on 28 years now. Looking back at my early career, I agree with your assessment of the things that I was doing. You know, I sent people to prison in 25 years ago, that if I was looking at that case, that I probably wouldn't. You know, it's a change in mindset. It's a change in philosophy. It's a change in what we're doing as prosecutors.

You know, a lot of it has to do with the era that we were in back then. Some of it had to do with the, you know, my supervisors and policies were in place in the office. And those are things that, you know, we are changing in the Division to make sure that we are looking at each case and treating each individual as an individual.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And I also just understanding where we have been and where we are, I 31 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

want to go back before I go too far into the transparency, but we have to the prior one. The Division initially was not very keen on that though. And in fact, the Division had opposition to the Bill. Once the division and you can stop me at any time, I won't take it as an interruption. Once the Division moved off that position, the Division still made attempts to stop the bell by adding a fiscal note, that was very difficult to overcome to the Bill.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, I want to push back a little bit in that the fiscal note was done by the Office of Fiscal Analysis and they connected those paralegal positions that we were talking to you about to the Bill. Once we talked -- And it was before I became Chief State's Attorney, but I was part of the discussions. I remember them clearly. Once we figured out what happened, you know, we explained to them that you know, the one wasn't connected to the other and we weren't trying to do that. It wasn't intentional on our part to try and kill the Bill with a fiscal note.

You're right. Initially, we were worried and there were prosecutors worried about data. I wasn't one of them. I was -- I embraced the data because it's going to be able to let us show what we're doing. And that was kind of my voice in the system, but I was only one of 13 at the time. But you know, we did come around and, and we -- I'm telling you we're embracing it now. Right. I know it took us awhile to get there, but, you know, I don't want you to be of the opinion that we were trying to kill the Bill with the fiscal note, that wasn't our intention, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): So, for accuracy and say, because that kind of fell in my lap to deal with, partially because I'm also the Subcommittee Chair on Appropriations that deals with your budget. The Division -- And I don't believe you were in this conversation. The Division did have a meeting 32 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

wherein there was a discussion about those positions, and the Division wanted to deal with that.

And I remember the way the Division position changed slightly differently than it's currently represented, but I won't go deeply into that. My point is that, what the Division now represents as a positive, it represented not very long ago as not a positive.

RICHARD COLANGELO: You're absolutely right. You know, initially when we talked about data people worried about what it could do or show, I think we've changed the culture with regard to that. And I'm really happy to be able to say that we do.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And just for clarification, that was a 2019 Bill, if I remember correctly.

RICHARD COLANGELO: You're absolutely correct, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Right. So, we're really not talking very long ago, so -- And the Bill that is of concern to you today and I know that all the Bills on the agenda are, but in 1018, are you in opposition to the Bill in whole?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Senator, I have to say that I am. I mean I still haven't gotten an answer to the question what are you trying to fix with this? You know, the proponents of the Bill were big proponents of the transparency Bill that you just talked about. And in their testimony and advocacy for that Bill, they said, we need the data.

Well, I'm going to kind of turn it around to them and say, "Look, we need the data. We don't have the data. Let's figure out what the issue is." If you're talking about mass incarceration being the issue, well, Connecticut has done a lot to address mass incarceration and the prosecutor, the Chief State's 33 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Attorney's office and the state's attorneys are working to actually put policies in place and units in place to also address that and continue to address it.

So, I think we're being part of the solution. If you give me an issue, tell me, "Hey, Rich, this is what we're trying to fix. Let's look at the data. Yeah, that's an issue. What's the problem? Let's fix it." we're ready, willing, and able to be part of that solution, sir. But I haven't gotten the answer. I haven't gotten the answer to that question from anyone yet.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Are you -- I don't want to cut you off? Are you finished?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I am, sir. I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, I'm very cognizant of the fact that sometimes I jump in too quickly. So, let's think about it as connected to mass incarceration. We just had a discussion wherein we talked about the period of time in which we dropped the numbers of people in our prisons. We've established that at least in part I've been significantly connected to that. And we've established that the Division has come around, but initially it's always, maybe I shouldn't say this, right, because I don't think you've said it in these words, but my recollection and understanding is, has initially been reticent to do the things that many of the people involved in this policy that is in front of us were willing to do. And I'll give you an opportunity to respond because I don't want to put those words in your mouth.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, can I -- can I just, again, if you look back 25 years ago when I was a prosecutor, the laws that I was prosecuting and people I was sending to jail were based on statutes that the legislature passed, legislature passed. There were mandatory minimums that the legislature 34 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

passed. They indicated that this was important. These are things we should be looking at. So, as a prosecutor, I was enforcing those laws that the legislature passed at the time.

But looking back, you know, I say, "Hey, you know what? I probably shouldn't have done that." I wouldn't do it today and the priorities have changed, but to kind of tag the Division with, you know, following the policies that the legislature put in place two years ago and making us the driver of mass incarceration based on that, I don't think it's fair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I don't think that's what I'm saying. What I'm suggesting is that --

RICHARD COLANGELO: No, not you, but others are, sir. I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): What I'm suggesting is that in the policy sphere where we currently are sitting, my experience with the Division has been that when I put forward something that would change the system we have. The Division's initial response was to oppose. I don't think that's inaccurate. And I would give you an opportunity to respond. I also suggested that the Division has come around, whether it was something the Division wholeheartedly endorsed or not.

RICHARD COLANGELO: I am -- as you know, I've been Chief State's Attorney for a little more than a year. I was sworn in on January 31st of last year. I had a really great February and then the pandemic hit. Like it affected all of you, I'd like to think that moving the Division forward and we have been. What happened in the past, like I was part of it and I was state's attorney for five years, I was a prosecutor for 22 years before that. So yes, I'm part of it. I have to own it. But I'd like to think that we are more willing to be part of the solution now. 35 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

To that end, we sat down with the advocacy group before they propose Bill this year. I talked to you about it when I knew it was happening and wanted to, you know, try and come to an agreement, but there was nothing that we could come to an agreement on. Part of it is because we, you know, they never answered the question what are we trying to fix?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I guess that's part of the reason why I'm asking you if you are opposed in whole to the Bill, right? I would assume that if you were part of the discussions, you could have come to an agreement, there's something in the Bill that you might actually agree with, but it seems that despite those discussions, there's nothing in this Bill that you agree with.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Senator, you know, I am all for the training component and the training portion of that Bill. I could get behind and agree with. The rest of it, I would say that the policy are going to legislators as part of discretion. Again, they used to be married in performance appraisals. So now they're just going to rate state's attorneys on performance appraisals based on strict data and a lot of those data points we don't have control over or any influence on. So those are too that I'd say in reduction in the terms. I think that's just going to politicize the positions more than I think anybody would want.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I guess that's a good point to ask you about. I believe you say and I'm going by memory here, so correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you said that eight year terms were established to outlast a sitting Governor. Is that correct?

RICHARD COLANGELO: That was part of what was the discussion at the time in the legislature when the constitutional amendment was being debated, sir. Yes. 36 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): A five-year term would accomplish that as well, right? Correct?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, if I was appointed in the middle of a term and then if Governor got reelected it probably, and they wanted to change the commission so that I couldn't get reappointed. There's less of a chance of that happening. So strict number wise, you're absolutely right. But in reality, you know, the eight year term insulates the state's attorneys more from that than the commission changing during their term.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Is there a limit on a number of terms that a Governor can serve?

RICHARD COLANGELO: There're not, right. There're not, no.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. So, the sections of the Bill Section 3 and 5, I think of where a lot of the discussion has centered. And I guess -- Well, let me not ask the question. Wait, let me just ask the question this way. You suggested that this Bill would take away your discretion. What about the Bill removes the discretion from the prosecutors?

RICHARD COLANGELO: A lot of the mandatory statewide policies if, you know, we need -- I just wanted to get to the section, sir. I'm sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely.

RICHARD COLANGELO: While I'm looking for it, could I just correct or add something to Representative Stafstrom question.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sir, you may.

RICHARD COLANGELO: The ethical policy that we have, sir, is on our website. We have a desk book for prosecutors. It also covers a whole section on 37 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

victims, that I could also make sure we provide to you. And the responsibilities of victim is covered in our ethical guidelines. Somebody can fact check me on that in the office and send me, so I wanted to make sure that I had that covered. Well, Senator, you know, charging decisions, you know, the initial charges, charging juveniles as adults, standard of proof requiring, initiating, and maintaining charges, pretrial release --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Attorney Colangelo, Attorney Colangelo, if you could just orient me what you actually --

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'm so sorry. Yes, I just jumped to page 150, line 115 and forward, just looking at all of these policies. Review of pretrial release by supervisory staff within each judicial district. So as a supervisor, any bond agreement or bond argument that a deputy system has to make, I would have to review. You know, putting strict policies around, you know, the charging decisions or -- Now jumping to line 142 plea agreements, including all of the different factors that have to be looked at or considered, sentencing recommendations online 148 factors that have to be considered. These are all things that would restrict our ability to use our discretion. If we have to --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): So --

RICHARD COLANGELO: Follow -- Sorry.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I was going to ask you if you could pause there for a second. So, I could ask you a clarifying question. As I read the section that you're referencing, what you're talking about is the development of a written policies and what those follow on pieces are about are what the policy should include in terms of standards. Right?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Correct.

38 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And so, are you suggesting that to have standards that are written which I don't see as limiting your discretion, but creating a standard that the discretion is judged by, right? Are you suggesting that creating the standard is the problem?

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'm saying that the standard is if it's connected. So if you're going to review me on my people's adherence to these policies and that's going to be tied to my performance review or appraisal, and then ultimately my reappointment as a state's attorney, then I'm going to make sure that they're strictly following these guidelines and I'm not going to have them veer from it.

So if they want to give someone a break, that's contrary to the policy and I'm going to be the one that's going to be graded against -- that's going to be graded against me on, I'm saying that's going to have a detrimental effect, sir. Absolutely.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Are there standards by which you operate currently?

RICHARD COLANGELO: There are, and it's there -- Policies in these areas as far as charging goes. I mean, ultimately, we're looking, we're going to make sure that ethically we can't charge an offense that we can't prove ethically. That would be an ethical violation if we charged somebody with murder and they only punched somebody in the nose, right. So that'd be an issue.

So that's the guiding principle that we look at, but having -- it's very hard to get policies in place that are going to cover every situation. So, we do have policies and I know the state's attorney, we have a management committee and an operations Committee, and again, we heard loud and clear what everybody wants from us.

39 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So, we are efforting to make policies in these areas or create the policies that we can use in these areas to offer additional guidance to our employees. We have supervisors in place to do that when somebody does something that's an outlier, you know, I know the supervisors talk to them about it and the state's attorneys talk to them about it.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): So, I just want to make sure I'm clear here, because I feel like I'm a little confused by your response and answer to my question. So, you have policies and standards and those don't limit your discretion, but the creation of standard pursuant to policies and this Bill would limit your discretion. What is the difference?

RICHARD COLANGELO: The extent or the difference is the lengths of what the Bill is proposing to do. The number of -- you want specific factors that are going to be considered in a charging decision. There are too numerous to count. I mean, I can't have a policy that is all inclusive in that situation, the factors in a sentencing decision or sentencing recommendation.

Again, it's hard to -- You know, individuals are going to be different. So, it's hard to craft a policy that's going to cover every situation. So therefore, you know, do we have a specific policy on that? No, we have things that, you know, you want to make sure that you are within the realm of reason.

And that's another thing that the data's going to be able to show us that if there are outliers in the system, either specific courts or you want to get down granularly specific prosecutor. You know, those are things that we can address by looking at the data. We just don't have the data yet.

And I'd be happy to come back to this Committee in two years with the data and have you say Senator that, "Hey, Richard, there is a problem here." And if the data shows that I'm going to be the first one 40 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to agree with it, and hopefully address them before you recognize this as a problem, because I'm going to be seeing the data in real time. So, I could have the conversation with the state's attorney to deal with that issue. And that's the hope and plan.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I thank you for that. I guess we just have a different perspective on that. I recognize your perspective. I also recognize that this is not -- I don't think even the way that it's written about including, but not limited to, I don't think it's meant to incorporate every instance that could exist, but I'm willing to let that go there.

There's one more, one more question that I want to make sure I understand your perspective on. So, I don't remember who the conversation was, but there was a conversation about the different values that might exist from district to district. And in the context of dealing with the justice system, I wonder what you mean by the different values.

RICHARD COLANGELO: A couple of examples, you know, my inner city, Hartford, New Haven, even Norwalk, when I was in Stamford, Norwalk, you know, we would get complaints and the police would enforce narcotics sales around housing projects because families would argue and make the, "Hey, my kids can't go outside and play because they have to step over needles or they have to walk by guys selling drugs." So we would enforce those areas and understand that that's a concern or a value that was important to that community at the time.

You know, in Stamford, we'd have, you know, individuals that were homeless and they might, you know, relieve themselves on the sidewalk next to a business or in an alley. And, you know, somebody would file a complaint about that. And we'd look at that, "Okay, let's try and get services for this person." They'd get treated and that case would have a different value than a college kid urinating on a 41 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

lawn up at UConn. You know, that somebody lives next to the frat house or the apartments that they're living in, they have a party that people are relieving themselves in the neighbor's lawn.

Those cases are treated differently because, you know, the value, the neighborhood or the community values add differently. So that's what I was talking about where, you know, values.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): So I guess and maybe I'm paying attention a little too deeply to this, and maybe it's not as important as I think it is, but those are in fact different sets of circumstances, not just that there's a different value set. They're different sets of circumstances. In the former, you talked about if a homeless person relieves themselves and later you talk about the college kids who would be drunk, or even a college kid who live near neighbors. They're completely different sets.

And so, I guess my question is, is that really a difference in values or if those same circumstances were transported to a different district, would you not expect a similar, maybe not exact outcome?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, I'm saying that, and maybe value's the wrong word, but I'm saying that knowing -- as a state's attorney knowing my community, knowing what's important to them is important to what I prosecute and how I look at those cases.

So, if we have a particular policy that somebody is charged with this offense is going to get that outcome, we wouldn't be able to address the UConn example differently than the Stamford example. We would be, you know, charged with, following that policy.

So it's, you know, looking at and understanding what our communities want and to that end, I mean, all state's attorneys, if they don't have, I know they're forming community engagement boards. And I'm 42 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

also forming and I have the first meeting with my statewide community engagement board on this Thursday, I believe, to get in that perspective to give community members the voice to the system, to be able to address policy to what are concerning, the people that live in the different jurisdictions and have different roles or functions in those jurisdictions, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. And Attorney Colangelo, I don't know if you've ever watched myself and your predecessor, this is not going to go on as long as those go. So, that's a good thing for both of us. And I know you have other things to do today. I want to -- I want to thank you for spending some time for being open to a conversation. I think we have at least a slight disagreement on this, but I value your opinion on it. Thank you.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Senator, I appreciate the questions and you know, they force me to think about what we're doing and I appreciate that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein briefly for the second time.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just -- Mr. Chairman, in review of the system, it doesn't appear that anyone other than somebody from the judicial branch is here in support of, or opposition to 989, that's on our list here today. And I just wanted to ask some brief questions about that. I know that the questions have been centered on 1018 and 6594.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Please proceed, Representative.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. Attorney Colangelo, am I to understand that you are in favor of 989 that's before us here today?

43 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Senator, I am in favor of anything that allows us to protect victims in these types of situations. And this Bill gives us the ability to do that, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, I just want to bring you to line 74 and 75, which are part of the criteria by which one can be charged and convicted with this felony. It has to be shown that this disclosure would cause a reasonable person so that someone perhaps other than the victim in this case may suffer emotional distress. How procedurally is that to happen?

RICHARD COLANGELO: Representative Fishbein, in looking at the investigation, in looking at what is said and in looking at statement of the victim, it is pretty easy for a prosecutor to make that assessment, or at least make that argument that what this person was put through based on the actions that the defendant, a reasonable person would, you know, either suffer from emotional distress or -- on line 75, a serious inconvenience.

You know, the example that I gave of the woman from Wilton, you know, she would everyday walk out of her house and wonder whether somebody was watching her. She would everyday take a different route to work because she didn't want to know where this person was going to be and where they might, you know, be lying in and wait to follow them and what the text message or email would be about where she went and what she was wearing. So, I'd make the argument that that's a serious inconvenience and that also placed her, you know, under that emotional distress.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And that was subjective to her. And I'm certainly sympathetic to her perception, but the standard here is not necessarily what that person suffered. It's what a reasonable person, which brings the victim's ability to properly discern the threat, really is being examined as part of that. Is the victim or their 44 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reaction reasonable and appropriate to reach to that level of standard of the general public, I guess, which --

RICHARD COLANGELO: Or would a reasonable person in their situation have the same reaction. And that's kind of the way that I was looking at it in the way I answered your question, sir. You know, that's the way, you know, we deal with that a lot as prosecutors. What would a reasonable person in this situation understand or feel, and I'd be comfortable making that argument to a jury or a judge that, you know, giving these facts in these circumstances, a reasonable person would have that reaction.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Certainly, in an egregious case, that would be easier to prove, but certainly every case is different. But moving on to line 76 through 78 has to do with where these cases can be prosecuted. And it gives an option. And I run into this sometimes where there's different jurisdictions, you know, especially electronically. The electronic message emanates in one place, perhaps received in another place and neither department wants to do anything because it's the other guy, right?

So, this language says that a violation shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place where the communication originated or the place where it's received. So, the question is received by whom, because this is dissemination to the public. So, if John Smith sends Craig Fishbein Jane Smith's social security number, does jurisdiction lie where John Smith sent it, where me as third party received it or where the victim resides.

RICHARD COLANGELO: And looking at this language, sir, would be where it was sent from or where it was received because I'm the victim of that crime, I could always looking at -- you're talking about personal information, so identity theft. The Identity Theft Statutes also allow for that to 45 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

happen where the person resides. So, it could be all three.

A lot of times we find that these situations occur, the sharing of the information occurs by or from someone that's out of our jurisdiction. So this will allow us to do that investigation. And if we could identify who they are and ultimately make a decision if we have a case to, and we want to extradite them back into Connecticut to face charges here, we'll be able to do that. Similar languages in other statutes that we have already in place. As you pointed out the harassment, those, that comes to mind right away.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So if one disseminated over Facebook, let's say, jurisdiction would lie everywhere in the State of Connecticut. How do I resolve that issue of, you know, it's their role or responsibility? Why wouldn't you just have, you know, the person whose information it is, their locus, or perhaps where it emanated from, if it's within the state, why have all of this gobble.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Well, it's going to allow for, depending on where the complaints made and it might be okay, we're going to make -- somebody who's complaining less worried about it, but we're going to find that it's better. You know, these type of investigations are usually handled by the state police computer crime unit, because they can, you know, delve into and they have the experience with these types of electronic offenses. Some local jurisdictions do absolutely. But, you know, that might be part of what the thinking was behind it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I'm just concerned of that handoff that I see all too often. And the last thing was in line 118. The bar for bringing something like this appears to be raised because you're removing annoy and you're changing it to terrorize, which is not defined at least in this 46 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

language. Why increase the bar? And what is terrorization under there, this concept?

RICHARD COLANGELO: If we're looking at the reasonable person language, you know, anybody could be annoyed. I would think terrorize would be there to have, you know, that reasonable person, be able to understand this, you know, to be able to get through the hump that we were discussing previously. So that would be my understanding, you know, terrorizing is going to be harder to reach. And again, it's just one of the subsections, you know, somebody intend to harass, terrorize, or alarm another the person. And I see the terrorizing happening in a lot of the language, a lot of the threats that are going on in certain situations.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sorry.

RICHARD COLANGELO: I'm sorry.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It can be any of the three under this language. One could harass. One could alarm, which are very low bars, and then you have terrorize. So, in order to prove that this crime has been committed, you could merely prove harassment. You don't have to prove terrorization or alarm. Why even have it, if you are going to remove annoy, why not just default to harass or alarm --

RICHARD COLANGELO: I think terrorize covers what a lot of the victims are feeling in these situations and a lot of the cases that we have. This wasn't a Division proposal, but we do support it because of the ability, it will allow us to deal with the victims in these cases. Again, there's a gap as I identified it before.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I just don't understand why because harass or alarm would fall into. It's a subset of terrorized, quite frankly. You terrorize somebody you're harassing. So, anyway, but thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Attorney Colangelo. 47 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. Further questions. Seeing none. Attorney, Colangelo, I want to thank you for being with us this morning.

RICHARD COLANGELO: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be the Chief Public Defender, Christine Rapillo. I believe joining her will be Deborah Del Prete Sullivan.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: It's actually going to just be me, Mr. Chairman. Deborah was my backup. I had some personal issues and I thank the Chairs and your aides for accommodating us and allowing attorney Sullivan to be on standby for us.

Members of the Judiciary Committee, I'm Christine Rapillo. I'm the Chief Public Defender for the state of Connecticut. The Office of the Chief Public Defender has submitted testimony on four Bills, 978, 1018, 1019 and 6594. In the interest of time, I'm only going to give a brief comment on 6594, and then allow the Committee to ask questions. I know from the questioning of my counterpart that people have read the Bills and they have questions.

So raised Bill 6594, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS contains proposals from both the Division of Criminal Justice, the Office of the Chief Public Defender and the Sentencing Commission. And as Attorney Colangelo pointed out, we worked very hard together to find common ground and to come up with proposals that we all think will move the criminal justice system to be more fair and just for everyone. And I want to thank Attorney Colangelo and also our partners at Judicial and the Sentencing Commission for all the collaboration on this.

Sections 13 through 25 worm our agency's contribution to this Bill. These are targeted changes that are designed to address laws that our field staff have reported to us disproportionately 48 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

impact people of color and the poor who are predominantly our clients.

I was going to run through the sections. I think in the interest of time, knowing that you have a lot of people to talk to, I will not do that. As I indicated, we have also submitted testimony on those three other Bills, and I am open to taking questions from any Members of the Committee.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Attorney Rapillo. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. Good morning. How are you?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Good morning. Fine. Thank you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So just want to focus on 1018 for a bit. Would this Bill, if it were to become law, make your job easier or harder?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: So, I indicated in my testimony, Representative, we do have concerns about this Bill. I think our concern is that while establishing standards may make things more uniform. We are concerned that it won't make it uniformly better for our clients that come before the court.

There has been a lot of work done to move towards collecting more data. I think Attorney Colangelo spoke about that. And a past Chairman of this Committee once told me when I was arguing with him about something that sunlight is the best disinfectant. So, our position on this is that collecting data and having that data publicized and transparent and available to everyone will help to move the system to be more consistent and to be more fair.

49 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And that standards may be needed, but perhaps we need a little more time to pinpoint where there needs to be changes. I mean, there's no question that justice is different in different parts of the state. And people ought to be able to walk into court in New Haven and be pretty sure they're going to be treated equivalently to somebody walking into court in Danbury or another place. And we agree with that.

I'm just concerned that the sort of level of detail and the standards that are in there would not result -- would result in penalties being harsher and not resolved -- and maybe more uniform, but maybe harsher and wouldn't necessarily resulting in an overall benefit to our clients.

I did send that Bill out to all of our public defenders who are the judicial district equivalent of the state's attorneys. And although people think that data collection and oversight and transparency is critically important, they share my concerns.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I thank you for that. Now part of 1018 contains a criteria by which states attorneys would be reviewed. Would you be in favor of some sort of system similar to reviewing public defenders?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: So our agencies were set up to be, not mirror images of each other, but to reflect each other. I think that, you know, review performance standards do need to exist. We have them within our agencies. People -- I do a performance review on people at least every other year. And those go into the HR file. They're not currently reviewed by our commission until somebody is up for reappointment. And then that would be accessible to them. So, we do have a review. We have a mechanism to do that now. And we would certainly be open to re-looking at that and again, having sunlight on us as well.

50 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And the reappointment of public defenders, on what term does that happen?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Every four years.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And so, under 1018, I believe there would be a biennial review of the state's attorneys. Is that the way you read the language as well?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you're telling us that at least with regard to the public defenders, they're only reviewed possibly every four years because they don't come up for reappointment or they retire, that review doesn't happen at all.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: So, they would be given an HR review either every year or every other year. So internally we do do performance evaluations consistent with our HR policies. Our union staff are evaluated. So, we do evaluations on everyone. They come up for reappointment before the public Defender Services Commission every four years. So, at that point, the Commission would inquire -- I would make -- as chief would make a recommendation as to whether they should be reappointed and the Commission could inquire about those reviews. And I believe would be entitled to look at them if they want to.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But that's an internal process that was created by your department, not by the legislature.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: The legislative term is the four year term being reviewed by the Public Defender Services Commission. The more frequent one is an internal policy. Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. That criteria and all of that, you know, the HR review is based upon what 51 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

HR determines to be the role, the, you know, what a public defender should be doing.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Yes. And I will say it doesn't involve-- I mean it involves compliance with division policies. It has, at this point, not involved us looking at individual case data. We do have a case management system. But we have not done that at this point. We use that management system at this point to look at some general demographic information and to assess caseloads.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. And with regard to 6594, I know that, you know, portions of yours, portions of the state's attorney's office. Are you in favor of the entirety of 6594 or just the portions that you submitted?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: No, we support the entire thing. As I said, this was the result of conversations between, mainly between us and the Division of Criminal Justice, not everything we wanted went into the Bill, not everything they wanted went into the Bill. So, it reflects something that where we can support it in its entirety.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from others? Rep. Callahan.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. Good morning, ma'am.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Good morning.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Would you concur that, I believe in 2018, some of the pre-trial, the results of some of the pre-trial programs or all the pre- trial programs, it seems this Bill reads that. Those results, if they're negative would be a negative 52 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reflection on the state's attorney's office. It doesn't seem fair to me since they don't make the ultimate call. Would you agree?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: I would agree that the judge is ultimately the person that makes the call as to whether somebody, gets exited from the program based on a violation. Yes.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you. And I do want everyone should be held accountable for the jobs they do, but I just don't want to see anyone see a Bill that's going to make people accountable for portions of their job that they can't control.

And when it comes to -- in the beginning of your testimony, ma'am you said that in different GAs across the state, we definitely -- there's different sentences for some of the same crimes. Would you agree?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: That's true.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And it also, as I mentioned in my earlier statements, it almost seems that bringing this forward would be -- would have a detrimental effect to those courthouses and the defendants that come through the courthouses with the larger dockets.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: I think we're concerned about that. I believe that collecting data and ensuring that the Division of Criminal Justice is collecting data and analyzing their data and publicizing their data will help figure out whether there's an inherent unfairness in this. So, you know, it shouldn't be that you can -- as I said earlier, it shouldn't really be that you could go into Torrington and get a sentence that's very dramatically different from what you get in New Haven.

53 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I get the different courts move faster in different communities, have different value sets, but there should be some degree of uniformity, not, not -- but again, every case also is very different. Cases have lots of different factors. So, I think that by looking at the data, we would be able to make changes that would be more impactful perhaps than by having standards that as you said, would then require people to perhaps treat all of a different type of case, all of a certain type of case one way that could eventually end up with more harsh sentences to some of our clients. That is our concern about this Bill.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And ma'am, you obviously have a lot of experience in this field, and to me having, as Mr. Colangelo stated, we started about the same time, so I had about 28 years' experience in the criminal justice system in Connecticut. And it seems to me that this would impact the large courthouses, the cities with tougher sentences, which is not the goal of this Bill, I believe.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: I agree that I don't think it's the goal of the Bill. And as I indicated that is a concern that we have.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And one more question, when it comes to, and listening to Senator Winfield earlier very eloquently talk about the differences and many of the changes you brought about, sir. When I started -- if someone was on probation and they were positive urines for marijuana, that was a big deal, 25, 30 years ago. Now nobody is being re- incarcerated or going to jail. And I can confidently say just about nobody is going to having probation violator, going to jail for marijuana.

So things have evolved and the criminal justice system has numerous safeguards and numerous graduated sanction standards that all the departments in our judicial system, I believe, are utilizing. And therefore, we've had been able to 54 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

close so many jails and where there's so many more treatment programs.

Connecticut is very fortunate to have very low recidivism rates, based on everyone in the system working together. Would you concur?

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: The recidivism rates have been going down, that is true.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Okay. And thank you so much for coming in today and helping us understand. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Rep. Callahan. Are there comments or questions from other Members? I just want to check, Representative Fishbein, is your hand still up or do you have just a follow up?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It was still up, sorry sir. I'll take it down.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No problem. Comments or questions from other Members of the Committee. I do not see any. Attorney Rapillo, thank you for joining us today. That's one of the faster times you've been with us. I hope you have a great day.

CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO: Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for the opportunity.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Have a great day. We'll next hear from Carleton Giles from Board of Pardons and Paroles. Yes, Mr. Giles. I see his name in the list, Carleton Giles. There you are.

CARLETON GILES: Yes, sir. I'm here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No problem. You may begin, we're going to give you three minutes or so and we will then ask you questions.

55 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CARLETON GILES: Thank you. Good morning, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kissel, Representative Fishbein and honorable Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

I'm Carlton Giles, and I'm Chairperson of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. I'm here today to provide testimony regarding Senate Bill 1019, AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES, PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON ERASED CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION AND CONCERNING THE ECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO MISDEMEANOR SENTENCES.

The Board supports the intent of SB 1019 as recognizing rehabilitation and removing barriers to reintegration are at the core of the board's work. We also recognize and are grateful, several of our more significant concerns from previous sessions have been addressed in this Bill. However, we still have concerns with the Bill as proposed.

To summarize my testimony for the sake of time, the Board only supports automatic eraser for the low- level misdemeanors and believes that changes are necessary to certain provisions, which impact the pardon power. Should the Committee act favorably on this Bill, the Board respectfully requests that the Committee address the issues we have flagged and limit automatic aeration to low level misdemeanors.

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. We stand willing as always to work with the proponents to eliminate drafting issues and strengthen the Bills protections for individuals with erased criminal record. We're happy to provide any additional information for you at this time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Is that the totality of your written statement?

56 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CARLETON GILES: Yeah, we submitted the testimony. We're fine to acquiesce to your time constraints, Senator.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I just want to make sure I don't want to cut you off.

CARLETON GILES: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Giles, nice to see you again.

CARLETON GILES: You too, sir. Good morning.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Good morning. I miss sitting next to you on our Committee. So anyway, I just wanted, you have 1019 before you, I would expect?

CARLETON GILES: I do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And line 65 through 68, I just want to thank you for that language. I hope that I had something to do with that language being in there and repeatedly expressing my frustration of hearings before your Board, so.

CARLETON GILES: Yes, as did the Chairman.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. Thank you. Moving on from there though, if I bring you to the lines 208 through 211, you know, I read the language a few times. And can you explain to me what's that intending to do?

CARLETON GILES: I think we are concerned here, Representative Fishbein about some of the things falling off when there are several things there. And particularly if someone were still incarcerated and then to have these things automatically falling off when there was a controlling offense that couldn't fall off. I think that was our concern. 57 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Totally makes sense now in that context. Okay. Thank you for that. Lines 343 through 349, and I know in looking at our list, I don't see Undersecretary Pelka on our list to testify today. So, I'm going to have to ask you, you know.

This has to do with waivers, possible waivers for fees for their criminal history check to apply, to - - apply for a pardon. And that's another initiative that I had asked for. But my question sir, is when - - what is your understanding of this language when someone is denied that fee waiver? Is there a due process, procedure for having a hearing and who would that be before?

CARLETON GILES: Representative, I do not know. You know, we don't charge, of course, but we supported this because it was brought up as a possible barrier for persons. So that would be the desk, you know. We just supported the waiver. We didn't have the details about if it were denied and that kind of thing.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Yeah. I understand. There's no fee to file for a pardon, but there is a $75 fee to get your fingerprints done for the purpose of the criminal background check so that you can file for a pardon. And I do run into this in court, you know, one can file a fee waiver and when that's denied, they're entitled to a hearing go before a judge and --

CARLETON GILES: Right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): A lot of times those are overturned. And that is a concern here that there would be no due process. So, I thank for, and I'll reach out to Undersecretary Pelka with regards to that.

58 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Now I know that what you've already expressed your opposition to the erasure, so I don't need to go into. Where I was going next? I want to wrap up this now. Thank you, sir, for your testimony, and your testimony calls out some of the other questions I was going to ask, and I thank you for your position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity.

CARLETON GILES: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there other comments or questions from other Members of the Committee for Mr. Giles. Okay. Mr. Giles, I do have a question about your opposition to the erasure of the low level misdemeanors. Could you explain your position? I just want to -- I think it may be related to an exchange we had last year, but I just want to clarity on it.

CARLETON GILES: Yeah, that's all, Senator. It is really, we take the same position we took last year. We do support the low-level misdemeanor automatic erasures, but we do have some concerns about these other cases because, of course, they are so individual as Rep. Callahan with his in background law enforcement, Senator Champagne knows. And you yourself being on the ground, you know, as a community activist and organizer that so many of these things are nuanced in the details.

So, you know, as an example, we had one of these manslaughter 2's that's on this list recently. And, you know, it was a driving question, but victims came and, you know, they need to be heard and they need to know that we're listening. And so that was our general feel about that, that because they're so individualized, we think they should have a set of eyes on them.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Thank you. And I'll come back. I see Rep. Callahan does have a question. So, I'm going to allow him to pose his question or make his comment. 59 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for coming in Mr. Giles. I do have done -- Over the years, I met with many people who were applying for pardons. And do you see the pardon process as being difficult for many defendants?

CARLETON GILES: So, the truth is no, and I'm often, you know, Senator Winfield and I have talked about this for years and others. You know, we've gone to an electronic system, there are 12 tabs to put in information that we will need to assess, you know, the readiness for the pardon.

I do not see it as onerous as many have said it was. We thought we sort of streamlined it a couple of times as we began these discussions in 2015 and then the electronic process. So, I have staff here who I will, you know, petitioners can talk to directly to walk them through. So we are not at the same place about the, you know, how arduous it is.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Sir, do they have to -- do these people who are applying for pardons, do many of them hire attorneys to go through the process?

CARLETON GILES: Some do, but it's not necessary. And when people ask us at the outset, we tell them that attorneys are not necessary to do it, but some do for their own comfort level.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): I know that when I was on the front lines working probation, many of my old probation clients would come back and I'd sit down and walk them through the process because they had so much trouble with it. It didn't seem that onerous to me, but, sir, if there's any way, you can make it easier for them, it would be helpful, because we do want to help these people get their pardons, but it is very difficult and many of them cannot afford attorneys and they do want to -- We want to make 60 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

them employable and to put this portion of their life behind them.

CARLETON GILES: Indeed, yeah. We are on the same page on that, Rep. Callahan. As I said, we've streamlined this thing, looked at a couple of times. Representative, now Senator Billie Miller and I talked about this at some great length and we've really been -- I've been dealing with Representative McGee, Members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus because many of their constituents are keenly affected.

You know, I come from a law enforcement background, so I'm seeing some of these same names and I know what it is. And we want to, as you say Rep. Callahan, we're not trying to stand in the way of people succeeding. We want them to do that.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to speak.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Rep Callahan. And as I'm sure Mr. Giles will suggest to you that he hears it all the time. So that is a -- that is a concern that we've expressed. And as someone who used to help people do these, I recognize the gap between what I could do and what some of the people we're filling them out can do. So, we're in constant conversation about that. Is there a comment or question from others? Rep. Fiorello.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is kind of a strange question, but I was wondering, Chairman Giles since you're in this field and you have these kinds of conversations, have you ever come across community leaders who do have a, you know, a felony record? So like they're an ex something, but they are leaders. They're -- they've turned their lives around. They work with young people. And have folks like that come to you and ask for erasure of their records? 61 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CARLETON GILES: Yes, Representative Fiorello. Some aspiring politicians and community activists as well, who are doing wonderful work with groups, who are advocating for others have done that. And we've -- they've gotten pardoned and they're doing very good work. So yes, it runs the gamut, ma'am, of folks who, you know, have in college or when in younger years or some addiction trouble then they ran into some criminal problem, but they can get these erases and move on with their lives.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): So, in that instance, I think that you're saying they have received pardons, but do any of the folks who, you know, they are living examples of a redemption story, are they asking for the erasers? Like, I'm just wondering if erasing it would have an impact on, you know, sort of the, I guess like the human story of turning yourself around. I mean, it's a funny question. So, I don't know if you can put some words around what I think.

CARLETON GILES: So, I think I know what you mean, Representative Fiorello and an answer to that question if I'm interpreting correctly. Many people are very successful without a pardon, but for personal reasons, as you've described, some older Connecticut residents simply come to get pardoned because they say, I don't want to die with this on my record, so. But they have lived very productive lives. They've owned their own companies, they work.

Because as you probably know, this business about record checking used to be only when you were trying to enter a field and it's only since maybe 9/11 incident where persons who are on jobs for a long time and want to get promotions or move, then they have to get this record check again. And then all of a sudden here it is.

REP. FIORELLO (149TH): Thank you. Thank you for educating me some more. Thank you. 62 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members? So, Mr. Giles, back to what I was asking about the opposition to the low-level misdemeanors. And you suggested that it was very much in line with your position from last year. So, to that end, I guess I would ask you again, the question I asked last year. Does your opposition also mean the same thing it meant last year? And let me restate what you said so that I'm not putting words into your mouth. Last year you indicated that there were some crimes that you just thought should not be -- some classes of crimes you thought should not be a part of the scheme that we were looking at.

CARLETON GILES: That's true, Senator. I think that some of those level of crimes should have an individual look as we're doing now.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I guess, and you know, this because you were there. I had some -- I took issue with that, because to my mind, I think a lot about what we've learned over many years about the likelihood of people repeating a crime, depending on the time that has elapsed and how that position doesn't take that into account.

So, I guess my question to you is, knowing the position that I've held and the exchange we had and maybe stating it here, what do you have to say about the information that we know about the likelihood of recommission after certain periods of time and your position?

CARLETON GILES: Sure. Well, I read what the academicians have to say about the desistance. I'm not certain that there's a lot of information upon which we can rely about that. My chief concern, sir, is when there are victims involved. and often in the plea process, the crimes that finally get on the record, the details of the incident are more noteworthy for what we're trying to accomplish here. 63 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So that's my concern. It's this -- it's -- Senator, that all of these things are so different and it's always in the details.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I'm not sure. And maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention. I'm not sure what you just told me. So, if you could break that down a little bit more.

CARLETON GILES: So here again, automatic eraser is going to preclude it seems input from victims of crimes. And then also very often, I just reviewed a case as an example for one of your colleagues. And it had been a plea bargain situation, which didn't require a registry and so forth, but the details of the offense warranted that a future employer or others needed to know that that had occurred. And so, it's that kind of thing that may be trying to articulate in a setting like this is hard to do, but it's the details that I'm concerned with.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I guess that's the place where there's a sticking point between my position and your position, because what I hold out is that oftentimes, -- and I thank you for reading the literature on people changing themselves over a period of time and being less likely -- I've read it a lot. So I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that there isn't a significant amount of information on this, but that's what you've read.

But I guess what I'm trying to get to, and I brought up several instances the last time we had this conversation of people who to, Representative Fiorello's point, despite the fact that, and I will admit that you are, from my perspective, as someone who's been pushing on you doing a better job, that there are people who are 20 years out of the system who are doing things. And I've never done that help communities and have not gotten pardons. And I don't think you would disagree that that exists. Right. And they'd been through the system.

64 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And I think maybe the way we do things now, that's going to exist less, but it exists. And you know, yes, there are individual circumstances, but I don't know what, you know, 15, 20 years down the road by knowing that someone committed any particular crime, if that person hasn't done anything like that is of different way. When you look at that record, what you know is what you think the record is telling you. And I -- and you may have had this experience as well.

I've had to intervening where people have read a record, and you and I both know, people don't necessarily know how to read these things and think they understand the record to say one thing when he does it. And I just guess particularly after extended periods of time, I wonder what it is we think we actually know about the person who's in front of us, because I don't think we know anything at all about who the person is in front of us when we look at that record. And so, I guess that's where this doesn't hold up for me.

And so, I guess I'll frame the question this way. Maybe the Bill for you is to shorter period of time. Do you think there's a period of time at which for those crimes used that should be excluded that you could have a system like we're creating here potentially?

CARLETON GILES: So Senator, I just think again, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I just think these things are so individualized that even talking about timeframe, there could be a case where that impacted the community different, victims differently, a crime committed in a different way that would require from independent decision makers, you know, more time or some other thing that wouldn't grant the pardon at that particular time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. I'm going to leave that there. We're just going to have to continue to 65 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

disagree. I thank you for your opinion. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the second time. Chairman Giles, I agree with you, every case is different at a certain level and certainly, you know, victims should have that right. I wanted to ask you, sir, since the pandemic, how has your ability, or how has one's ability to be able to apply for a pardon changed if at all? Where are you with hearings?

CARLETON GILES: It hasn't changed at all. Sir, we pivoted like every other entity, organization and state. We pivoted to an online process. We have Zoom platforms now. It's really made it easier because to hearing before the pandemic, a person had to appear in-person around the state at various courthouses. Now they can join us from wherever they are on Zoom. So, we never stopped working here. We had -- in the early days we had two hearings a month to make up for that turnaround time and we're still doing it. I think I have had one, two weeks ago and I have another one 1st of April.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So how have you been able to deal with the fact that from March 17 through at least June the perspective applicant could not get their fingerprint background check done from the state police and that presently it's taking about four months to get that done? How is that affecting your department?

CARLETON GILES: Yeah, we still wait for them to have all the information. So, once it's here within processing out in our time frame here is about, I think we're up to about three months once we get everything and ready to go before they come to a hearing.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But I would think that during that period of time, you had a significant decrease 66 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in applications because nobody could get their background checks done.

CARLETON GILES: No, we didn't. You know, ours are a rolling process, Representative. So, we had worked here to do, and that's what we were doing. And as I said in that lag time, those that backed up, then we went to double hearings in order to accommodate what we were doing.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I'll just tell you that I had a gentleman attempt that process in November and he just got heard back from the state police last week. So, he has been precluded from at least my review on whether or not I thought he could possibly get a pardon. But I just want to bring that to your attention, because that's a little concerning to me, but I totally appreciate the discussion here today, so thank you.

CARLETON GILES: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. And I have a same set of circumstances. So that's interesting. Comments or questions from other Members of Committee -- of the Committee. Comments or questions. I do not see any. If that being the case, Mr. Giles, thank you for joining us this morning. I have to move on. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

CARLETON GILES: Thank you, Senator, likewise.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. Next, we'll hear from Kelly Moore, followed by Walter Paul. Is Kelly Moore here?

KELLY MOORE: I'm here, Senator.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good afternoon. You have three minutes.

67 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: Thank you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Moore. I'm the interim senior policy counsel for the ACLU of Connecticut.

I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 1018. The ACLU of Connecticut has submitted testimony on a number of Bills before the Committee today. My colleagues are testifying later on Senate Bills 1019 and 987. Questions on those Bills would best be directed to my colleagues a little later on. I'm happy to take questions on Senate Bill 1018 or any other Bills on which I've submitted written testimony.

Chief State's Attorney Colangelo asked what the problems this Bill Senate Bill 1018 seeks to solve are. I'm happy to answer that. There are several structural barriers to making prosecution fair and proportionate in Connecticut. The first barrier is one that the legislature has actually worked to reduce a lack of prosecutorial transparency. Thank you for that good work.

When the general assembly enacted a Bill requiring tracking and public reporting of data in 2019, it's signaled its understanding that prosecution plays a key role in mass incarceration and the need to diagnose the problem.

The second barrier is that state's attorneys are not answerable to the public and are rarely answerable to an oversight body. They're up for reappointment every eight years right now, longer than the Chief State's Attorney, Deputy Chief State's attorneys, public defender and high prosecutors in 47 States.

And the third big barrier is that judicial districts can and do operate independently of one another, meaning that outcomes for crime victims and defendants vary, depending on people's zip codes. Earlier, the Chief State's Attorney explicitly 68 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

admitted that outcomes are actually different from district to district. And you heard the same from the Chief Public Defender.

What I've heard today about the Bill demonstrates exactly what we always say. Prosecutors are some of the most powerful people in the criminal legal system and some of the least accountable. It makes sense that prosecutors would fight efforts to bring their power within a system of checks and balances. But one thing I want to make really clear about the policy section of this Bill is that it doesn't actually create policies. It directs the state's attorneys to get together and make policies. It doesn't create a one size fits all approach. It also doesn't suggest that state's attorneys do that.

The Bill that sits before you today identifies areas where prosecution needs guidelines and direct prosecutorial leadership to make policies in those areas. There's no rigidity built into this Bill to the extent that it ever exists. It's because those are the policies the state's attorneys would end up making.

The people of Connecticut do not support the kind of disparity that we see from district to district right now, 81% of voters polled believe that standard policies should be in place to ensure that outcomes are fair statewide.

One of the things I just want to highlight is that the reduction in incarceration that has occurred in Connecticut. We did hit a 30 year low during the pandemic. It's true. That drop over the last year was overwhelmingly the result of fewer people entering the system. COVID-19 sort of created a laboratory in the Connecticut legal system.

And the finding was that reducing the numbers of people coming into the criminal legal system can significantly reduce incarceration overall. Prosecution plays a pivotal role in who is in 69 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Connecticut's prisons. Under this Bill, these powerful people would be evaluated more frequently and required to make policies so that their power isn't widely disparate across the state.

Finally, I just want to mention that prosecutors in Connecticut are already significantly insulated from political pressure by design, since they're not elected --

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Ms. Moore.

KELLY MOORE: And they have constitutional independence. Thanks Senator. I will wrap up super quickly. And this Bill doesn't change that fundamental character. Se see this as a Bill that helps everybody, prosecutors, state's attorneys, victims, defendants, the entire system. I'm happy to take your questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Kelly. The first change in 1018 is this removal of the commission from the Division of Criminal Justice to the executive department. And why is that necessary?

KELLY MOORE: Right now, the Criminal Justice Commission is housed within the Division of Criminal Justice, which is the very agency that oversees. When it wants to have hearings, it's staffed by this Division of Criminal Justice staff members. We see that as inconsistent with providing full accountability and oversight. And so moving it within the auspices of the executive branch would create greater independence and less interdependence between the oversight body and the people they're supposed to be overseeing.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And you know, have you been here for the testimony this morning? 70 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: Yes sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you know, I brought up about public defenders falling under some same sort of process. Is there a similar process with regard to the public defenders in line with the commission?

KELLY MOORE: So for reappointment, my understanding is that there is a similar process for public defenders and the chief, I'm sorry, the state's attorneys. Right now, the process has happened at very different times, every four years for reappointment for public defenders and every eight for state's attorneys. I think as they stand right here today, there're roughly similar processes.

And based on what I heard, Attorney Rapillo saying, it sounds like both groups of attorneys are operating under somewhat similar internal processes. Because right now we don't dispute that there are some level of HR kind of evaluations happening within the Division of Criminal Justice that is indeed occurring. It is not occurring by the Body that actually is meant to be the oversight appointing body. And it sounds like there are also internal reviews happening at the public defender's office.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And what oversight body is there for the public defender's office, similar to this commission?

KELLY MOORE: They have an appointing body as well. It's separate and apart from the Criminal Justice Commission.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And that's within their own, it's not part of OPM or anything like that, correct?

KELLY MOORE: My understanding is that it's a freestanding body. It is not housed within the 71 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

public defender's office, but I'm not a hundred percent positive on that and would be happy to find more information and get back to you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I mean, because certainly we want fairness in the justice system, it should be all around, but do you have the Bill in front of you?

KELLY MOORE: Yeah, I do have.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I just want to bring your attention to line 253 through 254. And that has to do with the formal training program. You see that.

KELLY MOORE: I do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And I'm trying to figure out why would it be important for the state's attorney to be trained on the systemic collateral consequences of arrest, charging, and incarceration when, you know, like judges, I don't believe are trained on that? Why is that a part of this Bill?

KELLY MOORE: Well, because state's attorneys and the prosecutors that work under them literally hold people's lives in their hands every day, even when they're prosecuting cases that don't carry a life sentence, they're actually prosecuting cases that carry a life sentence because of the 550 plus barriers to full civic participation that exist in Connecticut law today.

And we think it's really important that prosecutors understand that. There are certainly circumstances that may narrate those consequences accruing to a person. But I think it's really important for state's attorneys to understand that when they're sentencing a person right now under the State of Connecticut law, they're not sentencing them to a term of years in prison. They're sentencing them to a number of collateral consequences as well. I'm 72 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

sorry, I'm saying sentencing, but I mean, charging and prosecuting.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, because state's attorneys don't sentence --

KELLY MOORE: They make sentencing recommendations that carry a lot of weight in the court.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, but, you know, juries are part of that process as well.

KELLY MOORE: Sure.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And is there a proposal to -- you know, this just seems to me like a guilt thing, you know, these are the collateral consequences if you hold this person to the term that the legislature has determined to be appropriate for the crime. I mean, is there another function for that? Because I know, I think we all recognize that there are collateral consequences, but it seems to be like a guilt sort of thing.

KELLY MOORE: Well, I mean, I think making a fully informed decision about the charges that you proceed with is a really important piece that is not guilt, but instead, takes a holistic view of what the role of a prosecutor is in the system and in a person's life.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, understood. But is there a proposal to, you know, when a jury comes in, they watch a video about the process and all of that stuff. I mean, juries sometimes find people guilty and then their sentence based upon that finding.

KELLY MOORE: Yes, their sentence based upon the charges that are brought to them and presented in the court, the charges that the prosecutors in charge of carrying forward and determining which ones will proceed.

73 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And ultimately which ones they can prove.

KELLY MOORE: Ultimately yes. And you know, about the 7% of cases that go to trial and are settled by plea bargain.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Agreed. Plea bargain, where, you know, two people on either sides of the table, many, you know, because in these cases you're entitled to representation appointed by the taxpayers as opposed to a civil case, two willing parties enter into an agreement. But you know, moving on to line 36 through 357, this has to do with the review of the state's attorneys. Correct?

KELLY MOORE: Yes, that's right, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And how is victim satisfaction supposed to be employed in this? So, first of all, I can't find what that victim satisfaction scale is when I look at 51-279A. So if we can start with that, what is the victim satisfaction components?

KELLY MOORE: So, there is a piece of victim satisfaction that is one of the policies, that's addressed in a section three of this Bill. One of the things that the Bill proposes that state's attorneys and the Chief State's Attorney set final policies around. So that is the reference to as amended by this act, is the way that that should and could be measured across the judicial districts after the state's attorneys and the Chief State's Attorney have made policies.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So is there a particular portion of section three where the legislature under this language would give that direction? Is that the intent of the legislation? So Section 3 starts on line 103. Is there a particular -- I didn't find where that direction was given. Do you know where it is? 74 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: I'm looking at it right now. I see metrics around victim engagement, starting at line 167, but you're correct that I don't see that in there.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. How -- you know, assuming that that is developed, how is line 356 through 357 supposed to be employed here? Is it good victim satisfaction that is used against the state's attorney? Is it bad victim satisfaction? I can't tell from this, what is the direction we're giving the stakeholders here?

KELLY MOORE: You raised an excellent point Representative Fishbein, and that is that these evaluations actually do not set benchmarks. They create a category of data that the Criminal Justice Commission should consider when it makes reappointment decision. It does not say unless you are above X level in these categories, you will not be reappointed. It does not set any sort of benchmarks or criteria. It gives -- categories of data that are, that should be considered when a state's attorney is up for reappointment.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And ultimately under this language, who would make that determination, who ultimately at the apex would be in charge of making that determination? Where is the line of a state's attorney's review acceptable or unacceptable?

KELLY MOORE: The criminal justice commission will, as they do right now. The difference is that they will have data and metrics to make that decision where they don't at the moment.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, it wouldn't be as they do now because the Criminal Justice Commission under this Bill would change from its current oversight to the executive branch. So ultimately -- I would think the answer would be that ultimately the Governor would through OPM under this language. 75 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: So under the Bill -- Maybe I don't understand, I'll give you my answer and if I -- if it's clear, I haven't understood you correctly, let me know. Under the Bill OPM's role is to put the data that's being gathered pursuant to Public Act 1959 together in a report that highlights these areas set forth in this Bill, pass it on to the Criminal Justice Commission, who then considers that information as part of the reappointment process.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): All right. So perhaps I was, you know, in line 6, when we started here on the very first change. It mentions the executive department and I had read into that executive division. So what is the executive department that is contemplated here?

KELLY MOORE: So the change in Section 1 is solely meant as a place to house and get resourcing and support. staff support for the Division of Criminal Justice. And so ideally, I think the Criminal Justice Commission should be treated as sort of an independent body similar to maybe the office of the victim advocate or the office of the child advocate that is housed in an area, but is independent of them. That would be, I think, ideal in line with the intent of the Bill, I think.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. But I still -- Do you know what the executives -- it's obviously intended to be housed within something and that something is defined as the executive department and what is the executive department. Utilization of the term executive with some other word in my understanding is the Governor's branch of the government. Is there a different department?

KELLY MOORE: No, I think that is indeed what in there right now. And I think that that is in line with those other agencies that I've mentioned.

76 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, we come back to where I was and that ultimately determine of the criteria for the state's attorneys, which ones were acceptable and unacceptable would fall upon the Governor because he is the head of the executive department or division of the state.

KELLY MOORE: The governor currently appoints the members of the Criminal Justice Commission. So, I mean, I think that ultimately this was chief attorney, Chief State's Attorney Colangelo point about the terms, ultimately that power already resides there. Although I do want to note that in our system where prosecutors are not elected, they're appointed by a body that is appointed. There's a lot of insulation and sort of the whims of political actors already in this Bill, doesn't change that at all. The people that appoint prosecutors are still the same people that appoint prosecutors. It's just on a little bit shorter timeframe.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I don't know if that answered the question, but moving on the data collection aspect of this, I'm sure you've heard Attorney Colangelo, Public Defender Rapillo speak about concerns with regard to that. Do you share their concerns?

KELLY MOORE: I think that the data collection that this Committee and the legislature has already mandated is very important as we go forward to clarify things, but I don't think we need data right now, additional data, let me say that shows that there are disparities. We've heard out of the mouths of the system experts, that there are disparities from district to district. And we've also heard from Chief State's Attorney that the data is being collected and that as of the beginning of this year, it's being collected on a statewide level. So, the data is there and will continue to roll in before the timeframe that this Bill puts in place for creating policies. 77 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, when did that data collection begin?

KELLY MOORE: And so, the first data rollout began in July of last year, they began collecting it, I think in October of 2019 based on the effective date of Public Act 1959.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I'm sorry, I don't know your background. Are you involved with the court system in any, you know, the criminal court system or, in any way?

KELLY MOORE: No, sir. I have not been a criminal law attorney before.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, do you have knowledge as to the disposition of criminal cases for the last year while we've been in a pandemic?

KELLY MOORE: I have the -- the knowledge that I have is based on publicly available information and statistics.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, are you aware that it was late in March that Governor Lamont issued an executive order, executive order 7G, which suspended the speedy right to trial, which has prevented cases from coming to conclusion, are you aware of that?

KELLY MOORE: Yes, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And you would agree that because cases are not being disposed of that data is lacking as opposed to if we had a pandemic. I would think you would have some better numbers here?

KELLY MOORE: I think, yeah, absolutely the data from the last year it's going to be different than had we not been in a pandemic situation. I do think 78 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that the data that is being collected right now is, data that will show the same point that I'm making, which is whether districts are moving in the same direction or whether they're not moving in the same direction.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. I respectfully disagree. You know, I'll tell you, I had a guy who was arrested for DUI in June. He was given arraignment date of August. He was arrested again for DUI in July. He has still not been arraigned. In that case you have no data. I would be interested in what other cases are out there that are similar to that because, you know, if, you know, I recognize there's more than likely a disparity, but I don't want to see things go into place based upon bad numbers. It's a waste of time, waste of resources. And you know, I do think we don't have enough at this point, but anyway, the prosecutors being reappointed every eight years, you're proposing that that gets changed to, I believe it was four.

KELLY MOORE: It's five years, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And I note that judges are reappointed on an eight year cycle. Would you -- I mean, judges are an integral part of sentencing. Would it be the ACLU's position to have judges reappointed on a quicker schedule as well?

KELLY MOORE: I'd have to -- I can't really answer that in a hypothetical. I do think generally speaking, having more opportunities for oversight, it provides that sunshine that Attorney Rapillo was talking about that members of the public and the residents of Connecticut are entitled to.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Rep. Callahan.

79 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Ma'am. You referenced during some of your -- during your opening three minutes, mass incarceration, and the fact that COVID-19 perhaps is the reason that it's been declining. I would contend to you having been in the system for many years, that it's been steadily declining. We've been closing jails and offering alternatives to incarceration for many years now.

Also, I've witnessed prosecutors during a plea bargain sessions with attorneys doing everything they can to search out positive aspects of the people's lives in order to negotiate a lesser sentence. I think do you -- My opinion is I think by default you're asking for a standard across state, you're almost, you're asking for tougher sentences in the inner cities, because with those big dockets and the level of negotiation going on with those big dockets for that standard to be applied, you'd be asking for tougher sentences in the cities by default.

KELLY MOORE: Well, I think there's a really troubling assumption in there, which is that prosecutors given all things being equal, right? If they're making policies based on disparities in a more rural district, in a more urban district that they're going to default to the tougher position. And I think that's true based on what we've seen over, trends over the last 30 or 40 years in incarceration. But I think I'm troubled by that idea that when given the choice of making policies, the people who are in charge of prosecution in community safety, that piece of community safety want to go, want to make sentences as tough as possible.

And I also, I mean, I definitely agree that dockets are, there are much -- there are many more dockets in urban areas than in rural areas. That's undoubtedly true. But when you look at the demographics of our state, what we say, like, let's just be honest. When we talk about urban and rural, 80 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that is often a proxy for race in Connecticut and the numbers do not bear out that people in urban districts are getting more lenient sentencing. We have very stark racial disparities in our criminal justice system and incarceration in Connecticut. So, I mean I would just use that. I think maybe there's some anecdotal evidence there, I'd be happy to, you know, look at other, consider other things. But I think that that there's some assumptions in that, that I'm a little troubled by.

The final thing I do want to say is that I do agree with you. And if I gave the impression, otherwise I apologize, mass incarceration in Connecticut is not declining because of COVID. It has been on the downswing for a number of years, and we've had a rapid amount of decarceration in the last year because people are exiting incarceration and fewer people are going into it.

So, I hundred percent agree with you that it has been trending downward. And I apologize that you get a different impression there.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you for your answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments? Representative Fishbein, is your hand still up.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And down now. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. Representative Young.

REP. YOUNG (120TH): Chairman Winfield. Good afternoon, Ms. Moore.

KELLY MOORE: Good afternoon.

REP. YOUNG (120TH): A quick question. You propose to reduce the terms of the state's attorneys from 81 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

eight to five years. Is that going to give them the opportunity to not do the normal work that they have been doing in five years than in eight years? So is it really fair to them to reduce that? So if you have any comments on that, appreciate it.

KELLY MOORE: Thank you. Representative Young. Yeah, I have heard it said that state's attorneys cannot do their work in five years. They need eight years. I have not heard any compelling justification for that. Chief State's Attorney Colangelo who was before you today serves a five-year term. I think he's certainly been effective so far and I do not think his five-year term has -- actually, he's currently serving like a year and a half term because he's finishing out former Chief State's Attorney Kane's term. I don't think that's been an impediment to him at all. And I think we would see that for state's attorneys as well.

I also just want to clarify that nothing in SB 1018 sets a term limit. It just sets a new timeframe for the Chief State, I'm sorry for the Criminal Justice Commission to consider state's attorneys for reappointment. So if everything is going great in a judicial district, in all likelihood state's attorneys will be reappointed and can get an additional five years to continue their good work.

REP. YOUNG (120TH): Great. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Young. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon, just a quick question. I believe in your testimony, you had indicated that the incarceration has declined and you've indicated this last year because of COVID. Is that correct?

KELLY MOORE: Yes. I have said that over the last year, fewer people are going into incarceration 82 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

because of COVID and that is a contributing factor to the decline in mass incarceration since March of 2020.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And would you agree that that is the case as well prior to COVID that incarceration was on the decrease?

KELLY MOORE: Yes ma'am, I would.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. And you also indicated in your testimony, you made reference to mass incarceration. Could you tell me when that took place, what time period you're looking at?

KELLY MOORE: Sure. It started in the 1980s, and has peaked in the late 2000 in Connecticut. It peaked in 2008, was when we had our highest incarceration rates in the state as a result of numerous practices across the criminal legal system. And so much so that it's estimated that about three in ten people, three in ten adults in the US are living with a criminal record right now. It's a problem that even though incarceration is declining, there are people who are still living with the effects of mass incarceration and will be for the rest of their lives. I'm sorry, Representative Rebimbas. I can't hear you.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And those statistics for the State of Connecticut, you made reference of a national statistics. Do you have those for the State of Connecticut?

KELLY MOORE: The data is very hard to track based on the way the data is reported. I can certainly compile and get you the best estimates, but those numbers are not exact because until very recently, we have not had good data tracking systems in place. So again, I think this Committee for its work in 2019 on that front.

83 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Is there anything in your proposal today that makes any changes or requests to data collection in the State of Connecticut?

KELLY MOORE: No, ma'am. All the data that is proposed to be used in this Bill is what is already collected pursuant to 1959.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. I'm just a little surprised that then there wouldn't be some requests for change of data if you're referencing the fact that you don't have the data that's necessary, that you're referencing on the national level. In what year has the incarceration been declining in the State of Connecticut.

KELLY MOORE: I began declining in 2009 from its peak in 2008.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): 2009. Have you brought anything to the State's Chief Attorney that you believe that has not been addressed since he's taken his new appointment?

KELLY MOORE: So, when we were in talks about this Bill, we had extensive conversations with the Chief State's Attorney about this and about areas that wouldn't be workable that, you know, they were concerned about and had some productive conversations that led to changes that appear in the version of the Bill before you. However, as the Chief State's Attorney indicated we could not get to full agreement there. So, on this Bill, that's the answer. And I mean, this is --

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): I guess I'll repeat the question. My apologies. I just don't believe it was responsive to the question. And have you identified any issues in the State of Connecticut with prosecutors that you have brought to the attention of the new State Chief's Attorney that has not been addressed?

84 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: Sure. There are a lot of disparities between the judicial districts and the outcomes in them that persist, and that would be addressed by the policies in this Bill that the Chief State's Attorney opposes.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Can you give me some data or facts in that regard to back up your claim that that's currently occurring now?

KELLY MOORE: Sure. And just so you know, the first report out from data from Public Act 1959 does reference this. So I will be happy to pass that along.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Can you reference that now? You're making the allegation, so I'm wondering if you've got that data to provide to us.

KELLY MOORE: Sure, give me just a second to put my hands on it.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Sure.

KELLY MOORE: No, I don't have the numbers right at hand, but like I said, I'll be happy to follow up with you and provide them after the hearing.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay. I think that would be important. I'm just kind of concerned regarding the timing of this request and proposal, because a lot of the allegations that you're making regarding disparities amongst jurisdictions. Well, you admitted the fact that incarceration has been on the decline in the State of Connecticut since 2009. I'm just kind of questioning the need for the proposal now versus why it wasn't brought forward than when this mass incarceration was taking place. Well certainly, you know, any data that you may encounter that would be responsive to these questions, I would welcome if you wouldn't mind and sharing it with the Committee, I'd appreciate that.

85 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KELLY MOORE: Sure. And if I just may respond briefly, yeah, incarceration has been declined, but people are still being prosecuted in Connecticut every day. And people are facing different outcomes depending on what part of the state that they're in. And so for me, this is an issue of justice delayed is justice denied. And if we wait and say, we need more data, or this is not the right time, we're denying justice to the people who are being prosecuted right now.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And I'd agree with you. It's unfortunate that there is a need for prosecutors. And it's unfortunate that we do have an environment that for one reason or the other individuals are still committing crimes. And that is why we have the need for the justice system. And again, to your point that you continue to make and saying that there's discrepancies as to how the different jurisdictions are handling those matters. I think that's where the data would be important, which you were not able to reference here today. And for you to say that justice is delayed in some way, by actually requesting the data, I would submit to you that justice will continue to be delayed unless we actually have the data and facts to then provide to make the important positive changes that are absolutely necessary. So, thank you again for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Ms. Moore for your testimony. What are the -- are there other states that has similar legislation?

KELLY MOORE: So this is not necessary in a majority of the states because there are only a handful of states that have appointed prosecutors. So in terms of the Criminal Justice Commission piece and how 86 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

often they're checking in that is not necessary in most other states, because there's not such a body.

There are large cities that have these kinds of standard policies in place for prosecutors, the one suggested by Section 3. I'm not aware of it being done on a statewide level elsewhere.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): When you say they're not necessary in other jurisdictions, why are they not necessary?

KELLY MOORE: Because the Criminal Justice Commission appoints prosecutor, state's attorneys in Connecticut and in almost every other state they're elected by the public. And so, the public election is the check or the oversight that occurs.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right. So you prefer a direct election. If you were -- if you had your choice, you would prefer a direct election of our prosecutors.

KELLY MOORE: No, sir, not at all. I think our system actually does a good job in insulating prosecutors from political pressure in ways that direct elections do not. So that is one of the reasons why I support this Bill is because it preserves that fundamental character of prosecution in Connecticut.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So other than what we've just been talking about, what will this Bill fix? What else will this Bill fix?

KELLY MOORE: So it'll fix the disparities between judicial districts and it will fix the outlier terms that state's attorneys currently have eight years, which is much longer than anybody else on the adversarial pieces of the criminal justice system.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Would you agree to disparities in districts are sometimes justified, or do you have 87 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the position that there should be no disparity between districts for any reason whatsoever?

KELLY MOORE: I think that similar cases should be treated similarly in different districts.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So your answer to my question is yes you believe that the disparities between districts is improper. You don't believe there should be any disparity between districts.

KELLY MOORE: I don't believe there should be disparities in outcomes, roughly speaking.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And what do you mean by roughly speaking.

KELLY MOORE: I mean, what this Bill proposes and what I believe is that some sort of guidelines, standard, signposts should be up for prosecutors, but then there should be a range of discretion within those parameters. And so that would account for some slight -- would account for some differences based within that within those parameters.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So you're for mandatory minimum, mandatory maximum type process.

KELLY MOORE: No, I'm not. And this Bill would not impose those.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, you were saying there should be a range that certain violations or crimes should have and the prosecutors should have discretion within that range. Is that what you were saying?

KELLY MOORE: Well, I -- no, it's not. I mean the legislature sets the penalties for crimes. So that would not be addressed here. And what we're talking about more is not, are things that are process- related. Right. So what evidence and when, does a 88 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

prosecutor turn it over to a defense attorney. What recommendations are they making in sentencing? What are they doing post-conviction when somebody comes in and asks for a sentence modification. So a lot of the things you'll see addressed in Section 3 are process issues.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Are the answers to any of your questions you just posed going to be in the data that's been started to be collected?

KELLY MOORE: The differences between judicial districts in those things.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So just had a number of questions that you had posed and Attorney Colangelo had talked about the data that they recently started collecting or any of the questions that you asked answered any of the data. And I have to be -- I don't do any criminal work, so I don't know the answer to the question. So I guess my question to you is, would -- you heard Attorney Colangelo talk, I assume this morning.

KELLY MOORE: Yes, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And my understanding is the data that's being collected started just recently. Is that correct?

KELLY MOORE: It started, yeah, the rollout started last July and we start reporting now.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So does that data answer, or will that data, once it's compiled and looked at, will that answer any of your questions that you posed?

KELLY MOORE: Some, but not all. So for the example, the example of sentence modifications, that is data that is due to be collected. The example I gave of evidentiary files, that would not be data that would be collected. 89 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, would you agree then that that's at least the answers that, that are going to be answered, maybe we hold off. I mean, so I guess my question is you heard Attorney Colangelo asked proponents of the Bill. What problem is trying to be solved here? And I apologize, I didn't get into the testimony I was at transportation voting, but so if you answered this, I apologize, but what question or concerns are you trying to answer by supporting this legislation?

KELLY MOORE: Sure. So I -- yeah, the problems that I think this Bill will solve are threefold, right? Well, it will solve the fact that state's attorneys are only up for reappointment every eight years and in the intervening eight years, there's really no sort of accountability that takes place before the Criminal Justice Commission. And there's no opportunity for people who live in their judicial districts to have a say in what's happening in prosecution. And it addresses that in two different ways. One by requiring check-ins with the Criminal Justice Commission every two years. And two, by shortening the term that state's attorney served from eight years down to five.

The other issue that this Bill addresses is that judicial districts can and do operate independently of one another creating the disparities that I've already mentioned.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. So, judges are every eight years as well. Correct?

KELLY MOORE: Right.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Why do you think we should handle prosecutors differently than judges?

KELLY MOORE: I think that we should bring state's attorneys in line with the rest of the criminal division of criminal justice, because state's 90 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

attorney Colangelo, for example, has a five-year term. The state's attorney's deputy, Chief State's Attorney's Deputies have four year terms. The public defenders are four year term. State's attorneys are really the only ones in this adversarial piece of it that have such outlier long-terms.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. So, you're okay with the judges being eight years. I mean --

KELLY MOORE: I mean, that is not a proposal, but I have brought forward or, you know, like if such legislation existed in the future, I guess I would have to see what it looked like to know if I supported it or not.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): All right. So basically, the two issues that you wanted solved with this legislation were more input on reviews of the prosecutors and bring their term in line with other people in the criminal justice system. Is that -- is that the summary that you gave or is that something you indicated?

KELLY MOORE: And then -- sure. And then the third piece of ensuring that outcomes do not vary depending on what part of the state you get prosecuted in.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): The outcomes, but you did say though that you understand why there's -- there would be some disparity and there should be some discretion for prosecutors that would explain some disparity in the sentences, correct? Or offers.

KELLY MOORE: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that you would see that disparity in a case to case comparison, I don't necessarily think that you should be seeing it one judicial district versus the other. I mean, if we're allowing that certain factors in an individual case would dictate changes and say a plea bargain offered, or the sentence that you recommend as a prosecutor, I think that you 91 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

would see those differences within and among the judicial districts.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Porter.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Moore, for being with us today and for your testimony. I came to the party late, so please forgive me if any of these questions have already been packed. But I wanted to know are the uniform policies going to remove flexibility and discretion in what you've proposed here today?

KELLY MOORE: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that, Representative Porter. Again, I just want to make clear that this Bill doesn't actually write over create uniform policies. It directs the state's attorneys and the Chief State's Attorney to do that. And it just enumerates the areas where there ought to be policies. So it neither sets policies nor creates rigidity in the policies.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thanks. Thank you for that clarification. And will this inject politics into prosecution or should be insulated from politics?

KELLY MOORE: Thank you, ma'am. I think it will not. We are not changing the fundamental character. I'm not proposing to change the fundamental character of how state's attorneys get appointed. They're still appointed by the Criminal Justice Commission. They are still not subject to election. We're not changing the composition of the Criminal Justice Commission. It's the same people. It's just that they're making that decision every five years instead of every eight years.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you. And I have been listening to some of the discussion. I just want to 92 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ask you, I mean, because for me, I understand this to be about the people and not the prosecutors. What would you say to that? I mean, because we keep talking about the disparities and you referenced, you know, jurisdictions and things of that nature, but we know there are disparity in sentencing, right? That are rooted and grounded in race, right. There's a disproportionate impact on black and brown sentences versus white sentences. And we see this nationally, this is not a secret. So can you just speak to that because I really feel like, you know, to bring us just to redirect us back to the Bill before us, that it's really about people not prosecutors.

KELLY MOORE: That's exactly right. I would agree with that a hundred percent. The truth of the matter is that we know that our system of incarceration in Connecticut is unfair and it hurts people of color. More people of color are arrested, are prosecuted, are incarcerated in Connecticut in really, really disparate ways in really unfair numbers. And part of that that has -- the reasons for that are many. It's -- Systemic racism comes up in a lot of different ways and it's certainly not entirely the fault of prosecution.

However, I believe that every actor in the criminal legal system and the people who make the laws, the people who enforce the laws and the people who prosecute them to the people who are in charge of incarceration, to pardons and paroles are perpetuating policies where we see that black and Brown people are disproportionately hurt.

I mean, I do not think it's malicious. I think that, this is how systemic racism works, but I think we owe it to the people of Connecticut to try and eliminate those disparities wherever they exist. And in one way to do that is to make sure that people in different parts of the state are treated the same.

93 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So if you go into court in New Haven, you know that you're not going to get a different kind of trial process than you would in Litchfield. You can feel confident that where you are, isn't the thing that's having an effect on your outcome. And I think it's really important. It's an important process question. It's important to the fairness of the process. And I think it has an impact on the outcome and making sure that we are trying to reduce these disparities and not perpetuate them by continuing to do the same things that have gotten us to this point.

REP. PORTER (94TH): Well, I do agree, and I thank you for that response and I appreciate this legislation being brought before us today and this public hearing. And I hope that we will keep it centered on humanity and what is equitable and what is just with people at the center of that. So thank you again for being with us today and thank you, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Representative Fishbein. I just to check, never mind. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kelly, I just want to come back to the disparities. Well, we never really left it, so I just want to stay with that for a moment. And I just want to give you a scenario, a 20-year-old breaks into a restaurant and steals food. Okay. And we're going to assume it's three different 20-year-olds, three different parts of the state. One goes to Bridgeport court. One goes to New Haven court. One goes to Rockville.

The one who went to Bridgeport case was nolled. The one who went to New Haven was convicted of a felony, breaking and entering. And the third, one who went to Rockville, he was given services. The case was dismissed. Now, from what I've heard today, you would have all three, the state's attorney would 94 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

employ the same penalty in all three cases. Is that what I'm hearing?

KELLY MOORE: Absolutely not. What this Bill would propose is that when the prosecutors in those cases are making their determinations, they are operating within parameters to be set under this Bill by the state's attorney and Chief State's Attorney. And it is very conceivable to me that those parameters could be drafted in such a way that if those outcomes were the fair outcomes, given all the circumstances that that wouldn't change.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Who's to determine fairness though based upon the stats you made allegations here today that the stats bear out this disparity. because I want to throw in some more facts. In the Bridgeport case, the 20-year-old happened to be homeless. I would think that the state's attorney would be able to employ discretion there and nolle the case. n the new Haven case, 20-year-old just thought it was fun. I would think that that should come into play, but it isn't to bore out in the stats that have been referenced here today. And then the third case under my scenario, young man has a mental health issue. So, the state's attorney employ services that are available through the judicial system. Ultimately the case is dismissed. They are all disparate outcomes, but I think as being a neutral, equal protection sort of guy, that all of those outcomes are perhaps appropriate although disparate. So how do the stats bear out that problem? The stats are draconian.

KELLY MOORE: I mean, I think the point, like what I take away from your question Representative Fishbein, is that waiting on the stats doesn't actually help us create policies that will get prosecutors to the right outcomes all the time. Right? Like we know in the example that you gave us that people who are living in homelessness probably 95 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

deserve to be treated differently and we don't necessarily need the numbers to tell us that.

So I mean, I think that when we talk about making policies, the numbers are not necessarily the most informative thing. It's the question of what considerations need to be made? Does somebody have a mental illness? Is somebody living in homelessness? Are there factors there that need to be considered when proceeding with the case?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I appreciate that. I just want to point out that those are all different judicial districts, they're all disparate outcomes, not necessarily based upon something other than homelessness, mental health, and you know, just wanting to have a good time. So, okay. Well, I thank you. Thank you, Kelly Moore. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are there comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none. Kelly, thank you very much for joining us today. I hope you enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

KELLY MOORE: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we'll hear from Walter Paul, followed by Joe Ganim. Walter, I see you, Mr. Paul. You have three minutes.

WALTER PAUL: I see Members of the Judiciary. I am Walter Paul. I am a Member of the Yale Law School Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, which represents congregations organized for a new Connecticut. also known as Connect. They are an interfaith, nonprofit, collected, dedicated to enacting socially and economically just interventions on issues of common concern.

Today, I'm speaking on behalf of Connect and in support of Senate Bill 1019, which presents you the 96 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

momentous opportunity to live up to Connecticut's reputation as the second chance state. We are due to pass SB 1019 for the following three reasons. First SB 1019 will reduce the likelihood of recidivism and thus promote public safety.

Recent research reveals that clean slate reduces the likelihood of recidivism for individuals with records. Without clean slate, these individuals find it difficult to plan for a responsible future given the uncertainty of when or whether there will be freed from the stigma of their criminal records. Some of which are decades old.

However, it has been shown that when granted expungement people with convictions are able to enjoy the benefits of employment and education and are thus less likely to re-offend. By giving people a future unrestricted by the stigma of their records, SB 1019 will promote public safety by reducing recidivism.

Second SB 1019 will mitigate the racialized harms disproportionately inflicted upon black and brown communities by mass incarceration. The reality of racism in our criminal legal system renders black and brown persons, more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced for crimes. Black and brown people therefore constitute unusually large proportion of potential candidates for records expungement.

However, the current subjective partying system for records expungement fails to guarantee that a person will ultimately have their records expunged. The systemic shortcoming, in addition to the enduring stigma of criminal records in the criminal legal systems, chokehold on black and brown communities exacerbates existing racial and class inequities in Connecticut. You can help mitigate these inequities and the racialized harms of mass incarceration by passing SB 1019.

97 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Finally, SB 1019 will relieve the inequitable, social and economic impacts of mass incarceration experienced by Connecticut residents, regardless of their race. Perpetual access to an individual's criminal records makes poverty more likely than progress by subjecting those who have already been subjected to criminal penalties to an additional lifelong sentence of discrimination in housing, employment, and education.

These citizens also face higher rates of homelessness and restricted access to government assistance programs because of their records. Through SB 1019, you can mitigate these deplorable circumstances by allowing people with convictions to participate fully in our social and economic community.

SB 1019 will also benefit all of Connecticut by boosting economic growth through increased market participation. Connecticut is poised to build on the success of other states, which have already enacted clean slate legislation. We are to join these states and pass 1019 to unshackle hundreds of thousands of people from the stigma of their past conduct. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Paul. There is a question or a comment from Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, sir. How are you today?

WALTER PAUL: Good. How are you?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Very good. Thank you. I would expect that you've read the entirety of the Bill that you're testifying on. I didn't want to ask you about something you didn't know about.

WALTER PAUL: I have.

98 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And is there any portion of the Bill that you're opposed to?

WALTER PAUL: I don't think so.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. That's fine. So, I want to bring it to a line 483, which has to do with the renting of a property to someone. And the way I read this is a landlord barred from asking a prospective tenant whether or not they have been convicted of let's say child pornography.

WALTER PAUL: I think what that provision is getting at is barring landlords from discriminating or misrepresenting information based on the criminal record of an individual whose records were expunged.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so that would be the next step. So is the landlord barred from even asking the question to get the information to ascertain whether or not they would like to enter into an arm's length transaction with the potential tenant.

PAUL WALTER: I don't read the provision as extending to simply asking the individual, but if it goes into a discriminatory context and that provision will be barred.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so what if the landlord Googled the person's name on the internet and found, you know, picture of the person that had been convicted of child pornography, their records been erased under this language. Would they be barred under 483 through 489 from refusing to read to that individual?

PAUL WALTER: Again, I don't remember reading provisions in the statute that categorically bars a landlord from seeking information, but it does bar the landlord from relying on information to misrepresent the availability of a particular 99 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

dwelling that an individual seeks to, to rent and deny the individual based on that information.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, do you have the Bill in front of you?

PAUL WALTER: I do.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So if we look at line 483. It says, to refuse to sell or rent, and we're just talking about renting at this time. After the making of a bonafide offer or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person on the basis of erased criminal history record, and so on and so forth. So I read, I read that, please correct me if I'm wrong, you know, if one ascertains the information off of the internet of the conviction, whether or not they confirm with the individual, which is a totally separate question; that they would be barred from refusing to rent to that individual who have been convicted of child pornography, based upon this language, and am I reading that incorrectly?

PAUL WALTER: So they will be barred from not renting to that individual. But I would also like to point out that sex offenses are exempted from clean slate coverage. So those records would be available to the landlord.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Can you just direct me in this. I know that some sex offenses, you know, involving direct physical contact are exempted, but is there a particular portion of this Bill that you rely upon to say that the child pornography is exempted because I didn't, I didn't see it, sir?

PAUL WALTER: So to the extent that child pornography is considered a sex offense in Connecticut, then it would be barred under the statute. And you can find that language in lines 168 to 173. 100 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, which lists, it says any conviction designated as a family violence crime as defined under 46B38, any offense that is non-violent sexual offense or sexually violent offense. Each is defined in Section 54 to 50. Which, are you, and I know you, you know, we didn't talk about this beforehand, and I don't want to get you on the spot. But I don't believe that child pornography falls within 54 to 50, unless you have information to the contrary.

PAUL WALTER: So the research that we've done, having looked deep, so deep that that we would have identified that, but to the extent that it is classified as a sexual offense, then it would be exempted from clean slate.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and if it's not, you would, you would be okay with that landlord having to rent to that person who had been convicted of child pornography in the past?

PAUL WALTER: So, we believe that once an individual's records are expunged, then they should not be discriminated against based on the information in that record, and that is the purpose of clean slate.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood. Now I'm drawing your attention to 714 through 722. No, no, no, let's skip that, 968 through 976. I'm just going to give you a moment to get there. So we know.

PAUL WALTER: There.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Now that's a new section having to do with 364 days. Can you explain why that's, that's in this Clean Slate Legislation?

PAUL WALTER: So Federal Law made certain crimes apply for deportation reasons, and under the current Connecticut laws, certain non-violent misdemeanors 101 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that a class that have a 365-day sentence, which subjected individual to deportation, but that does not comport with the intentions of federal law. So this will cover them.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And when you say it does not comport with the attentions of federal law, can you point me to any transcripts of Congress that says that it was not intended to apply to these crimes, because I've looked for that and I have not found that?

PAUL WALTER: So we can certainly follow up with, with, you know, specific materials attesting to that. But it is our belief that it is meant for, for certain crimes that, that wouldn't fall that, you know, Connecticut law would qualify, but that the federal government, you know, would not find deportable under its law.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So I just want to explore that a bit. You know, I know there are documents out there by advocates that make this claim. But are you saying that there are documents, you know, that a Committee of Congress actually said that it is our intent to do X, as opposed to what's happening in Connecticut?

PAUL WALTER: I am not certain if there are any documents that speaks particularly to Connecticut, but just looking at, you know, the purpose of the legislation that makes it so, you know, we believe that there are just certain crimes that, that would subject an individual to deportation because of the way that Connecticut law is written, that that just shouldn't be covered and we support this provision because it covers that loophole.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I understand the position. I'm just trying to get to know you made representations that this does not comport to the intent of the federal law. And I mean, I haven't found that at least, I mean, is there a particular 102 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Congress person who made a statement to that effect that would be probably pretty easy to pinpoint, I can just search for that person?

PAUL WALTER: Again, well, I am, I think, we'll check back with the specific materials, particularly ones that that would speak to the intentions and once that we inferred, that that from, but just on the broader position, we do know that there are just certain individuals, that that shouldn't be deported for certain crimes that this provision would cover.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and have you through your advocacy reached out to our federal delegation to if that was the intent of the federal law for them to clarify that at the federal level?

PAUL WALTER: I'm not sure about that activity, that that was done by other members of the team. I'm just reaching out to two individuals, but can check back on that as well.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, and I appreciate that. And just we're clear, you know, I'm not looking for inferences. I'm looking for some statement from Congress, you know, when they were deliberating the passage of that law that said, it was not their intent to have this apply to the instances that this language is addressing because, you know, that's the claim that I hear, and then all that I see is advocacy papers, you know, that, you know, it must have been impossible that they meant it this way, but there's no support that at least I've been sent, but I'm certainly willing to read whatever you send me that's actually directly, I think you know what I'm looking for. So I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Any comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none, Mr. Paul, thank you for joining us this afternoon. Hope you enjoy the rest of the afternoon. 103 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Next, we'll hear from Mayor Joe Ganim followed by Amber Vlangas. Mayor Ganim, you have your three minutes.

MAYOR JOE GANIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Appreciate the opportunity and respect the amount of individuals you have testifying today, maybe into tonight. And so I'll keep my testimony short and ask that you, if you haven't received it yet, that I have short written testimony that I'd like to be made part of the record, which may cover some things that I didn't mention, and would help me to abbreviate some of my comments and maybe have some time to answer questions if there are any.

I just want to say, first of all, I wanted to Mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut City that has at least by understanding of statistics as this or other major cities, maybe thousand returning citizens every year to our neighborhoods, looking for re-connection with families and trying to get their lives back together, job opportunities, educational opportunities, and housing, that this Clean Slate Legislation that I'm testifying on today, SB 1019, will go a long way at least down the road, to help people rid themselves of what is otherwise a permanent mark or someone referred to as a scarlet letter for life.

And this isn't the end all be all to some of the problems or challenges we have, the way we treat or don't acknowledge or level the playing field for returning citizens. But it is one element in the criminal justice system that I think we have the opportunity to make better.

Walter from Connect and I try to participate with Connect as much as I can, and other statewide organizations to bring the substance that he brought through his testimony, but the impacts of the lack of or the ability to cross a threshold in a lot of 104 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

barriers on re-entry, getting a pardon, being one of them less likelihood to reoffend. Maybe begin to correct some of the disparities between black and brown individuals who are returning citizens, greater opportunities as I mentioned for jobs, housing and education.

But at the end of the day, I think, and I'm not, and I'll try if I'm asked to get into the nuances of the, of the Bill and who it applies to and who it doesn't, and why it should, and why it shouldn't and whether it's 12 years on certain offenses and all that. But I think the basic premise is a backdrop is that we have a criminal justice system founded, I think to an extreme and ill guided on punitive measures, just proportionally meant it out, depending on how you look at it. But the statistics are there, terms like mass incarceration, apply or have applied, I think we've come a long way from that and have recognized as a state, one of the states that I think is a leader in that country, on the other balance on that scales of justice, which is supposed to be rehabilitation, and the opportunity to as, as the cliche goes, pay your debt to society and move on. And I think that's what this Bill goes a long way in doing.

I did have the opportunity to listen to number of speakers, the Chairman of the Pardon Board to Giles, and that process is is there. But it is a difficult onerous, time consuming, and even though it's $75 for a fingerprint, it costs money, so there's an expense to it. In my view Connecticut has not proved to be a model of success. And it's not a commentary on the Board or on how it's set up. It's just the way the world is right now.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mayor --

MAYOR JOE GANIM: I'm also active with the United States Conference of Mayors, am I out of time, Mr. Chairman?

105 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You're up, you're up. Thank you, Mayor.

MAYOR JOE GANIM: Okay. Well, let me just thank the Committee. If has any questions, again, I want to voice my support for this Bill, and I know some of the nuances and details over three are yet to be worked out.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for being with us and for your advocacy on this issue. Are there questions from the Committee? If not, Thanks again.

MAYOR JOE GANIM: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Amber Vlangas.

AMBER VLANGAS: Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can.

AMBER VLANGAS: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Amber Vlangas, and I am the Executive Director of the Restorative Action Alliance. We are a regional advocacy group that are made up of anti-carceral crime survivors, individuals who've been impacted by the criminal legal system, and restorative justice advocates and practitioners. So you do have my written testimony, I'm not going to read it verbatim.

What I want to talk to you about today is my support with some reservation for SB 1019, also known as Clean Slate. So just to center my testimony, I am a survivor of military sexual assault. In 1995, I was raped by another member of my unit when I was serving in the United States Marine Corps. While I really strongly support the spirit of this Bill, I 106 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

really urge the Committee to remove the exclusions that are based on crime category.

Now, I know a lot of people don't expect someone to say that coming from my position, but I also have experienced the negative effects of the criminal legal system in my family. So it's important for people to remember that when we're talking about victims and we're talking about perpetrators, often we're talking about the same people.

In the absence of the political will to take the action of removing these exclusions, I would ask that the Committee include language that would prohibit the Board of Pardons and Paroles from denying someone a hearing based on the nature of their crime or their appearance on a public registry.

What I'm trying to communicate is that we refuse to accept the injustice of immutable punishment and lifelong discrimination towards any human being as Justice for survivors. This approach fully misunderstands why and how violence occurs because denying restoration, creating barriers to pro social support and blocking access to necessities creates the exact conditions that perpetuate cycles of harm which are isolation chain and an inability to meet one's basic needs. It is a disservice to survivors to create broken people that will recidivate.

I would really like to encourage this Committee and all decision makers in our state to really expand their notion of who deserves to be heard and who deserves to be safe. Safety should be centered on harm reduction and always be seen through the lens of equity, diversity and inclusion. The disproportionate way that the criminal legal system affect people of color and the poor does not create safety. Marginalizing and silencing survivors who do not seek the criminal legal system or believe in this lifelong punishment as a solution to their pain does not create safety. Creating limited access to 107 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

housing, education and employment due to fear based discrimination does not create safety.

So we really must push for a concept of public safety that includes every single person who is living in our state, and we must focus on who people are today, the services that survivors need, and the worse thing and not on the worse thing that a person has ever done, or the worse thing that has ever happened to them. So RAA believes that all people living with record should be eligible for Clean Slate irrespective of their offense type.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

AMBER VLANGAS: I support this Bill with reservation and we ask the Committee to remove the exclusions or change the language to bar the Board of Pardons and Paroles from denying somebody a hearing based on the nature of their crime, and appearance on a public registry. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Appreciate your testimony on this. Is there other questions or comments from the Committee? If not.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Rep, Chair, Chair, I just want to thank, I just want to thank Amber for coming by. I've encountered her in other places and I know she's done a lot of work. So I just want to thank her for coming to join us this afternoon.

AMBER VLANGAS: Thank you, Senator Winfield.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Next up, we will hear from Stefan Wawzyniecki.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: That's correct, very good. Good afternoon.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good afternoon, sir. You've three minutes.

108 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Can you hear me okay? Okay. Thank you for this privilege of offering testimony. Thank you to Senator Winfield, the Honorable Representative Stafstrom, and other distinguished Members of the Joint Committee. I am here to follow up on my written testimony, which I believe you have received. Pretty much, this is voicing my support for SB 1019, so known as the Clean Slate Bill.

I am here representing St. Patrick St. Anthony Church only because I've learned about the Clean Slate initiative through the Pastor, Father Mike Johnson, and church member Dwayne Paul, who both will be speaking in a short while themselves.

Please note that, you know, my purpose here is primarily speaking from my demographic, that being white suburbanite. And so I am in support of the Bill, but based more on a personal experience that I've had, I've been a member of the church in a long time. But you know, I think at this time, we need to always refer once in a while to what we can learn from the Bible, that being acts of forgiveness.

On a personal note, I was provided an opportunity a few years back to teach a course at Corrigan- Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville. Federal program had provided Three Rivers Community College to funding to conduct full semester courses within the correctional facility. The orientation was a bit daunting as I had to hand over my, to the guard, my identification, have all my bags search as well as my cell phone and wristwatch.

At that time, you know, when I entered the classroom, there were maybe only 10 to 12 inmates in there who had been prescreened, and in other words they had to show that they deserve to sit in the classroom. That is something that, you know, I think every inmate should be at least given an opportunity to better themselves.

109 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

At the time, I know is very, a lot of similarities between that class and others, which I saw it at the University of Connecticut, I was there for 27 years. My background has nothing to do his legal profession, I'm a chemist actually. So therefore, when it comes to the finer points of SB 1019, I am not in a position to offer much to on that end at all. Pretty much this is about my experience, working with inmates in that setting of bettering themselves.

One similarity was simply the fact that there were students at the University, who would always take up residence in the back row and just as they were at Corrigan-Radgowski. In other words, these were very similar populations in some respects. You know, notwithstanding the fact that, you know, I was teaching the inmates.

I will mention also that I was cautioned not to show too much personal interest in these personal lives of these inmates. A few did approach me, but their intentions were for how their course could be better prepared them for life. The course actually had to do with OSHA regulations and knowing that there is still a very vibrant, technical job market in Connecticut, they realized that if they could come out of their incarceration with a certificate that show that they were being, you know, leading in the right path to try to enter the workplace, then that gave them a leg up on you know, bettering themselves in the community.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sir, we're at the, we're at the three minute mark. I just need you to wrap up place.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Then, I will simply say, I think that benefit that is provided to many students should be also applied to, to the inmates who have shown that they deserve that second chance. I welcome any questions.

110 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. I think there is a question from Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your testimony. And my apologies, I believe you had indicated and this may be the first I've heard in my history serving as the legislature, but you're speaking on behalf of suburban, I'm sorry, actually, if you could repeat that, you're speaking on behalf of who?

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: No, I'm representing St. Patrick/St. Anthony Church in Hartford, Connecticut.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): You're making a reference to white suburbanites?

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: That was my demographic, that's all.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And what religious affiliation is, is the parish?

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Catholic.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): And so on behalf of the Parish, did you take a vote from the parishioners of the Parish as to whether or not they're in support of the proposal before us?

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Not of the parishioners, as you know, this came from our pastor.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Okay, just wanted to clarify because you did say that you're speaking on behalf of the Parish, so I was just wondering what steps were taken in order to make that type of representation. I'm a Catholic as well and have high regard to anyone's religious beliefs in that regard. So I have a question for you. Would you be, would you have an objection to having some type of statement or affidavit from individuals indicating the fact that they understand what led to their 111 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

conviction and they repent for it, and that they're currently not being investigated for another offense? Would that be something that would be acceptable to you?

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: I think, you know, there was a comment earlier about how individualized this, this whole issue is. In other words, I think what could be drafted could show benefit for some individuals, yet, maybe not to others. So I think it would depend on the type of, if people were given the, the, you might say a template as to, you know, what, what could be showing that they are you know, showing remorse, showing repentance, I think that that may be a difficult thing for some people. I totally, you know, feel for people who cannot, you know, exemplify, you know, what they've been through, what their incarceration period was like. So I think, you know, we do need to respect and honor individuals that way. I'm not against what you're proposing, I think it just has to be in the right way.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): [inaudible], I mean, certainly, I think we should look at that. But I guess I want to dive a little bit further. In what way would it be essentially.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Rebimbas, I think we lost your audio there.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Now we can, yep.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for that. So in what way would it be offensive to an individual to sign an affidavit that indicates that they have not reoffended and being convicted of a new crime, and is not currently being investigated to the best of their knowledge of a pending crime, in order for them to be expunged of the crime that's being proposed in this legislation?

112 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: I have no legal background whatsoever, as I mentioned I'm from the scientific community. I guess what you're proposing is something that would require someone to, you know, to already be investigated for another crime. So I would think that this Bill would, would make it that they're not eligible at that point in time. If they are actually being investigated for another crime, then this Bill doesn't apply. Would you agree?

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH): Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Actually, I agree with you in theory that that should be what this Bill has. But in fact, that's not what this Bill does. What this Bill is proposing is an automatic expungement. No, no ability whatsoever for an individual to actually state that they're not being investigated. But I actually appreciate your testimony because I think we're on the same page and you don't need a legal background in order to determine that that would be an important factor for this proposal. So thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, further questions or comments from the Committee? If not, sir, I want to thank you for being with us today and sharing your perspective.

STEFAN WAWZYNIECKI: Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Mayor Elicker from New Haven.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Hello everyone, it's good to see you all. Thanks for your service, and it's always enjoyable to see other people's testimonials. I thought I miss Amber Vlangas' testimony was particularly compelling. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and Members of the Committee, I'm here in 113 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

strong support of SB 1019, which would effectively be a Clean Slate for residents across our state who have served their time and reentered society.

Criminal records are an enormous barrier to individuals who are returning from incarceration and are trying to get their lives back on track. From employment to housing, a criminal record can have lasting impacts on access to essential opportunities. The way this Bill is written, it would apply to people who have committed certain lower level crimes and after a significant period of time have reentered society and not reoffended. Criminalization of communities of color, particularly black men, as well as the severe economic impacts of systemic racism are taking an enormous toll on the residents of our state, and we must do everything we can to undo it.

This is one step forward in grappling with the impacts of mass incarceration and the long-term implications of criminal conviction, has on someone's life. People who rent -- reenter society should be supported, respected, and given every opportunity to thrive. More broadly, Connecticut does not have a coherent strategy [inaudible] services costs of recently released inmates from across the state.

With systemic underfunding, we are incapable of providing the adequate services to do that and the state needs to take a more proactive role in ensuring that once someone has done their time, they are given a chance. We must do more to address the enormous challenges faced by our returning residents, and this is one clear way of preventing a lower level criminal conviction from following someone for the rest of their life.

I'm grateful for Senator Winfield's leadership on this and I urge your support. Thank you.

114 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mayor. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Mayor, I want to thank you for being with us.

MAYOR JUSTIN ELICKER: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up would be Maria Solomon. Is Miss Solomon with us? If not, let's try Michael Johnson.

MICHAEL JOHNSON: Good morning. My name is Mike Johnson. I am a Franciscan stationed at St. Patrick/ St. Anthony church and in-charge of the Franciscan Center for Urban Ministry.

For me personally, this issue has resonated for 40 years I started out as an attorney practicing in Enfield, cutting my teeth at GA 13. After that, I entered the Friars and I did, I was in-charge of a vocational rehab program at a prison in Bolivia for five years.

After returning to the States, I worked in prisons, giving retreats, recommendable in nature and now as the Director of the Center, I find myself working with a fair amount of Hartford's homeless, many of whom have criminal records. And the conversations that I've had with them over the last 40 years are people, many of them, change in prison, the vast majority do not want to go back, the vast majority want to get on with their lives and when they are supported both in and after prison, that's more likely to happen.

But what I also encountered was over and over again, people walking into a wall when they seek a job, where they seek a decent place to live. And it affects not just them, a lot of these folks have families. They're the future of, of Connecticut, the future of our cities, and the more that we can do to help their parents who after a certain period of time have done the hard work, they've stayed out of the system and they deserve an opportunity of second 115 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

chance, for us as Catholics. And when I preached it this in my church, I compare them to the lepers in Jesus' time, who were pushed to the margin of the society will have to leave their homes, their work and declared unclean until they died.

That is in all likelihood what we have done to these people, unless at some point, we start saying that they deserve the second chance and they have proven that they are no more likely to commit a crime than you are on by staying clean for so long. When I preached at my church on this and my parishes are fairly large and spread over 124 zip codes, most of them being suburban; the response was very positive. And a lot of people had no idea that this happened. That this served as a barrier and side very much as a justice issue, and I know from hearing from folks that lots of people responded by reaching out to you.

I ask you as a justice issue because if we continue to shut the door on these people, it's injustice. Thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Father. Appreciate you being with us today and for your advocacy on this issue. Are there questions from the Committee? If not, thanks again.

MICHAEL JOHNSON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Mayor Bronin from Hartford. Good afternoon Mayor, how are you?

LUKE BRONIN: Good afternoon, Chairman Stafstrom, Chairman Winfield and all the Members of Committee, thanks very much for the opportunity to testify today. I'm joined you today to testify in support of SB 1019, AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY OFFENSES. As I spoke last year, this Bill is of fundamental importance to 116 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

thousands of residents in this community that I serve and in many others across the state. This is not a question of commuting sentences, Clean Slate is not about commuting sentences, it's not about reducing time served; it's about whether we believe that perpetual punishment is beneficial to our society as a whole. It's about whether we believe that it makes our communities safer or stronger, when it is impossible for those who have made mistakes and paid the price, but want to rebuild their lives to get a job or to find housing or to move forward and support their families. And I think we have seen time and time again in our rent reentry center here in Hartford, and in conversations with countless residents that there are, again thousands of residents in my community who have made mistakes and have paid a heavy price, but who would move forward with a very different life and find obstacle after obstacle placed in their way.

It's also important to note that around the country, this has not been a partisan issue. Some of the earliest Clean Slate bills adopted in America have been adopted in red states. This is of course an issue that's supported by the ACLU, but it is also supported by the JPMorgan Chase Foundation or Public Policy Center. There is I think a growing and broad consensus that perpetual punishment is not beneficial.

Now, needless to say, it's important that there be appropriate carve outs and exceptions that not every mistake should be wiped clean. And I know this Bill includes some important ones including family crimes, sex crimes. I think it's important to include any crimes against children. And I know the Committee will think carefully about those exceptions that are in this Bill.

But let me just leave you with this, this last piece. By the Department of Corrections estimate, this Bill would affect 7000 residents in the City of Hartford alone. That means that for 5%, more than 5% 117 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of the city's population, this Bill would have an immediate and profound effect on their lives allowing them to be successful as they work to lift themselves and their families up.

So I strongly urge the Committee to move forward with this legislation again with the appropriate carve outs and exceptions and appreciate your time today.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mayor, let me ask you super quick on that statistic, 7000. Have you looked at what the economic impact of legislation like this would be on a city like Hartford with 7000 residents who are, who are positively impacted by this legislation?

LUKE BRONIN: Representative, it's a great question. I can't tell you that I can give you a good estimate of the economic impact. I can't tell you that last year prior to the Corona virus changing every aspect of our lives, I dedicated half of my State of the City address to this issue, because I believe it is one of the most powerful things we can do to create opportunity, to create economic opportunity, and I think that the economic impact would be enormous. We'll try to see if we can measure it in some way, but just knowing how many hundreds of residents come through the doors of our Reentry Welcome Center and continually struggle to get employment even after they've been hired, performed well at the job, and then sometimes later on a background check comes back, even if they've been one of the best employees, they'll lose that job. That happens again and again, and again.

The barriers that a past record puts in the way for so many of our residents are huge, and the economic impact is huge.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Anything you can dig up on that would, would certainly I think will -- 118 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

LUKE BRONIN: We'll, we'll do our best.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah, I think sometimes we, as you know from your prior role before Mayor and having worked in this building, you know, oftentimes we look at, you know, fiscal analysis or reports that look at what are the dollars something is going to cost the state as opposed to what are the potential dollars or economic opportunity, something can generate, which in my mind is the much more significant fiscal impact than just the state outlay? And you know, it's a soft number sometimes to calculate, but I think would be important if you can track that down.

LUKE BRONIN: We will ask our work to do that and Representative, I know, you know this already, but that would, you know, I think it's important to, to, to measure that with an appropriately broad lens because that would include the jobs that thousands of people cannot get. It would also include the money saved with a lower recidivism rate. And I think there was no question that those two things are tied together, one of which could produce revenue for the state, the other which could avoid the significant costs for the state.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mayor. I'm seeing no further questions. Appreciate being with us this afternoon.

LUKE BRONIN: Thanks for the opportunity.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Brian Preleski.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Good morning. Oh, I'm sorry, good afternoon. Thank you. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify on SB 1018. 119 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

My name is Brian Preleski. I'm the State's Attorney for the Judicial District of New Britain. I've been a prosecutor since 1993, been State's Attorney since 2011. I have served as the past Chair of Operations Committee, President of the DC J Advisory Board, and currently Chair on Management Committee.

I am here to speak in opposition to SB 1018, which strikes me as a potentially very expensive and overly bureaucratic solution to a problem as identified. The supporters of the legislation have talked to you a little bit about two ideas, accountability.

And with respect to accountability, I have to acknowledge that there's an inherent tension between independence and accountability. But Connecticut has struck that balance for the past 36 years, and that is a balance, it's been held up as a model for good government. And you can see the citation in the written testimony that we've prepared in connection with that.

We received the same terms eight years that Superior Court judges do, frankly, because like judges were often required to make unpopular decisions that are nonetheless necessary by the law and the facts that were presented with.

The second is that this legislation want to make things better for individuals involved in the Criminal Justice System. And if I believe that was the case, I would be supporting this legislation; however, I think what's the most important thing is you're not just hearing from prosecutors today who oppose this legislation, you're also hearing from the CCDLA, prominent defense attorneys who have submitted written testimony opposing legislation as well, because they recognize that we operate within a legal regimen that is highly regulated, starting with our federal and state constitutions, the laws that all of you pass in the General Assembly, the 120 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

practice book provisions that the judges of the Superior Court mandate on us, our rules of professional conduct, and the existing policies and procedures within the Division of Criminal Justice.

And what we do is we try very hard to discern the intent of the legislature, and that is why I do wish to mention Section 7 of this Bill. Section 7 would repeal Connecticut General Statutes 51-277c; 51-277c quite simply tells us that we are to prioritize the investigation of violent crime and gun crimes.

With respect to your repeal of that section, I will tell you as a prosecutor for law since 1993, almost 28 years; the only public policy rationale that I could discern from that were you to pass that legislation is that you no longer want us to prioritize violent crime and gun crime. I don't know why else that would be repealed. And as a matter of public policy, I do believe it's a poor policy choice, were you to make that choice. [inaudible] discussed in detail.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You were at the three minute mark. So I just need you to summarize for us your testimony.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Well, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. Thank you. Are there questions from the Committee? Representative Fishbein?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sir, you had some other points. I just, were they addressed in written testimony or was it something else you wanted to mention to us?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Oh, thank you. No. We, the 13 States Attorneys submitted written testimony in connection with that. Thank you.

121 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. Okay. Thank you. I've reviewed that, I just wanted to make sure there was, there was nothing else, but thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Mr. Chairman?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yep, Senator Champagne first, followed by Senator Winfield.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. Sir, can you expand on what you were just saying about the violent crimes?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Sure. We have a Statute 51-277c; 51-270c in its entirety, says in the investigation and prosecution of crime, priority shall be given to crimes involving physical violence and to crimes involving the possession of a firearm and that has always frankly seemed quite common sensical to me. Violent crimes hurt people, and anybody in law enforcement knows that when you introduce a firearm into a volatile situation, you often turn into a deadly situation.

So we have taken that statutory mandate and we follow it, and we do prioritize. And we have, and one thing that you should know is we have extraordinarily limited resources, and we need to prioritize where we put those resources. One of the things I have as states attorney here in New Britain, staff of 28 people, it's going down to 27 in two weeks. I was on the phone with my counterpart in Cumberland County, New Jersey, my jurisdiction is 320,000 people. Cumberland County, New Jersey is 180,000 and she has a staff of 110 individuals. So we need to prioritize what we do.

The last NDAA numbers that came out showed us as some of the busiest prosecutors in the country in terms of caseloads. And our caseloads are much 122 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

higher post COVID because, quite frankly, things haven't been moving in our court system over the past year. And this is one of the ways we prioritize when the legislature tells us prioritize gun violence and prioritize violent crime. That's where we put resources. I frankly, I don't know, I don't know why you'd repeal that. But if you do repeal that, the only conclusion I would be able to draw from that is that you don't want us to prioritize violent crime and gun violence. And if that's what you don't want us to do, my perspective on that is that it's a very poor public policy.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I agree with you. And, and I find it quite disturbing that somebody would add that in there. And you know, not prioritizing those that are violent offenders, seems to me to be a big problem. I was asking somebody this morning on some of the cases that you deal with. And what is your opinion, how hard is it for somebody to go to prison in Connecticut?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Well, I think frankly, to be blunt, depends on what they do. But I think that from my perspective, I don't think this 13 States Attorneys share this perspective. It should be hard to go to prison because that should be a last resort. You should have tried everything else before you go to prison in prison. And prison should be reserved for individuals who are dangerous or who are otherwise incorrigible and we have no other alternatives left. So, and frankly, that's generally speaking. My experience is, is on the folks who end up in prison. So I don't want to make sending people to prison easier than it is because it should be a last resort.

And one of the things that we know is that what drives our criminal dockets are mental health problems, substance abuse problems, and we have in Connecticut, frankly, been a national leader in setting up programs. CSSD has done a wonderful job and now prosecutors have started to get involved in 123 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

prosecutorial diversions. We have the ESI, which we are coming to it to get funded. We have set up a program here in New Britain for opioid addiction and we would much rather address the underlying problem, whether it's opioid addiction or alcoholism or mental health than incarcerate somebody, because oftentimes the collateral consequences of incarceration end up putting a person two steps behind where they were when they ended up going into prison.

So we know that, we try to avoid that, we try to avoid criminal convictions. By the same token, the reality is that we do have some folks who are dangerous and who do need for some period of time to be removed from society.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. Thank you, and, and I, I've heard this statement made several times today, mass incarceration, that we're just doing this mass incarceration, do you see that in Connecticut?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Well, so I, I don't know. You know, it's like anything else. How long is a piece of string? I don't know. A piece of spring with you might be three inches pieces spring, to me might be three yards. One of the things that you have to remember is that we have about 9000 and change individuals who are incarcerated. I would love to live in a world where that number was zero, but that's not the world I live in right now. And I think what's important to recognize is that each of those 9000 individuals is an individual. All of those cases were looked at on an individual basis by a prosecutor, by an independent magistrate, superior court judge; they were looked at through the lens of entire legal recommend that our society has spent over 200 years building up. And all of those individuals ended up there not as the result of some collective or some group decision, but it was an individualized decision based on the law and the facts of that particular case. And we take into 124 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

account all sorts of information when an individual ends up being incarcerated.

For the most part, most of them only are sentenced after the preparation of what's called a pre- sentence investigation, which is a very detailed report that a probation officer prepares. It talks about that individual, the crimes that they've committed, their background, their social structure, their needs. Probation makes its own individualized recommendation with respect to that person. So what I can tell you is, we had a situation in Connecticut 11 years ago where we had a lot more people in prison. I would like to live in a state where we don't have a single person in prison who doesn't need to be there because they're dangerous. And I think that we have made great strides over the past 11 years, get into that place. But in terms of defining what it is, you know, I remember a few years ago, we went to, I went to a community function and, and folks had cut 50 T shirts on, which meant let's reduce our prison population by 50%. And we've done that in Connecticut. We are now more than 50% below what our high is.

So you know, when you asked me what is mass incarceration, I haven't seen a good definition of it. But what I can tell you is everybody in Connecticut who has been incarcerated has been there as a result of very individualized decisions made by prosecutors, made by juries, made by judges and for the most part, also made by the individual who is incarcerated with the assistance of competent legal counsel, because the vast majority of people who are incarcerated are incarcerated as a result of plea agreements.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Alright. And minus the, minus those that committed the, the worse crimes, about on average, how many arrests does somebody have before they go to prison?

125 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BRIAN PRELESKI: See, I, you know, you really can't. I just can't answer that. Because what I'd be doing is I'd be giving you a wild yes. So I can't answer that, but what I can tell you is when somebody comes in, we have a lot of programs that are available to them to treat substance abuse and mental health issues. And typically before they even get to those programs, we will try and resolve that case by simply having them referred with their public defender to some non, and that's what we call prosecutorial diversion, to some non-judicial diversion. So, you know, I really, I'd be, I'd be guessing, to give you an average, I'm sure that somebody could crunch numbers and give you an average, but I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure how, how much how meaningful that average would be.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right? Okay. I always say, as a police officer, you know, when I first started I saw, you know, I've seen a lot of people with, not a lot, one of the high numbers I was seeing was 15 to 17 arrests. And when I left, I was seeing people with, you know, 50, 60, 70 arrests on the record. And to me, those are huge numbers. But I want to thank you for coming in today, and thank you for the work you do.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Callahan.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be brief. Good afternoon, sir. Thank you for coming in to testify. Would you agree that there are numerous, numerous levels of graduated sanctions that, that your office is avail to before sentencing someone to prison?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Oh, absolutely. And.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Excuse me. And the majority of the cases that are sentenced would go to probation? 126 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

BRIAN PRELESKI: A majority of the cases that are sentenced would probably start off with either a fine or a conditional discharge, which is a suspended sentence, it's not supervised by probation. Probation officers in Connecticut, similar to prosecutors have extraordinarily heavy caseloads, and a lot of the folks who end up going to probation end up on unsupervised probation is in an event. So if the negative, if we're only looking at a disposition that implicates negative conditions. So we're saying something like, okay, you stay out of here. That's not something that we need a probation officer to supervise because we'll know, you know, that shoplifter goes back to the Walmart in Bristol. So we try not to burden our probation officers with what we try to give folks probation and connect with is where there are, what I call affirmative conditions, where we see somebody who's been in several times, other sanctions haven't worked. And we really want them to get some monitor of mental health treatment or we really want them to go through a more intensive substance abuse regimen where maybe we can get some random urines and things like that.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And I don't want to belabor the Committee with too much more time. But I having worked in probation for many years, sir, I reviewed in wrote numerous violation of probation warrants. Would you say those warrants that your office reviews for probation are for minor violations or do the probation office give numerous chances before it gets to that point?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Sure. I've seen it. You know, I've been around for a long time, and I've seen a real evolution in the thinking of CSSE probation. And no, they do not violate for technical violations unless it reaches the point of incorrigibility and I'm talking about 40 or 50 technical violations, and what I'm talking about when I say technical violations or positive urines, missed appointments 127 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and things like that. So no, you know, probation works very, very hard now, to go through the rehabilitation process and really try to keep people from coming back into court on violations. People are not being violated for, you know, marijuana usage.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): And one for the point, my point I was making for the, for our fine Committee here is that even when someone, there are numerous pretrial programs, but if someone gets probation where they actually have a suspended sentence, then it goes to probation. And that probation officer will give that person numerous chances. At treatment, I try and help them get a job. And then if it happens to get to the point of a violation of probation work, it's still no guarantee there's jail time. Correct?

BRIAN PRELESKI: So technical violations and for individuals who are on probation and not committing new criminal offenses for which they have been arrested. Our most frequent sanction on those when we see them is to give the person another chance for several months just right now, and if they're able to do that and it's typically four months, if they're able to do that, render clean urines for and we will refer them back to the probation officer, render clean urine for four months and go to their treatment, we will typically continue them on that probation.

REP. CALLAHAN (108TH): Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony today.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions from the Committee? Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. I want to, I think I missed part of your point. So there was a point at which you were 128 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

talking about the reasons why we don't need to move forward with this Bill. And you mentioned that we had things in place like the Constitution, a set of rules. Could you could you make that point again, so that I'm clear on what you were saying?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Yeah, thank you. We operate as the most heavily regulated lawyers in the state already. We are accountable to the judges, both through the practice book rules as well as everything that we do in court. So maybe, maybe, maybe I could make it more effectively if I talked about a particular aspect of the proposed legislation, and I will talk about discovery.

Discovery is the process in a criminal case whereby the parties share information with one another concerning the case. Discovery in Connecticut is governed first of all, by our federal constitution. The US Supreme Court seminal case on is a case all of the lawyers here study in law school. Brady. And Brady basically says the state needs to offer up exculpatory information in its possession. Our state constitution imposes similar obligations on us. Now, the legislature has also placed in fact, every year the legislature looks at this again, and talks about how discovery gets done in criminal cases. So we have legislation that also governs how we exchange information with the defense in criminal cases.

In addition to that legislation, we have a practice book. The practice book, are rules that judges of the Superior Court promulgate. And our practice book has very detailed rules about how discovery is conducted and how we do discovery. Then in addition to our constitutional obligations, our statutory obligations, our practice book obligations, we have an ethical obligation. The Division of Criminal Justice has instituted both ethics policies for prosecutors as well as guidelines for prosecutors. Those in total are 20 some odd pages, and they are consistent with the rules of professional conduct, and if we violate, and of course for any violations 129 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of those rules, we are accountable to different groups. So if we violate our rules and there are special rules concerning the responsibilities so that prosecutors have special ethical rules that other lawyers do not have. If we violate those, we're responsible to the statewide Grievance Committee. If we violate the rules set forth in the statutes or the practice book, we are liable to be sanctioned by the court.

If we violate any of these rules, the Criminal Justice Commission can in fact suspend and if the violation is severe enough, can fire the state's attorneys. So just in that one area of discovery that this would have us promulgate policies in connection with, we are already heavily regulated by a variety of different sources. So we've got both constitutional statutory practice book and ethical guidelines that govern our conduct in that area.

So I guess that's the point that I'm trying to make when we talk about, and it's easier for me to make it in connection with one discrete area, because I can walk you through all of the examples in that one area. If I violate those rules in any of those areas, I'm accountable to a variety of different places, and ultimately I can lose my job, despite the fact that you know, I'm an appointed individual, and I have an appointed term. So we are, and when I've talked about the tension between independence and accountability, that's really what I mean by that. Because we do need to be independent, and I do think, frankly, it's important that we are independent, to do our jobs and to make the tough decisions that we have to make.

And when I talked about in one sense, it's important, I think for the Committee to understand, the most controversial decisions that I make and I've made controversial decisions. And I've been criticized in the press for decisions that I've made. And I don't know some of you may have criticized me for decisions that I've made. The most 130 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

controversial decisions that we make are decisions to not bring charges. Our decisions when we look at the facts and the law, and we say, you know, the quantum of proof here is just not sufficient for us to bring a criminal case, because the easy thing to do is to throw it up and say, well, we have no hope of winning this, but we'll let a jury equip this person.

We shouldn't be bringing people into criminal court and we shouldn't be subjecting them to a criminal process, and now in Connecticut it can take yours and we should be working to shorten that. In a case that we have no business bringing in the first case in place, because we know that we aren't going to be able to prove that case to a jury. So that was the point that I was trying to make. And when you look at many of those areas, we are heavily regulated, and we are heavily governed by Case Law from the Supreme Court on down all the way to our own internal policies that we currently have.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you for that. And I guess I would pose this question to you. Not all of those things are the same across, across states. But some of those things are, many of those things, the more important parts of that. But would that suggest to you that the issue that I think is undergirding this, and I know there's been some discussion about what is the point, I think of what is mass incarceration and all of those things. But that justice doesn't get dispensed in a way that is actually as equitable as, as we believe it is.

That I think is part of the underlying issue and the issues that we've seen in the justice system as it relates to rise across various districts. Would that suggest to you that the fact that we have Supreme Court, Supreme Court precedence that attorneys have ethics, rules and all of those things, means that we don't have an issue, or I'm talking to brought it in Connecticut first, and then I'm going to bring it to Connecticut? Because it seems to me that despite the 131 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

fact that we have the United States Constitution, we have ethics, and we have all of the things that you're talking about cross districts, even if we think that Connecticut is exceptional, those things have been prevented us from seeing even prosecutors operate in ways that none of us would want them to operate. So, so I guess I would ask you to first speak about that, and then let's bring it to Connecticut.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Sure, you know, it's tough for me to speak to prosecutors in other states. What I can.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I can ask you, I could ask you to be fair to you. I could ask you if you have any knowledge of instances in which prosecutors have nationally been demonstrated that they may not have been operating in the interest of justice ever in your career?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Oh, absolutely.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay. And so, and so let's walk, let's slow walk this for everyone. And so, that being the case, do you think that it was the case that the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases that come from that and the ethics lawyers and all those weren't present in those districts?

BRIAN PRELESKI: I think there were and I think what you have to realize is that misconduct is exactly as it implies its misconduct, it's people do things wrong. And you can have whatever rules and whatever strictures you'd like in place. But if you have bad people who are going to ignore the rules and do things wrong, there's not a heck of a lot you can do about that.

Now, here's what, here's what, here's what I mean by accountability. In Connecticut, if you have bad people and they are doing things wrong, we have a disciplinary process for our assistance that we go through, and there's a disciplinary process that the 132 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Criminal Justice Commission goes through for state's attorneys and the two deputy chiefs and the Chief State's Attorney.

Now, one of the things that's important when we think about prosecutors doing things wrong is some of that misconduct that we see isn't the result of just people going out and being bad actors. Some of it is people being oblivious, things that we miss. So what we need to do is ensure that we have a robust process to make sure that we are doing things right. So one of the questions that, yeah and I've been watching the, I've been watching the hearing, Senator; one of the questions they asked Chief State's Attorney, Angela was, well, do you oppose this whole thing in its entirety, and I do think that there are parts of this Bill that make good points, but they ignore some of the things that we've already done. In that kind of dovetails into what I talked about, about having us make sure that we're doing things right.

One of the, and I'm currently Chair, our Management Committee, the first thing that we did, the Management Committee did after I became its Chairman, is I agree with the premise of this legislation that prosecutors, state's attorneys shouldn't be evaluated once every eight years because that frankly deprives us of feedback. The whole evaluation process, if it's a good evaluation process, means making me think about my job, do my job better, because I'll tell you something, I want to do my job better. And I don't know any of the state's attorneys or the Chief State's Attorney, or the two deputy chiefs who don't want to do their jobs better.

So what we did is we put together a comprehensive evaluation process that I would love to share with you. Because what we looked at is we looked at best practices in management. We then took a look at what we do for our jobs, we laid out 10 criteria. And you know, for instance, we talked about ethics. The 133 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

first criteria that we want us to be evaluated by is that ethical criteria. We got stakeholders involved in that evaluation process, and we made it a real process whose goal is to improve performance to identify weaknesses in our performance.

And so the hope is that we can get better at doing our jobs. That's one of the reasons why, you know, we've talked about statistics, and data. One of the reasons why I'm actually pretty excited to get data is I can tell you what I answered to Senator Champagne's question. You know, I can tell you about every single case in this Judicial District that resulted in an incarcerated sentence. But what I can't tell you is the waterfront. So and the analogy that I uses when I talk to community groups is I can tell you in detail about every single tree, but right now, I can't tell you what the forest looks like in this Judicial District over the time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Attorney, I'm going, I'm going to do something I don't normally do. I'm going to cut you off there for a second because what I do not want us to do is, and I hope this comes out the way that I need it. I do not want us to talk so long that others don't get to have their, their say, so I let you conclude what you were saying. But I want to keep us moving as I'm asking you questions.

BRIAN PRELESKI: No, I'm not trying to filibuster, Senator.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, I didn't think you were, but you know, I do it myself sometimes. So, yeah. So but to my point, so I think you make the point that I was making, right? It seemed to be your suggestion was because we have all of these things, we don't need this piece of legislation that would govern the way that we operate, but the fact of the matter is that all of those things going in place have never stopped anyone from being a good or a bad actor.

134 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It hasn't stopped anyone from being, you know, intentionally good or bad or if unintentionally good or bad. We've had prosecutors who've been on the House stage who don't file reports, they're supposed to file and have it made up for that, and all kinds of things that have happened. So I don't understand what you, what you are suggesting how it is supposed to be informative to me, given that set of circumstances. What am I supposed to actually walk away understanding, simply because we have a constitution and case law that flows from that and, and ethics rules?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Yeah. We are already heavily regulated in the things that you want us to adopt as policies. My thought is when we look at other places that have adopted things as policy and I will use, the folks who are labeled as the progressive district attorneys in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, have adopted policies that say, we're not going to follow the law.

You have the district attorney in Los Angeles, who has adopted a policy that says, we will never seek out X penalty in Y case. We can't do that in Connecticut, it's explicitly my job to follow the law. So the policies that we would be adopting would be largely duplicative of the environment that we already work in, because it's already heavily regulated. And we can't adopt policies that are contrary to what this body tells us to do or what the constitution tells us to do.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And so, and I don't want to seem obtuse, but so is your objection that the duplicate report?

BRIAN PRELESKI: So I guess the objection would be different depending on what piece of the legislation you're talking about.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And in terms of the number of years, so you seem to be suggesting that at least 135 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

conceptually, the notion of changing the number of years is not something you find offencing or are you suggesting that internally, you all are doing something about that, and so you, you believe that evaluation should happen more than that is required in terms of the eight years, the eight-year period, but not necessarily be put into law?

BRIAN PRELESKI: So the evaluations under the new policy will happen biannually, biannually. The problems with the statute as proposed is that it would evaluate us on lots of criteria that frankly we have no control over, no role in life.

The percentage of individuals who are homeless after being discharged to corrections and things of that nature; the other problem is, and a lot of what we would be evaluated on are prosecutorial functions, their judicial functions. The other problem is, if you're going to tell us, we're going to evaluate you strictly on data, but then says the ACLU said previously, we're not going to give you any benchmarks. I frankly don't think that's a very fair process. If, you know, if I'm working at a car dealership and my manager tells me, I'm going to evaluate you on how many cars you sell this month. And I say, okay, how many cars you want me to sell? And he says, I'm not going to tell you that. I don't think that's a very useful evaluative process if you're not going to give us benchmarks.

And the third thing, the third point that I want to make is in terms of our terms. Our terms are eight years, the same as judges. The CHIEF STATE'S ATTORNEY and the two deputy chiefs, the Chief is five and the deputy chiefs are four. And there's a reason for that. The two deputy chiefs have administrative functions and they're not the chief law enforcement officers in their jurisdiction. If you looked at all of the criminal cases that were handled initially out of the Chief State's Attorney's Office, it would be a small fraction of 136 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the number that are handled by the smallest Judicial District in the State of Connecticut.

So their roles are primarily administrative where as our roles are primarily operational within the field working in the judicial districts.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And I guess to that, to that point, I'm still not sure, I recognize it and I appreciate you pointing that out. But I'm not sure why that requires eight years. What is it about the eight years that, that your point makes, make more sense than a five year? I don't, other than, I mean, it might be nice to have more time and all that. But I mean, what is the necessity of the eight years? Because you suggested just now that there's a reason for it, and so I understand that it is. I understand that, you know, maybe even if I were doing what you're doing, I might prefer eight over five. But I don't I still don't get the reason for it.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Sure. The Legislature struck a balance between accountability and independence. And when it settled on eight years, it settled on eight years for the same reason that it settled on eight years for judicial appointments. Namely, that these are individuals who need to be insulated to some extent so that they can make decisions guided by the law. And just like judges, I make unpopular decisions. And it's nice to know that when I make those decisions, and I think if you look at the testimony of Attorney Pattis, the written testimony, where he talked about judges tending to be risk averse at they come near the end of their eight-year terms.

If you want prosecutors to be independent and make those decisions that we know are sometimes going to be unpopular, then eight years is the equal point, is that this body struck between independence and accountability, similar to the similar to the terms of judges serve.

137 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And thank you for that. I hear your point. I'm not sure that I would blame you. I won't, I won't go there. I was going to make a point about prosecutors as opposed to judges, and you're going to hear my kids in the background because they are two, three year olds, and they like to run around. I guess finally, I will ask you about the point you made about no one, no one winds up here by a collective decision. Can you make that point again?

BRIAN PRELESKI: Sure. So we have this morning a little over 9000 individuals who are incarcerated in the State of Connecticut. Each of those individuals was incarcerated after a lengthy individualized judicial process. And that process involved a prosecutor, it involved a judge, it involved a criminal defense attorney, and it oftentimes involved other actors as well. So we get input from family relations officers from probation officers, and in the case of individual serving incarcerated sentences, more often than not there's a presentence investigation that is prepared with that person. So those are all the functions of individualized decisions based on the facts and the law.

Now, of course, those individualized decisions take place in the overlap of the policy decisions that you'll making in the General Assembly. And of course, I recognize that. But the individuals who are serving time today in Connecticut, each of them is serving time because a lot of people made individualized decisions in connection with those cases.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, thank you, and I appreciate that. And I think you just acknowledged what I would, what I would say is that all of those individual decisions are made in a context created by a collective decision. So thank you very much for your time and I'm sorry to prolong this so much.

BRIAN PRELESKI: Thank you. 138 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Preleski for being with us. Next [inaudible].

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Steve, you're cutting it up.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I'm sorry. I just got it. Is Claudine Fox with us? There we go. Thank you. Sorry about that. I think it was having a little internet issue. Go ahead, ma'am.

CLAUDINE FOX: Hi, everyone. Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Claudine Fox, and I'm the Interim Public Policy and Advocacy Director here for the ACLU of Connecticut.

I'm testifying in support of Senate Bill 987, AN ACT CONCERNING REINVESTMENT THROUGH A REDUCTION IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY POPULATION INTO REENTRY AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.

The ACLU is an organization dedicated to ending mass incarceration and the disparate effects of mass incarceration on black and brown Connecticut residents. One of the best uses of funds in Connecticut is to divest from policing and incarceration, and reallocate those funds back into people and communities harmed by the systematically racist institution of mass incarceration.

The governor is committed to closing northern Correctional Institution by the summer of 2021 and other DoC prisons through 2022, saving approximately $15.4 million in annual operating costs in 2022 and $41.5 million in 2023. The governor's budget reallocates that money into a poorly defined Creates Fund, which appears to be used to close the tax gap and other general fund purposes. Northern is a prison that has perpetuated great harm to the people who have been incarcerated there and indeed all 139 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

incarcerated people in their families since it opened in 1995. The money saved from closing it should not be directed at potholes and pensions, but instead should be reallocated into tangible benefits for people caught up in the Criminal Legal System. Senate Bill 987 does just that. It recognizes that the savings from closing Northern and other prisons should be applied to take care of the health and housing needs of people who are leaving DoC custody and reentering the community.

Some of the critical tangible benefits addressed in this Bill include reentry services, housing services, case management services, rental assistance and more. This Bill also addresses preventative services such as Mobile Crisis Units to ensure that no person will enter incarceration just because they are in mental health crisis.

One aspect of reinvestment that this Bill does not address but should is to ensure that people harmed by incarceration in Connecticut are given dignity and opportunity or a light at the end of the tunnel after they've served their time and paid their debts to society through automatic record erasers or Clean Slate, which is another Bill you are listening to and public testimony today.

This Bill could be strengthened by ensuring that the funding for the process of automatic record or ratio is guaranteed for money reallocated from DoC prison closures. We believe that the dignity inherent and record a ratio is a key component of the reinvestment concept of Senate Bill 987.

Funding Clean Slate record ratio is a direct and important way to reinvest in the people most harmed by incarceration. Moving money that formerly propped up symbols of mass incarceration into harms and its harms in to people who experience those harms is not just good policy, but a strong message about Connecticut's priorities. At the ACLU, we believe in people not prisons. Senate Bill 97 gives the 140 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Legislature the chance to invest in people, not prisons to invest in services that support people not perpetuate harm by reinvesting in health care services for incarcerated and reentering people into Mobile Crisis Units that serve as an alternative to police intervention and to ensuring housing for people leaving detention and into a light at the end of the tunnel for people with records through Clean Slate record eraser. I support Senate Bill 987.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Alright, thank you. Thank you.

CLAUDINE FOX: Just at the minute.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Representative Fishbein?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Claudine.

CLAUDINE FOX: Hi.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): How're you doing? I would expect you you've read the entirety of 987, so we can talk about the whole thing.

CLAUDINE FOX: For the most part, but you know, I, I will be willing to admit when I don't know something, so I'll do my best to keep up with you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, well, it's only eight pages long. Is there a particular portion you didn't read?

CLAUDINE FOX: I mean, go ahead, proceed with your questions.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, I just don't want to ask you about something you don't know about. But you indicated to us some failure in the language, are you, you're comfortable otherwise with everything else that's in here?

141 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

CLAUDINE FOX: Can you elaborate on what you mean by that question?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure. There's language before us, its eight pages long.

CLAUDINE FOX: Yeah.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You've indicated there is additional things that you would like to see in here.

CLAUDINE FOX: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Is there anything in this eight pages of language that you object to?

CLAUDINE FOX: If we're talking about the values of what this language is trying to do, which is again reinvesting in people that have been harmed by Connecticut's prisons and jails, I support it completely. Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, do you have the language in front of you?

CLAUDINE FOX: I, let me pull it up.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure.

CLAUDINE FOX: All right, go ahead.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So looking at line 65. That changes the reporting requirements from this Committee to a Committee relating to corrections. What is that change, and why is that change?

CLAUDINE FOX: Okay, line 65, relating to corrections.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Know, it's 65, not 165.

CLAUDINE FOX: Yep. 142 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): See, it says, standing Committee in the General Assembly and Judiciary, they're getting rid of that language, and they're replacing it with related, relating to corrections. Do you know why? When, do you know why that is and are you in support of it, and you know, what's going on?

CLAUDINE FOX: I mean, so from the purpose of this is to ensure that we're working with people that are closest to the issue, particularly around, particularly around the housing services and reentry services. And my understanding is that DoC has a particular reentry service, has a reentry service in place right now. And so my guess is that that money will be going into ensuring that there is everything in place to ensure that people that are reentering society have the necessary things that they need to be able to fully reintegrate.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I understand that, but this particular provision has nothing to do with money, it has to do with reporting. It says the report, you see in 64?

CLAUDINE FOX: Yep.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): We'll start with 63. 2022 and annually thereafter, the Department Board and Division shall report to the governor in the Joint Standing Committee of the General Assembly. And that's what's being changed, who is being reported to has nothing to do with money. So why this change, why do you think this is a good thing?

CLAUDINE FOX: So, I honestly, you know, to be completely honest, I believe that I can't give you an answer right now. But I can get back to you with, with the correct answer.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. That's why I asked you if you read the whole thing? But moving you to line 143 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

93, which has to do with reporting once again. It talks about the number of offenders assessed as having high need for reentry, housing assistance, so on and so forth. You know, high is an adjective. It establishes a level greater than normal. We agree on that, that right? So because the language could have said assessed as having need for, right; the language anticipates to having high in there. What in here establishes that metric? How does one determinant with this language where there's a high need or there's not a high need?

CLAUDINE FOX: I think this is, again looking at the historical impacts of mass incarceration, particularly in marginalized communities and communities of color, which also experience intersections of other systems, i.e., lacking employment or employment opportunities, particularly if people are living with a criminal record and they exit the system, they have a harder times gaining secure employment or finding secure housing simply because they have a record attached to their name.

And so when we're thinking about folks that have high need, there could be compounding issues there that speak to some of those other systems that make it particularly difficult for them to regain stability after exiting the system.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, that was a lot of words, but I, my question was, this has to do with individuals that are part of the system, right?

CLAUDINE FOX: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): There's going to be, let's say, 10 people that are involved with the system that we have to evaluate, to find out whether or not they fall within the confines of line 88 through 97.

CLAUDINE FOX: Yes.

144 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And ascertain whether you know, which of those 10 people have high need and which of those individuals just have need, right, because there's a distinction right?

CLAUDINE FOX: Yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): The language is just, so how under this language are we to determine amongst those 10 people which have high need, and which just have need, because I don't see it here and certainly if our goal is, is shared here, betterment of society, I think we have to figure that out. So can you just tell me how we're supposed to figure that out?

CLAUDINE FOX: And I do believe I answered your question, Representative Fishbein, but let me say it in a different way. When we're thinking about high need, we are talking about the various identities that people entering the system and then exiting the system are carrying with them.

When we're talking about investing in people and the communities they come from, this means addressing and looking at them as a whole being, which thinks about whether they have access to income, whether they have family, whether they have a home that they're able to go back to after exiting the system. And so if we're looking at some of those basic criteria that determines whether or not a person typically ends up homeless when they exit DoC, to me that will give you the scale to identify whether or not a person is high need or a person isn't high need.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And how is that scale determined? Because if we just look at in line 93, one of those components is the high need for reentry housing assistance. So let's say, we have someone who has no family here in Connecticut.

CLAUDINE FOX: Yes. 145 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And they're released from incarceration. That person, in my opinion, has a high need, right. Whereas you get another individual who is released from incarceration, who may have family here, but maybe they don't want to be around that person. That person may have high need, but you don't find that out until you do the reach out, right. So I don't, I just don't see any metrics in here as far as how do we establish high need as opposed to need given those sorts of scenarios.

CLAUDINE FOX: So if you think about the process of case management systems, typically they are taking in data and evaluating the people that come through the system, which would touch on whether or not they have a family to go back to, whether they have secured employment, all of those different things. And so, in this idea of reinvesting into case management, wraparound services, that can address the needs of a person, my healthy estimation is that some of those data points already exist within the program of reentry services within DoC, which kind of goes back to addressing the initial question you asked me about reporting and why are we looking to DoC and all of that.

But to answer this question, I think the data is there, that is the role of case managers to, to really look at the person as a whole. And the case managers would be the ones responsible for determining who is high need and who isn't.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, you would agree with me that that's not what that language doesn't says. It doesn't say that the high need as determined by the case manager or it's just not there, right.

CLAUDINE FOX: And, and sure, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Now similarly, if we look at line 161, we run into the same sort of issue. We have mental health needs, but we don't 146 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

just have mental health needs, we have high mental health needs. Are you aware of where that metric is to establish, because once again, not here, mental health needs as opposed to high mental health needs.

CLAUDINE FOX: Again, case management services probably have a pulse on whether or not where a person falls in that scale. And if it's sounding like you need that explicit language in the Bill in order to really understand what they're going for or how they're measuring that, that is something I bet we are completely open to working towards.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So I'm looking a little deeper into that language. And it actually says that the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services is supposed to be involved in that and they're supposed to report to the case manager. So based upon that lag and I'm looking at lines 151 through the 161 we were just talking about. So that indicates that a third party is supposed to be reporting to the case managers who I thought you said that happens to be screening, but we're working on this.

CLAUDINE FOX: Case Management Services exist in multiple systems and multiple areas of addressing a person's needs.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood, right. I got that. So I just don't see the language here that says that gives direction to DMHAS, how to make that determination. Once again, you know, lot of people have mental health needs, but this is directed to those with high mental health needs. You know, I don't know what that means, quite frankly, under this language. You know, I work with autistic children, and you know, some of them have more significant needs than others.

CLAUDINE FOX: Okay.

147 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You know, where is that scale and, okay. Well, I thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity.

CLAUDINE FOX: Thank you, Representative Fishbein.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Ms. Fox, I appreciate you being with us today.

CLAUDINE FOX: Thank you, Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up would be Gus Marks- Hamilton. Go ahead, sir. You have three minutes. Sir, we can't hear you.

GUS MARKS-HAMILTON: Representative, can you hear me now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Still can't hear you.

GUS MARKS-HAMILTON: Can you hear me now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry, sir. We can't hear you at all. We're going to, we're going to skip and go on to the next person and let you have an opportunity to try to get your audio working. Alright. We're going to go to Luis Delgado. Mr. Delgado with us? Mr. Delgado?

LUIS DELGADO: Yes, his. Could you see me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Nope, we can hear you, but we can't see you.

LUIS DELGADO: Can you see me now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I can't see you?

LUIS DELGADO: Hi, can you see me now?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): There you go.

148 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

LUIS DELGADO: Hi, let me know when I can begin, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead.

LUIS DELGADO: Good day, Senator Winfield.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): [inaudible]

LUIS DELGADO: [inaudible] can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Now we can, yeah.

LUIS DELGADO: I'm sorry. My name is Luis Delgado and I'm a leader with the ACLU of Connecticut Smart Justice Campaign. I believe in a society where all people including those who have been convicted of a crime should have an equal opportunity to contribute to society and build successful and fulfilling lives. That is why I ask you that you support Senate Bill 1019, a Clean Slate Legislation that will help give people a real chance to reach their full potential and succeed after they've paid their debts to society.

At the time I was 18, without a father figure, and in need of serious guidance, I was on probation for a period of two years for simple possession of marijuana and I attempted to join the Air Force. After meeting with the recruiting officer and receiving excellent scores on the aptitude test, I was recruited; however, there was one obstacle, I was on probation. When the recruiting officer called my probation officer to ask him for his permission for me to go to boot camp, my probation officer told the recruiting officer that I was a criminal then, I'd be a criminal for the rest of my life, and that I couldn't serve my country.

That was then, I was 18 back then. So I continued to try to find guidance and the right direction. My mom encouraged me to enroll at ECSU, Eastern Connecticut State University, where I enrolled twice, I attended 149 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

five semesters but completed only two. I was in a serious car accident; lost my spleen, I was put on pain management for extended period of time, which resulted in addiction and more involvement with the Criminal Justice System.

For the last 25 years, my life has been living hell, in and out of rehabs, in and out of prisons, with the system telling me to get my life together but making sure every single door is shut tight.

To date, I've completed my last period of probation successfully. I've been gainfully employed for two years, I worked three jobs, I pay my bills, but I still live in a little room, the size of a jail cell because of my criminal background. In fact, I isolate so much in that little room, because there's nowhere else for me to go. I stay away from promotions, because at the company where I'm at, they require a background check. So the job I have now, there's no background check required.

I believe the Clean Slate Legislation will give tens of thousands of people in Connecticut who really don't have any freedom in any opportunity to effectively exercise their franchise that opportunity. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Are there questions or comments from the Committee? None, we appreciate you being with us, and your advocacy on that. Next up, we will hear from Sarah Fox.

SARAH FOX: Good afternoon.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good afternoon, Miss Fox.

SARAH FOX: Just one second. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Sarah Fox. I'm the Director of Policy at the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. We are 150 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

pleased to be a partner in the Justice Reinvestment Coalition and stand alongside ACLU Connecticut SEIU 1199 and the Yale Transitions clinic to fight for equity for justice impacted people through reinvestment of Department of Correction, dollars into programs that seek to undo the harms of the criminal legal system.

At CCH, we recognize that criminal justice involvement among our state's homeless population is costly, disruptive and inhumane. Well, homelessness is a tragedy for anyone who experiences it. It brings additional challenges for people involved in the criminal justice system. The partnerships formed through the Justice Reinvestment Coalition and the work that we have set forth to do represent something we have long known to be true at CCH.

Homelessness is a result of broken public systems, institutional racism, and inequality. We conducted a data match with the Office of Policy and Management in 2019. You will see that included in my testimony, and it showed that a significant number of people experiencing homelessness and housing instability, follow their release from jail. It also showed that over 3500 people who have used homeless shelters within the last three years were also released from a DoC facility. Many of these individuals appear to be caught on a decade's long revolving door between homelessness and incarceration, as 54% of these individuals have had more than six admissions to the Department of Corrections, and 57% began their involvement with the Department of Corrections in their adolescence. This is inhumane, and there is so much more that we can do to improve our public systems. We view this as a human tragedy and it has a huge cost for our communities.

We support a better process and a better more community led system that is humane, and we have been long in partnership with the Department of Corrections and court support services on identifying and addressing individuals who are 151 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

homeless and figuring out how to collaborate better together for better outcomes.

As part of this coalition, we are seeking a $2 million line item to be pulled from the DoC to be invested into community based housing. We have programs that have, that sprung forth to address the needs of those who are end of sentence when the pandemic began, and we are seeing the fruits of that, we've served over 121 individuals and communities, we are saving lives, we are saving public dollars. And it's really important and justice reinvestment matters and it's something that we need to do better together on.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein has a question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sara, nice to see you. Oh, sorry.

SARAH FOX: Nice to see you too.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Now, now we could see each other. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I you know, I had the opportunity a couple years ago to do a tour and Sarah was part of that. We looked at homeless services that are available in our state and it was a very eye opening experience. I just want to thank Sarah for being part of that process. Sarah, any particular of these Bills that you're here for, it sounds like a little bit of 1019, and a little bit of one of the other ones?

SARAH FOX: Oh, I'm sorry, maybe I jumped in too quickly. Senate Bill 987, the bill concerning justice reinvestment.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Because you did mention about the ratio and that initiative, and that's not addressed in 987?

152 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH FOX: No, but we support Clean Slates and all that it means and we're working on bills to ban the review, you know, to make it so that criminal records do not ultimately ban people from housing and lead to homelessness.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, I wanted to ask you, particularly with regard to that. Is there some, do you or is there some sort of group that's akin to yours that's helping people try to get through the pardon process because we've heard about hurdles. You know, what is your involvement through your agency or partner agency with regard to that, which would be different than the just clear draconian eraser?

SARAH FOX: I will say, you know, we have participated in CJ Pac. And so the Criminal Justice Policy Advisory Council with Chairman Giles, we definitely understand the part and process. But, you know, it's not easy to obtain a pardon in Connecticut, and for those, especially those that are recently returned to communities, you know, they're legislated into homelessness based upon their criminal record and based upon sometimes things that, you know, shouldn't not be coming forward during the landlord's review, you know, consideration of their tenancy.

And because of that, you know, we're calling for a review process to be set forth by, you know, by our Department of Housing on state funded properties so that there is a much better way to assess a person's individual needs that just doesn't solely rely and rely upon their criminal record.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Right. So just to bring it back to where, where I was trying to get to, have you been able to identify any part of problems with the pardon system that have been insurmountable by people that you serve?

153 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH FOX: I mean, honestly, have I done full research into the pardon process? No, but what I have seen is, and what I do know is that obtaining a pardon is very difficult. And for all of those who are reentering into our communities, the opportunity to get stable housing is invaluable, it saves lives, and it saves ultimately also public dollars. So the pathway towards a pardon can be something that's really difficult to reach. And so we want to make sure that when people are reentering our communities that they have the supports needed.

We especially know that this impacts communities of color. And, you know, we also, we want to ensure that that we are starting people off on the right foot and that they have the right supports instead of waiting and languishing in homelessness until a pardon can become available, which happens, you know, I hear stories all the time of people who have waited up to 15 years, they've, they've come back into the community, and it is their criminal history that's precluding them. You know, I'm not 100% sure if they have gone and sought a pardon, but I do hear that it's a difficult process.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, but that's, with all due respect, that's conjecture, right?

SARAH FOX: Yes. I mean, I'm happy to come back to you with more information, but that's the information I have today.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, certainly, if those bars are in place, because that's one of the things that we hear about this, that the pardon process is insufficient, that we just have to blank, you know, just erase everybody's record because the current process doesn't meet the needs. And if that's the case, then you know, that's a way to deal with this. Also, there is another aspect of this. Looking at 1019 again, and I don't know if you were here before, I asked someone about this. Do you have the Bill before you? 154 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SARAH FOX: 1019, no; 987, yes.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, no that's cool. I'm just going to give you the concept, okay. A portion of this bars a landlord from denying someone rental property based upon their record and even their erased record will be under this, okay. And what's of concern to me is that, for instance, 53-A, 196-H is possession of child pornography. That one who is convicted of that and it gets erased, its Class A misdemeanor get erased I think under this legislation for either five or seven years. The landlord would have to rent to that individual without at the discretion. I mean, is that the public policy that we're looking to advance here?

SARAH FOX: I mean, I think that moving towards less discriminatory practices is a key piece that needs to be put in place for public policy. And I also will say that discrimination against individuals who have committed a sexual offense even 20 years ago was something that is held against them, regardless of the fact you know, regardless of the fact that it's like a 0.1 chance of that individual recidivating or recommitting the crime, and sometimes people have changed their lives and yet they're given no opportunity to reform.

So the components that we support in Clean Slate are that people make mistakes and they deserve a right to, to rehabilitation, to reform, to live a life that has housing and healthcare and all those things necessary to get off on the right foot. The current laws and the restrictions that are placed on people returning to our community prevent that. And so we support smart policies that make sense for our communities.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Understood. I'm just a little concerned is the, the current process may be sufficient, and mainly to work within the current 155 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

process of getting pardons to get these people where there should be.

SARAH FOX: I mean, I'll just say this Representative Fishbein, with all due respects. If you look at the data that's included in my testimony, if you look at the individuals who are disproportionately impacted by homelessness and the fact that recidivation is so high, you will see that that something is actually not working in the current system, something doesn't work in our current process; there's an issue. And so we really need to look deep and think hard, because this is a huge waste of our public taxpayer dollars. It's a waste of human capital. We can and should do better as a state. And we need to reinvest in things that matter so that people can get off on the right foot and live better, more humane lives in our communities.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Excellent, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative. Further questions? Seeing none, thanks for being with us.

SARAH FOX: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Let's try Gus Marks- Hamilton and see if we've got some audio working there?

GUS MARKS-HAMILTON: Hi, can you hear me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can, go ahead, sir.

GUS MARKS-HAMILTON: Oh, great. Thank you so much for bearing with me, I apologize for the early technical difficulties. Good day, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Gus Marks-Hamilton, and I am 156 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the interim campaign manager for the ACLU of Connecticut Smart Justice Campaign.

I believe in a society where all people, including people who are living with a criminal record should have an equal opportunity to build successful and fulfilling lives. On March 9, 2020, one day and year ago, Sierra Rosati testified in front of this Committee in support of Senate Bill 403, conversion of the Clean Slate Bill that this year Senate Bill 1019 closely resembles.

Sierra spoke about the obstacles of living with a record as a single mother to her 2-year-old son being turned down for apartments and employment because of a record, even being fired after she had begun working once her record came to light.

When Sierra testified, she was working full time and about to graduate college. But she was afraid, afraid that she was still going to be told she was not good enough, and even more afraid that it will be said to her son. What has my son done to deserve that, she testified. My son already faces adversities, having a parent who has been incarcerated and living in a single parent household. But to know there is a chance that I will be told that I cannot choose to raise my son in a place that is healthy and safe because of a crime that happened seven years ago. It isn't right.

This is why Senate Bill 1019 is so important. People living with a criminal record are more likely to face unemployment, homelessness, poverty and death. A Connecticut resident who has a criminal record faces more than 550 legal barriers to full integration into society, including barriers to getting jobs and licensure, housing, public benefits, civic engagement, and more. It does not have to be like this.

I was incarcerated for nearly eight years here in Connecticut. I was a much different person when I 157 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

was arrested and locked up nearly 15 years ago. I'm a much different person now than when I was released to a halfway house seven years ago. I turn 40 in a few weeks from now, and can only imagine that I will continue to learn and change as I grow older. At least I hope I will. But my past record will continue to stick to me, never changing, never disappearing. That's not what I was sentenced to. I did my time, I completed parole, I completed probation. I've been turned away for many jobs, but I'm employed now. I vote, I'm an uncle to my nieces and nephews. I adopted a dog. I've tried to rebuild my life.

People who have completed their sentences and had no further interaction with the criminal legal system have earned the right to move on with their lives without the shadow of a criminal record hanging over them for the rest of their lives. I would like to close with another quote from Sierra's testimony from last year. Sierra is no longer with us and we miss her. She said, all people deserve a second chance. I was given a second chance to live a life of meaning when God may be apparent. But I have not been given a second chance if I continue to be discriminated against. There should not be limits on a person's second chance. A real Clean Slate needs to be just that all people who have served their time deserve a fair chance to create a better life for themselves.

Thank you for listening my testimony and hanging with me, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Questions from the Committee? Seeing none, appreciate you being with us.

GUS MARKS-HAMILTON: Thank you very much, Representative.

158 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be James Bhandary-Alexander.

JAMES BHANDARY-ALEXANDER: Thank you. Yeah, James Bhandary-Alexander. Thank you to the Chairs and to the whole Committee. I'm going to be here on behalf of Transitions Clinic in support of Raised Bill 987.

I'm the Legal Director of Transitions Clinic. The Transitions Clinic program serves the primary care needs of people leaving incarceration and their families. 987 would reinvest funds saved from the clothing of Northern CI into the needs of people leaving incarceration, including reentry coordination, housing, and hiring community health workers to serve people leave incarceration. At Transitions, I supervise law students who provide civil legal screening referrals advice and sometimes representation to people returning.

I want to use my brief time to highlight why the funding of community health workers is so important. And for the record, this is Section 7 of the Bill. There's another, Section 5B or 5C that includes funding of community health workers. That's not the part, I don't fully know what that's referring to, but Section 7 is what I'm talking about.

Transition model incorporates formerly incarcerated community health workers into a care team specifically organized to serve people coming out of incarceration. This population is 12 times more likely to die than the general population, so effective health interventions are important immediately after release. Each transitions location is staffed by community health worker with a history of incarceration. They are a vital member of the healthcare team, connecting patients with health and social services through outreach educational and advocacy efforts.

Community Health Workers act as cultural liaisons to ensure the provision of culturally relevant health 159 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

services. They work both in the community and clinical setting bridging the healthcare gap for the sickest and most vulnerable patients.

Mass Incarceration has created barriers to employment in health care for people with a felony conviction. Transition seeks to break this cycle by providing meaningful healthcare careers to community health workers with a history of incarceration. Transitions community health care workers leverage the singular knowledge of an individual who has successfully reentered. Through their shared history, CHW has build a unique trust with their clients resulting in enhanced primary care engagement and reduced emergency department utilization.

For these reasons and also because our patient populations are routinely denied work, we also support 1019. At Transitions, we have rigorously studied the outcomes of incorporating formerly incarcerated CHW's into our work. The intervention leads to improved health, fewer emergency room visits, fewer probation and parole violations and less recidivism.

We see how proper supports for people changes lives and improves public safety. Thank you for considering how to reinvest savings from incarceration into lifesaving activities like health, housing, and emergency services.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, sir. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, appreciate you being with us.

JAMES BHANDARY-ALEXANDER: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Dwayne Paul.

DWAYNE PAUL: Good afternoon to the distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. My name 160 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

is Dwayne David Paul, and I'm the Director of the Collaborative Center for Justice, a Hartford based organization sponsored by six communities of Catholic nuns, and the Chair of the Criminal Justice Team of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance or GHIAA. We wish to express our strong support for SB 1019.

I was heartened to hear several speakers note Connecticut's great progress in addressing mass incarceration over the past decade. Noting how among other things changes in philosophy have resulted in fewer people in prison today. That's tremendous. I, for one admire people who were willing to change their behavior in response to new information and theories. It's a sign of wisdom. I'm also sure that the people of Connecticut will benefit from that wisdom moving forward. People involved in the system now and in the future will benefit. Unfortunately, that is entirely irrelevant for the people who are already living with the criminal records they acquired before this very important change of heart. That's where SB 1019 should come in.

Prison is punishment. Unlike many things discussed today, everyone's in agreement on the matter. As a collection of tens of thousands of people of faith in Greater Hartford, GHIAA agrees on that point. We also agree on something else. If prison is already punishment, than once released, everyone deserves a real second chance to rebuild their lives, provide for their families, and contribute to their communities.

It is not the role of government to grind its people into dust once they've paid their debt to society. That's not justice, it's vengeance.

Two decades ago, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared the following in their appeal to lawmakers to reform our criminal legal system, "Just as God never abandons us, so too, we must be in covenant with one another. We're all sinners, and 161 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

our response to sin and failure should not be abandonment and despair, but rather justice, contrition reparation, and return or reintegration of all into the community." Senate Bill 1019 would do just that.

When people leave prison, they need jobs. That's not just because it'll keep them off of social services, which it will; they need jobs because their kids deserve to see them working. They deserve to not face discrimination when they apply for housing and schools, not just because dignified housing keeps people off the streets and education creates a productive workforce. And they do both of those things.

People shouldn't face discrimination for their criminal records because work, community, and education are among the many things that contribute to our humanity. We vigorously support the inclusion of felonies and the strong anti-discrimination provisions for beneficiaries of Clean Slate. That is why we urge you to vote SB 1019, favorably out of Committee intact. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Paul. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or questions? If not, thank you again, Mr. Paul. And wait, no, I saw, hold on had, Representative Fishbein?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Just thank you. I was trying to think you're controlling my hand over there. Anyway. Mr. Paul, how are you this afternoon?

DWAYNE PAUL: Excellent. How are you, sir?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Very good. Thank you. I just want to ask you, you know, you seem to be one of those guys on the ground, you know, involved in this process. Are you involved at all in the pardon process for individuals to try and get their records cleaned up? 162 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DWAYNE PAUL: No, sir. But I'm very sympathetic with people who are like yourself and it sounds like you've been waiting since I think November you said earlier today, for response, but I'm not directly involved.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, okay. So I heard a lot of stuff about, you know, people being grounded to dust and you know, I'm trying to figure out, you know, we have a process, is there a problem with the process? And, you know, certainly an employer has the opportunity. They could say, you know, I want to employ people with criminal records, right? People are free to do that.

DWAYNE PAUL: Sure. I think the problem with our current process is the scope of the problem of people living with criminal records. If the FBI estimates that 30% of American adults have some form of criminal record. If we map that on to Connecticut's population of 3.5 million people, that's approximately 1,050,000 people. That does not seem like, that seems like a too large of a problem for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and SB 1019, which again would provide relief for convictions of 10 years or less with the exclusion of sex crimes and family violence, would take the easy ones off the board for the Board of Pardons and Parole and leave the more complex questions and the more serious convictions for their continued consideration.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Are you aware of the percent of people that don't get pardons when they go before the Board of Pardons and Paroles?

DWAYNE PAUL: No, sir, I haven't seen that data from the Board. But I'm happy to look that up and send that to you.

163 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I have familiarity. It's a very low number, but I just, okay. I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DWAYNE PAUL: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Are the comments or questions from other Members of the Committee? Seeing none, Mr. Paul, thank you again for joining us and thank you for your work.

DWAYNE PAUL: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We'll next hear from Earl Bloodworth, followed by Kathleen Flaherty. Mr. Bloodworth, you have three minutes.

EARL BLOODWORTH: Yes. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Fishbein and Kessel, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My Name Is Earl Bloodworth, and I'm the Director for the City of Bridgeport's Reentry Department overseeing the MIRA's initiative for Reentry Affairs of MIRA. And I'm also the Co- Chair for the Greater New Haven Reentry Roundtable. I would like to thank you all for this opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

I'm here to speak about my support for Raised SB 1019 Clean Slate. Many, myself, included often complain about the ordinariness of our lives and maintenance of that life. These things that we complain about and take for granted, many formerly incarcerated people strive for daily and are denied. This easily could have been my life had one particular thing going wrong or differently when I was young many years ago. Many Connecticut residents that have served their sentence time for the crime they committed are not afforded the ordinariness of life that we without any criminal record take for granted.

164 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

The criminal record is essentially a scarlet letter that follows them throughout their life, ruining ordinary things like stable and livable wage employment. It ruins the possibility of stable and safe housing. Reintegrating back into the community of Connecticut is nearly impossible, if not improbable for those with a criminal record.

These individuals face well over 500 legal barriers stigmatization and other various collateral consequences inhibiting and or prohibiting their ability to meet their basic needs. This makes it extremely difficult for many of those who never had a real first chance to leverage their second chance opportunity.

If we as a community are sincere about Connecticut's second chance society status, we should be making it easier for them to reintegrate into society and support themselves and their families. Connecticut can reduce these collateral consequences and make our state safer and stronger by expanding the scope of state anti-discrimination laws through using individualized assessments, and then blanket bans.

Per the ACLU smart justice study, 57% of Connecticut voters support a law prohibiting discrimination and employment, housing, education, insurance and credit based on a person's criminal history. It's like to point out some key findings from discussions with the City of Detroit Clean Slate Department. And they've since passed the Clean Slate Legislation in the City of Detroit. For every $1 spent on project Clean Slate, there is a potential for $3.70 return in the form of potential annualized wage gains, creating local, state and federal employment tax revenue.

When compared to job training, another common public investment and economic growth, the financial returns and expungement programs outpaced job training by a factor of 3.8 to 1, 80% of Detroiters apply for expungement to remove the stigma 165 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

associated with having a criminal record, 48% of expungement applicants learn about project play through a friend or family member, and I just want to address something I heard earlier in somebody else's testimony in question that was asked was about, I don't have the data on how many people apply to get expungements in the State of Connecticut, I have helped some people. But it is an arduous process for a population that has some inherent hurdles, and also now the process has been moved to an online process, which also in some cases presents some hurdles mark, for other individuals as well.

But I would ask, you know if the number for the amount of people that are not given a pardon is low or denied, and we need to think about the number of people that don't even attempt to apply.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Bloodworth. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Bloodworth.

EARL BLOODWORTH: Good afternoon.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Just wanted, you were talking about the pardon process and you know, going electronic or allowing that, that activity was supposed to increase access to that process. Has it been your experience that it has worked in the reverse?

EARL BLOODWORTH: I will say that it doesn't lend itself to everybody. Just as you know, in an instance when we were all in lockdown and, and children were trying to take their education online or via online. There were instances where we had whole families that didn't have access to the internet or have a laptop. Now some of the school systems did provide laptops or tablets to these 166 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

individuals, but then you had the issue where people did not have access to Wi-Fi.

So there are just some inherent systemic structural issues that may inhibit some people that may be eligible for applying for an expungement via the new process, but some, some won't be able to access it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Have you had personal experience? I just, you know, comparison, I understand the educational aspect has been impacted. But you know, I see that on a daily basis, right? The child should attend school every day. Whereas applying for a pardon is something that, you know, you could potentially put off for a month until you're able to get to a different town that has a library, that has a computer or something like that. Have you had personal experience with somebody, you know, not having access to the system because it is electronic?

EARL BLOODWORTH: Well, sir, I work in a system right now, and we're not seeing individuals face-to- face, and so I'm dealing with a lot of individuals in this population, as Director of Reentry for the City of Bridgeport either via phone or trying to do via email. And a lot of these individuals who may be eligible to try to access the expungement process, they can't. And so yes, while I'm not dealing every day with individuals that are trying to access the expungement process, I'm dealing everyday with individuals from this population that can't access or understand or have access to a cell phone or smartphone, or know how to use it if they have it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so, you know, getting over the access hurdle, is there any part of the process itself that.

EARL BLOODWORTH: It's a, it's a very long and tedious application. And so when you're talking about the population that's applying for GED, you may have somebody that's 10 years down the line or 167 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

20 years down the line, they've gone back to school, they got their GED, and they're quite capable and competent and reading through the application, because I know some people who have applied for it on their own and been successful. However, I know other folks and they looked at the application and just gave up.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Because of literacy issues or?

EARL BLOODWORTH: Absolutely literacy issues or just the issue to be able to tell their own story and their narrative, how much they have accomplished and how far away that they've come away from the incident that had them in prison in the first place.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): One second, one second Representative. Mr. Bloodworth, I'm just going to caution you to wait till the question is completed so that we don't get the cross talk and miss something. Proceed, Representative.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know that the Chairman Giles has in the past done workshops around the state to try and show people, help people, fill out their applications. Is that something that's happened in your community, whether through Chairman Giles or another entity? Because certainly literacy would be of concern to me, but I know there is people in your community that would perhaps be able to give some guidance there.

EARL BLOODWORTH: Yes, it has a cursor.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And have you found that to be successful in getting over that hope of, you know, being able to fill out that application or were there problems with that?

EARL BLOODWORTH: We have, there have been some successes with that, with that process. We're actually looking to, we're actually looking to the 168 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

City of Bridgeport to have a actual department similar to what's going on in the, in the City of Detroit where they have an actual expungement department that walks people through the process with an attorney, that they will have that same exact model. But you do see more success when people have access to people that are familiar with the process and can help walk them through it step by step.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Oh, absolutely. It's like, you know, changing your own oil. I'd rather have, you know, mechanics and they're telling me how to do it, then do it on myself. But yeah, I agree.

EARL BLOODWORTH: Exactly.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I thank you. I thank you for having those boots on the ground and that information. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EARL BLOODWORTH: You're very welcome. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or questions? If not, Earl, thank you for spending some time with us. It's, it's good to see you, and thank you for the work you've done in this area for a very long time. Have a great day.

EARL BLOODWORTH: Thank you. Thank you as well, Senator.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we have Kathleen Flaherty, followed by Josh Pawelek, and Joshua Guo. Is Kathleen Flaherty, I do see, there you are. You have three minutes.

KATHLEEN FLAHERTY: Thank you so much. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Kathy Flaherty. I am the Executive Director of Connecticut Legal Rights Project. We provide civil legal services to people 169 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

who are eligible for mental health services from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

I'm here to speak in support of two Bills today, Senate Bill 987, the reinvestment act. Because far too many people with mental health conditions end up in the Criminal Legal System when they do not get access to the services and supports they need. Because of the conversation you've already had, and you know that the state has cut the prison population, DoC plans to shut Northern and possibly two other facilities. And what we're asking is that you reinvest those savings in community based solutions.

Decades ago, the state made a promise to reinvest the savings from the closures of the state psychiatric facilities into the community based mental health system; that promise has never been kept. You have an opportunity to change that when it comes to DoC, and I encourage you to do it.

When you talk about reinvesting money in mobile crisis intervention, I would just ask that you not replicate another carceral system because that's really what for psychiatric treatment is. I would encourage you to look to the proposals from people in the community about creating peer run respites.

When it comes to 1019, I believe all people who have paid their price deserve a chance to reenter society. And I think 1019 provides a strategy and a pathway for that to happen. And I'd encourage the Committee to pass the Bill. I am not the proponent of the Bill. I did review the Bill. Did I review every line of the Bill, no I did not. Is the Bill perfect, probably not. I actually added some suggestions because if you're going in and changing the anti-discrimination statutes in this state, two years ago, I asked you go in and fix it and make sure disability is listed as a protected class everywhere.

170 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So if you're going to go forward with this Bill, I'm just going to make that ask again. And at this point, I'll just open up to any questions that people may have.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comments or questions? I do not see any, any; but I want to thank you for joining us today and reminding us to keep the promise. Thank you very much.

KATHLEEN FLAHERTY: Thanks.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Have a great day. Josh Pawelek, followed by Joshua Guo, followed by Eleta Jones. You have your three minutes.

JOSH PAWELEK: Alright. Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, and distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. It's always intimidating to speak after Kathy Flaherty, but I will try to do my best.

I'm the Reverend Josh Pawelek, Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society East in Manchester. I'm a clergy leader with the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance or GHIAA, and a resident of Glastonbury. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Senate Bill 1019, affectionately known as the Clean Slate Bill.

Many faith communities and interfaith organizations like GHIAA, like Connect have begun to confront the racist legacies of our criminal justice system, which today continues to ensnare people of color in numbers that far exceed their proportions in the general population, and which create enduring barriers to full economic participation in society; you've already heard a lot of testimony about that today.

My denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association has made national commitments to 171 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

organize for anti-racist criminal justice reform. Our principles motivate these commitments. Our first principle is respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Our second principle is the pursuit of justice, equity, and compassionate human relations. We view current criminal justice practices that continue to decimate communities and families of color as violations of both these principles. That's why I'm speaking today.

Clean Slate is one important step in the effort to reverse the long-term economic and social impacts of racism in the criminal justice system. Currently, people with misdemeanor and felony convictions on their records are often prevented from accessing housing, jobs, and higher education because of the visibility of their criminal records. Though they have served their time, though they have remained crime free, they are penalized the second time through this enduring lack of access. Clean Slate seeks to remove all misdemeanors and all Class C, D and E felonies from a person's criminal record after a certain time period.

This will enable formerly incarcerated people to more easily become productive contributing members of society. It's not only anti-racist policy, its sound economic policy. So I'm aware that reform efforts like Clean Slate often fail because of the false and frankly raised assumptions that such efforts signal we as a state are soft on crime and in the case of Clean Slate create a public safety hazard by making criminals impossible to identify. These assumptions are false.

A recent study from University of Michigan Law School reveals that people who remain crime free after leaving prison, stay crime free after expungement and also have higher earning power. The fear that we are being soft on crime tends to take hold in white suburban districts where there is little understanding of the negative impacts of the criminal justice system on communities of color. 172 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I urge all of you not to let this fear rule the day. I am a white suburbanite. I pastor a largely white suburban congregation. I am not afraid of expunging the criminal records of people who have already paid their debt to society. I would much prefer that formerly incarcerated people have every opportunity possible to become productive, contributing members of society.

So I urge you, especially those of you who serve in white suburban districts not to give into fear, it's time to stop penalizing people who've already served their time. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, very much. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you for joining us again, and for your advocacy around many, many issues. I hope you have a great rest of the day.

JOSH PAWELEK: You too. Thanks a lot.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Joshua Guo followed by Eleta Jones. I believe Joshua, you're in. You have your three minutes.

JOSHUA GUO: Great. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Josh Guo, and I'm an undergraduate student at Yale University. And thank you so much for having me here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 978.

This Bill would provide opportunities for parole to prisoners serving long sentences for crimes that they committed between the ages of 18 to 25. And these are crimes that are fundamentally different from those committed by mature adults in both their cause and nature. And today, I want to offer three 173 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

main reasons for how they are different and why we ought to treat them as such.

So first of all, young adult offenders from 18 to 25 have neurological and psychological deficiencies, nearly identical to those of juveniles. Neurological research has shown that individuals do not complete development of key parts of the brain until after 25, which, not coincidentally is right where the age time curve drops. These developmental immaturity is caused in young adults to be uniquely affected by environmental pressures, impulsivity, and especially by childhood traumas; circumstances that are known to promote crime.

Essentially, these offenders still have the minds of kids, but at a more turbulent point of their life. Without parental supervision and legal restrictions, they are not kept in check.

Secondly, it is imperative especially for young adult offenders to receive rehabilitation through parole. Young adults, particularly violent offenders, they almost always age out of their temporary tendencies for crime, and they are especially malleable to rehabilitation when given the incentive. But because of their long sentences without possibility of parole, they're often prioritized last for education, for counseling and for other rehabilitative programs. Life without parole is life without hope and the incentive to grow especially when it has been cut off at an early age when they need education and mentorship the most.

Due to this lack of rehabilitation, young life without parole prisoners often remain uneducated, they turn to violence in gangs or fall into depression or even attempt suicide.

Lastly, there's already great precedent for this Bill both in and out of Connecticut. Similar Bills have been implemented in at least six other states 174 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

with very promising results while here in Connecticut, we have one of the lowest parole eligibility rates in the country by far, even worse than states like Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. We are better than this. And we are already making progress in Connecticut to the true program and the Cheshire Correctional Institution, which is designed only for prisoners between 18 to 25. So clearly, we recognize this unique need to rehabilitate young adults and we must continue to do so.

As a young adult in this age range, I understand firsthand all the psychological and social turmoil that goes on during this time that can easily lead to crime. The only difference is that I have had the privilege of a child without trauma, of a support system, have a good education, and so many other things to steer me in the right direction.

Unfortunately, for a majority of young adults in our state and especially young adults in our prison system that are disproportionately black and brown, they cannot say the same. This Bill does not diminish the severity of what they have done, and instead, it acknowledges their humanity and their capacity to grow and get back to the communities as opposed to ripping them away from their potential based on a few poor decisions at a young age. Because of science, because of precedent and because of every single individual that is suffering without rehabilitation, I urge the Committee to please vote favorably on this Bill. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Guo. Representative Porter?

REP. PORTER (94TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no questions for you Joshua. I just wanted to say thank you for an excellent job done here before the Committee, and thank you for your time. Your advocacy is inspiring.

175 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JOSHUA GUO: Thank you so much. Thank you. It's an honor and pleasure to be here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative. Senator Champagne.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. I just, when I look at this Bill, do you consider all crimes when you, when you support this Bill?

JOSHUA GUO: Yes, I do. And I think you might be, yes, yes.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Including murder, rape?

JOSHUA GUO: Yes, I do. And I think you might, you might think about the statistic that I cited about how violent offenders like that, honestly, when these offenses are committed at a young age, they almost always, they're actually more likely to have lower rates of recidivism and reconviction when released into society.

And like I said, there are a lot of circumstances that, and environmental pressures and a lot of childhood traumas, of which there are a lot of statistics about that contribute to violent crimes like that. And while, like I said, we were in no way excusing these crimes or diminishing the severity of the impact of these crimes on their victims. We must also recognize the capacity to change and recognize the different circumstances for a young person between 18 to 25, committing murder versus an adult committing murder. There's a significant difference and we need to acknowledge that.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So you feel that anybody up to the age of 25, cognitively is not mature yet. Is that what you're saying?

JOSHUA GUO: Correct.

176 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay, because I see a bunch of other Bills that are going along in our in our Committees, this Committee, where, you know, we're actually lowering age for, for some things. But let's, you know, you hit on at once. You talked about the victim and I haven't heard much about that today, about the victims, and especially with, you know, when we look at this and we talk about you know, a sexual assault crime. You know, a victim is going to be suffering their entire life and we decide we're going to let this person out of 25. What kind of effect is that going to be on the victim?

JOSHUA GUO: I completely understand your concern, and once again, like letting someone out on parole and we're not saying again, this is just providing them the opportunity to exhibit some sort of growth, this is not an automatic release or you know, shortening of a sentence in any, in any ways.

Like I said, this Bill is not in any way diminishing the effect, and this is not in any way ignoring the effect or you know, setting the effect on victims aside. We are merely recognizing the different circumstances and certain environmental, you know, factors that may have led to this assault and, you know, that may make the nature of this assault, you know, as committed by a young adult different from an assault committed by a mature adult.

And like I said, we do not in any way ignore or you know, diminish, or exempt the effect of this crime, and the crime that the effects that we you know, will continue to last throughout a victim's life. However, we also must, you know, consider both sides of the issue here. And this Bill, I think, is very, very important in terms of considering, you know, what leads to a crime rather than, you know, what, what are the circumstances and what are the factors that lead to someone committing a crime rather than just focusing on the crime itself?

177 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. I guess I view this a little differently having to sit with the families of victims as an investigator in those crimes, because I do, I really put a lot of weight on the victims of the crimes and the choices. Yeah, they made bad choices, but those choices resulted in, in, you know, some terrible consequences to the victims. And, you know, all day I've been sitting and listening, and I just keep thinking about the victims, and I can't get that on my head. Thank you.

JOSHUA GUO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Champagne. Comment or question from other Members of the Committee? Comment or question? Seeing none, Mr. Guo, thank you very much for joining us and for sharing your testimony with us. I hope you can enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

JOSHUA GUO: And you too.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Eleta Jones followed by Liza Arulampalam.

ELETA JONES: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representatives Stafstrom, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Eleta Jones. I am a resident of West Hartford and a member of Hartford monthly meeting, the Quaker meeting located in West Hartford. Hartford meeting is a member of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance. In addition, I am a career counselor and I will be speaking today from my two roles as a Quaker and as a career counselor.

I am here to speak about Senate Bill No.1019, the Clean Slate Bill. As a person living in the suburb of Hartford, I firmly and without hesitation support this Clean Slate Bill. For too long in Connecticut, individuals who have committed crimes categorized as misdemeanors or Class C, D, and E felonies have been penalized for their entire lives for their criminal 178 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

acts. As a Quaker, I believe that there is that of God in every person and when given a chance that divine spark in people inspires them to seek to better themselves and act positively for the benefit of their family and their community.

I have seen this in my career counseling work. As a career counselor for 40 years in Connecticut, I counsel adults and help them identify their career or job goals, and then I help them pick the steps to achieve those goals. My fellow career counselors and I have worked with individuals who have criminal records.

I have personally witnessed the pain of adults with criminal records who are anxious to move forward with their lives, but are blocked from doing so. They want to get a decent job and support their families. However because of their record, even many years after they have been released from prison, and after they have been crime free, these individuals are unable to pursue the career of their choice.

In many cases, their criminal record keeps them out of schooling they might want to pursue or makes it impossible for them to get hired to work in the career field of their preference where they could really use their skills and talents. Holding people back because of past history when they have been crime free for many years and they want to be positive contributing members of our society, holding them back is wrong.

I am reminded of a delightful client of mine who had a couple different career ideas that he was considering pursuing. With a wife and a new baby, he wanted to get employed and work that would earn him a decent wage, use his skills and interests and would allow him to support his family. However as he explored his ideas, he quickly learned that his past criminal record as a non-violent felon would prevent him from pursuing the career field most suited to him. 179 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

If Senate Bill No.1019 had been passed, my client could have gone ahead and pursued the career he really wanted. Holding people back because of their past history when they haven't committed any additional crimes and want to be able to support their family is wrong.

Thus, I support this Clean Slate Bill and strongly urge you to vote to support it. Let's remove the stigma from these individuals and allow them to move forward in their lives in ways that support their families and make it possible for them to become productive members of our communities. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Miss Jones. Is there a comment or question for Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. I want to thank you for taking your time to come and testify before us and sharing your testimony. I appreciate it and hope you have a great rest of the day.

ELETA JONES: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right. Liza Arulampalam, Debra Martinez, and Sonja Starr. You have three minutes.

REV. LIZA ARULAMPALAM: Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Reverend Liza Arulampalam and I'm the Co-lead pastor of Riverfront Family Church in Hartford and the Associate Pastor of the Church of Christ Congregational Church in Newington, and I'm a leader in the Greater Hartford Interfaith Action Alliance and I'm here testifying in support of Senate Bill 1019.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Peter asks Jesus how many times he should forgive another person and Jesus answers 70 times 7. And I believe that a morally just society must ensure that those who try to start 180 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

over after serving time have a Clean Slate on which to build their future.

I grew up in Glastonbury and I don't remember a single black or Latin X kid on my street. I also don't really ever remember seeing a police officer on my street and today I live along with my five kids in the Frog Hollow neighborhood of Hartford. And other than the Trinity College students, I'm one of the only white residents on my street and my kids see the police quite literally everyday as they play in our front yard. And this is not an accident. The system was set up this way.

And so we must be bold and put forth a sweeping Clean Slate Bill because the disproportionate harm that has been done to black and brown communities has also been sweeping. Black and Latin x people in neighborhoods like mine, we know receive harsher and longer sentences for the same exact crimes as white people.

When I was a senior in high school in Glastonbury, two of my friends were pulled over for driving with marijuana. And they spent a couple hours in the Glastonbury police station, and ultimately they had to do some community service. And we joked about it, and they both went on to attend college. The worse thing that happened to them as the result of this incident was that their names appeared in the Glastonbury citizen, which is pretty embarrassing if you live in a small town.

Over a decade later, I'm now living in a very different neighborhood in Hartford and a 17-year-old neighbor of mine was arrested for possessing drugs. He was a few months away from his 18th birthday and he was held in adult prison. His church worked together to come up with the bail money, but it took some time and during that time, he stayed in adult prison, he was assigned a public defender who did his best but was overworked and had too many cases and he was charged as an adult. He had been planning 181 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to go to college, but he never did, and he never did get out of the criminal justice system. He still struggles today with mental health issues and is still in and out of the criminal justice system as one door after another close to him.

What I'm trying to say is that the criminalization of marginalized communities can have a devastating impact on their lives. And so I'm here to ask that we do what we can to ensure that our neighbors worse moments do not define them for the rest of their lives.

Passing a real robust Clean Slate Bill would allow people who have already been punished and already served their time to support themselves, to provide for their families and to contribute to their communities. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Is there a comment or question from Members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any. So I would like to thank you for offering your testimony here with us today. And I hope you enjoy the rest of the day. It looks like it's a beautiful day.

REV. LIZA ARULAMPALAM: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we'll hear from Debra Martinez, followed by Sonja Starr and Trevor Beauford. Debra Martinez, you, you have three minutes.

DEBRA MARTINEZ: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield and Stafstrom, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Debra Martinez, and I am a resident of Meriden, an advocate here in the state and a facilitator of the true unit family support system.

I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 978. I've spent many years working with families and 182 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

advocating for individuals whose crimes took place during this period of time that is referred to as emerging adulthood or adolescent maturity timeframe. You will hear plenty of testimony today about proven neurological and psychological research that has shown that key parts of our brains don't fully develop until around age 25. You will also hear about how passing this Bill is fiscally responsible for our state because continuing to hold people in incarceration who are no longer a threat to public safety puts an unfair burden on us as taxpayers and it's counterproductive to why people are supposed to be incarcerated to begin with.

We also know that people who are incarcerated are not considered adults in every context. People who are 18 cannot consume alcohol, our state just raised the age for purchasing cigarettes to 21. And if we're honest with ourselves, many of us would do things differently now than when we were 18 to 25.

I know with my work, but the true unit that people who are convicted of crimes is emerging adults can change. For example, Jonathan, whose crime was committed during this timeframe was convicted of two counts of assault first with the firearm, unlawful discharge possession and many lesser charges. He spent two-and-a-half years in the true program at Cheshire during this emerging adulthood years being mentored by older men serving long sentences for many crimes committed during their own adolescent maturity.

For those who don't know, it takes two full years to complete that program. So if you hear someone was in true, that doesn't mean they completed it. Jonathan transitioned to a halfway house and then to his own apartment. He is fully employed since his release a year-and-a-half ago and has had no police contact. He is currently working towards real estate investing.

183 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Another success story would be Tyler. Tyler, who has caught a charge during his adolescent maturity timeframe and was convicted of robbery in the second. Tyler spent three-and-a-half years in the True program again during that same timeframe. Tyler was recently released on parole seven months ago and is currently residing with his parents working with no police contact. He is now 28 and working towards owning his own barber shop.

These are just two examples of the change that takes place during this timeframe of adolescent maturity and emerging adulthood, especially when authentic rehabilitation and programming are put in place. These examples also show why it's important that this population should be given the opportunities that this Bill provides.

We have a Pardon and Parole Board, and if we can expand that Board, appropriately fund that Board and allow them to do their job and have the opportunity to look at the population and give them the power to recognize rehabilitation during this age, we will be better for it as the state, allowing low risk rehabilitated and mature human beings to go home and be productive contributing members of this community.

I'm also the victim of a violent sexual assault that took place here in Connecticut when I was 14. So I'm very familiar with the devastating and lifelong effects that crime has on someone. I also recognized that people are not born with the intent to cause harm to another human being. That path is created with lifelong experiences and so it's only fair that another path should be created for people to redeem themselves. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Comment or questions from Members of the Committee? comment or question? Deb, I don't see any. But I want to thank you for coming and sharing part of your story and your testimony, and also for your 184 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

continued strong advocacy on this and other issues of the justice system. Thank you for always being there to fight for what you know to be right. Have a great afternoon.

DEBRA MARTINEZ: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Sonja Starr followed by Trevor Beauford, Adlyn Lowenthal, and then we had a person who was trying to get in earlier, and that was Shelby Henderson, and she'll be after that. So Miss Starr, you have three minutes.

SONJA STARR: Thank you, Senator. And thank you to everyone who is here. I am a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and along with my colleague, JJ Prescott, from the University of Michigan. We conducted an empirical study of the effects of expungement of criminal convictions in Michigan. And we believe that the findings we think are informative to other states including Connecticut.

And we basically, we have three key findings which I'll touch on really briefly. One, we think points to the importance of automatic set asides. We found that, so the regime that we studied was a petition based set aside regime, which was not automated. And, and the first question we studied is, when you offer, when you offer expungements, which Michigan call set aside, sorry. When you offer expungements only based on petitions, how many people actually take advantage of that opportunity? And what we found was that only 6.5% of those who were eligible, legally eligible for set asides, which was quite a narrow category to begin with. We found that only 6.5% actually received set asides within five years, mostly because they didn't apply at all. And a lesson from that is that the administrative hurdles, the difficulty, the stress, the expense as well as lack of legal counsel, lots of barriers, prevent people from taking advantage of expungement opportunities despite its immense value to them. And 185 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that's one reason that that automating the set aside process is so important.

A second finding that we found was that when people do get, do get expungements, they have, they see large benefits in wages and employment. In fact, we found between 23% and 25% increase in wages in just six months, sorry, in one year, but the vast majority of that was seen in, was seen in six months of getting of, getting a set aside and so that adds to the tax base, to the to the tax base of the state, and also we think, because of research showing that employment and higher wages reduces crime. It's a reason to think that expanding access to expungement is useful from a public safety perspective.

And then our third set of findings touches directly on the public safety question. We studied the criminal recidivism rates of those who received expungements. And what we found was that those rates were enormously low. So people who get expungements in, in Michigan, it's important to recognize that these are people who can get expungements after five years, so it hasn't, it hasn't necessarily been as long as the waiting periods and in your contemplated legislation involved. And it includes people with both misdemeanors and felonies, wide Range. It can include violent felonies, it's not highly constrained in that, in that sense.

And yet, when we look at the recidivism rates of those who received set asides, they were incredibly low, and in fact, lower than those that we observe in the general population of Michigan.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Miss Starr, if you could, if you could summarize. Your time has elapsed.

SONJA STARR: Yes. So if you look at just the categories of offenses that we're most concerned about, say violent crimes and, and felonies, fewer than 1% of those that we studied had any violent 186 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

crimes or any felonies, within, within five years of, of receiving, of receiving an expungement. We think that shows that the public safety risk posed by those with those who receive expungements is extremely low.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein has a comment or a question.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you. Good afternoon. You're from the University of Michigan, was that it?

SONJA STARR: So I was at the University of Michigan when I carried out the study, but now I'm at the University of Chicago.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so you were a student at the time?

SONJA STARR: No, I was an AMA tenured professor.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And in the course of your study that you did in Michigan, did you look at Connecticut statistics and Connecticut process or nationwide? I just couldn't tell that from your presentation.

SONJA STARR: So our study was of Michigan only. So it's hard to do nationwide studies because of the lack of comparable, comparable data across jurisdictions since jurisdictions collects data separately, but Michigan had rich data that it made available to us. And ours is that, is, we're the first people who have been able to study it because for the most part, there's very little research on expungement, because expunged criminal records are secret. So they're hard to study, right. And so we were able to negotiate with the Michigan State Police access to de-identified confidential records that were expunged and that allowed us to track those peoples subsequent outcomes.

187 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And so we think that, you know, obviously, we can't say for sure that every result that we have extrapolates perfectly to every other state. But we think that the fundamentals of what we found are consistent with what a wide range of criminological studies have found in a large number of contexts. For example, that increasing people's access to employment and housing reduces crime rather than increasing it. That's been found in lots of different contexts. And we think that that's probably one reason that people who have, who get expungements have, have low levels of crime. And we don't see why that wouldn't be true in other states as well.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I agree with you fundamentally, but if you know, one has access to housing, they're more apt to do better at their job and to, you know, have more self-esteem and have perhaps less mental health issues. And that, you know, I fundamentally, but I'm just trying to take your representation and fit it to what we're doing here. And you had talked about problems with the expungement or in Connecticut we have the pardon process. Were you able to identify any problems with our particular process that we should be addressing that would alleviate the need for this just blanket eraser?

SONJA STARR: So our, our study, of course, is of Michigan data, and I can't claim to have found something specific with our data about Connecticut's process. My understanding is that, is that Connecticut's process, is, does not yet have a system of automated expungement and so I think that our finding that anytime you require people to jump through hoops in a legal process, which with respect I think is the case for pardoned processes as in every state and in the federal government there's a lot of hoop jumping, that. that has, that happens.

And I think that that pardons are even rarer than, than expungement is in, in states that, that have 188 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

petition based procedures for both. And so, you know, we found that even with a somewhat more broadly available expungement petition based regime, only 6.5% of those who met the legal requirements were getting expungements, despite the great benefits available to them, and when we talk to lawyers about why that was the case, they said, look, it's incredibly arduous to go through this process, it's incredibly stressful, and particularly with people who have had negative experiences in the past with the criminal justice system to give them the confidence that they're, that they're going to have a positive outcome at the at the end of jumping through all those hoops, and to allow them to, you know, be able to take time off work and pay for transportation and all the hours that are required to go through all these processes, when a lot of them are, are living very close to the bone to begin with. That's unrealistic for a large number of people. And my suspicion is that will hold that holds true likely everywhere, right?

There is a large body of access to justice literature that shows how people in, in many contexts, in many different states avoid taking advantage of legal rights that are available to them or, or benefits that are potentially available to them. Because it's, it's just too hard to, to obtain. And so that's, that's one reason that I think the, the automatic process that Connecticut is now considering is so important.

And Michigan by the way, has since adopted an automatic process just a couple of months ago or a few months ago, the law was passed and it will soon go into effect.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I am aware. You said that where the process for expungement and pardons exist, that there's less pardons being applied for, did I get that correct?

189 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SONJA STARR: I mean, so I don't have numbers at the top of my head everywhere, but at least as somebody who has worked in this space for a long time, I think of pardons as, as a significantly less common remedy, even though expungements are relatively hard to obtain there. I could be wrong about Connecticut, you know, again, it's not, it's not my state, and I'm not an expert on it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, that's once again, I'm just trying to take what you have to present to us fit that into what we're doing here. Have you reviewed the Bill that's before us?

SONJA STARR: So I've been working with a group at the, at Yale Law School of students who are working on this issue, and they have briefed me on the key points of the, on key points of the Bill and differences with the Michigan, with the Michigan regime that we studied and our expungement Bill. So they asked me to come to come share our testimony.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so you haven't, its 34 pages long, you haven't read?

SONJA STARR: I haven't read the whole 34 pages, no, it's not. But again, you know, I'm hoping to share what we learned but not at all purporting to be a legal expert on this Connecticut law or on Connecticut law generally.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Perfect. And well, I mean, given that it doesn't make sense to go further. So okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Senator Champagne followed by Representative Blumenthal.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. Thank you, professor for coming in today and then testifying. A question for you about your recidivism. Does that measure return to prison or does it measure arrest? 190 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SONJA STARR: So our primary measure was arrest, but we also measured conviction. So we didn't use return to prison as a measure because our data came from the state police which, and not from corrections, so the best measures that we had from the police were arrest and reconviction. And both of those rates, you know, obviously conviction rates are lower than arrest rates. But it was arrest rates that we were able to directly compare to arrest rates in the general population, because the State Police also published aggregate arrest rates for the population broken down by age. And so we were able to compare between people of the same age cohort that we were studying to people in the, like to people in the general population that were analogous and to see that people with set asides actually had lower than average arrest rates.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): About the lower than average arrest rates, what was the re-arrest rate for those that had the expungement?

SONJA STARR: So, the, let's see, I'm going to try to pull up the figures because we broke it down in a few different ways. I think that the five-year arrest rate was the overall arrest rate, if I'm remembering. I'm just trying to remember our whole table without pulling up my screen, but I think it was about 7%. But the vast majority of those, so that's over the course of five years; the vast majority of those were misdemeanor arrests and non- nonviolent misdemeanors in particular. So if you, and you might say, well, that's still not, so that's why I say like, if you focus on only on violent offenses or if you focus only on felonies, that's when you get numbers around 1% and I think conviction rates were around 0.6%.

And you might say that those are not zero. But of course in the general population, crime rates are also not zero, right? So that's why we looked up, what is just the average rate at which a person in 191 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Michigan gets arrested, and we found that that rate is actually higher.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): When we're talking about expungement here, so I would hope that, you know, the number would be pretty a lot lower than the general population and given the fact. Now when you did the study.

SONJA STARR: Just to be clear, when I say general population, I don't mean, the general population that has a criminal record. I mean, all adults in Michigan including people who have no criminal record.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. I note you, I not you now. When we look at this, for the expungement; did they have to go before anybody in Michigan to show that they, you know, haven't had a job, have been at a trouble or was they just given the expungement?

SONJA STARR: Yeah, so although Michigan now has an automated process, it didn't when we were studying, in the period that we were studying, and so they did have to go before a judge. And the judge had discretion to deny the expungement. Now, what we found was that Michigan judges actually rarely deny them. The the rate of denial was 20%, was about 25%, and many of those denials were people who didn't legally meet the requirements in the first place. So the rate of denying people who didn't, who met the requirements was relatively low, because I think Michigan judges had sort of come around to the view that, that for people who have been crime free for the amount of time that meets these requirements, that expungement is a win-win. So that the main hurdle, the main reason that's relatively few people who are eligible actually got expungements is because they didn't apply in the first place.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right, so they didn't apply in the first place. So the people that are 192 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

actually going in for the expungement are the ones that are motivated, the ones that basically know that they've been doing the right path that they're on the right path. And that's where the 7% came from. But if we do an automatic and we just say, yeah, we're just going to do this automatically. Do you expect 7% to remain the same?

SONJA STARR: So I think there is a couple different ways you could look at that. I think it's first of all is totally fair and good question, right? But can we extrapolate from our sample which researchers say it's a self-selected sample, there's a high degree of self-selection of it, and selected exactly as we say on motivation.

So a couple of things. One is that in some ways however, our sample was less selected than yours would be right because the eligibility period is only five years even for people with felonies right, and so in that sense we have a potentially more recent and comparatively serious group of offenders and even for that subset we don't find high recidivism rates. Now that said, so how does motivation plan? So I would expect that if you kept other things equal and you know, and you weren't comparing different sets of eligibility requirements; then yeah, I mean, I would expect that the motivated group of people who were able, motivated, and well-resourced enough to jump through the hurdles that are involved would probably be expected to have lower crime rates than those who don't have that motivation.

Now, that said, how do we then think about that? Well, I think the question from a public policy perspective is not just how, what is the rate of recidivism that you expect among those who receive an expungement? The most important question from a public policy perspective is how does the expungement affect the rate of recidivism, right? Like, if people are going to commit crimes, is that because they got an expungement or is it in spite of 193 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the fact that they got an expungement? And our research because of various limitations in our data, we're unable to directly address that causal question. But we think there is a pretty large body of literature that suggests that expungement should be good for public safety and that's because there's a huge amount of literature that shows that housing and jobs and higher wages are good for reducing recidivism.

And our research does directly show that wages and jobs are improved substantially by expungements.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But you, hold on, hold on. But basically, you have a certain test group that you had, and those were the people that were motivated and went before a judge. And we're talking about a complete across the board. And I think there is a difference in both of the testing there. But I mean, we could continue to discuss this all day. But I just wanted to show that there is a difference, and you know, do you know of any other studies that have studied, where you just expunged everybody?

SONJA STARR: So again, there's virtually no studies of expungement except ours because of access to data issue. But to just complete the point I was making before, if you were to extend expungement to a somewhat higher crime risk pool, which I'll concede the point that a group that doesn't jump through all the hurdles is probably a somewhat higher crime risk pool.

The public safety advantage should be bigger, not smaller, right. So in this again, we're probably taking a group of people that's quite low risk to begin with and that's because they've been yet five years without a conviction and all the research suggests that people who have gone five years without a conviction are at very low risk of offending again. Your Bill by the way have even longer waiting periods and so that would be even 194 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

more true, right? So it's probably quite low risk to begin with.

But if you are extending it to a somewhat higher risk pool, the question what is the effect of expungement going to be. You basically have more potential to do good, right? If the expectation is that expungement helps people to reintegrate into the community and therefore to avoid crime, then you want to be extending it to the people that you think might be at risk of crime, right? Like those are the people from whom the public stands to benefit if they're allowed access to jobs and housing and things that will keep them out of trouble, right. Like that's what the public safety hypothesis is.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): I think that's a good hypothesis, but we still haven't, we don't have any concrete -- We may be the first, who knows. Did you read with were you involved in any of the other Bills today?

SONJA STARR: No.

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): No just this one, yes. Okay, all right. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator or Representative Blumenthal.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for being with us, Professor Starr today, I actually have run into your research in the past, especially related to mandatory sentencing, so, I perked up a little bit, when I saw that you were testifying today, I’m very grateful you're here.

I had kind of two broad questions, and I’ll try to keep them relatively brief and then just allow you to answer, if you can't tell that, the automatic nature of the proposed expunged man or a ratio in our Bill is probably the issue, with which most people have some are most legislators, at least have 195 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

some level of discomfort. And so, my two questions well actually before that a little background, there was a version of this Bill that emerged from Committee and that instead of having an automatic system, had a burden shifting system in our current process.

So, basically instead of being automatic, you would go through the board, and so pardons and pearls process, but the BP would have the burden of showing that you should not get an experiment after the desert apart and after the designated period, rather than the burden being on the individual who is pursuing expansion. So, I guess, I have two questions, one is just given the discomfort that you witnessed by some legislators about the automatic nature of repose expansion, and just the idea of seating that control over, which crimes can be expunged or which individuals can be expunged.

Do you have any other data or other insights from your research, that could we would find useful for us to know, that's, the first question.

And then, the second question is, if we were to choose, to pursue some sort of policy of experiment that we're not automatic, what advice would you give us on institutional design to make it available easily to the most the highest number of people, so.

SONJA STARR: I guess just taking those two questions together, I think the most crucial thing is that people shouldn't have to petition and apply right. So, if you wanted to put something in that, was not automatic basically that allowed the State to like, I would make it, so that the process absolutely, I would make it to the process does not have to be initiated by the individual and that it's the State that has to take whatever administrative.

Steps are necessary to fight the management and that they should need to that, the burden for them to do that should be to show that, it's an exceptional 196 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

instance in which they expansion is not appropriate right, because you don't, you wouldn't want it create, it create a system in which the State, or like a local prosecutor, or something like that could just routinely say Oh, I see that 500 people are up for expansion this month, we're opposed to all of them right. If they want, if they said we're opposed to one and here's why, or something like that, like if I were designing a system that were not automatic, that's how I would do it right.

I would have a potential objection by the State, and there should be burdens that the State has to meet, in order to clear those hurdles, because our research on, what we call uptake right, like the rate at which people actually get set asides, it doesn't suggest that the burden of proof has anything to do with The reason that people don't get expunged once, because remember judges are granting the experiments, when people meet the legal requirements right, the discretionary right, to say no, that judges have that's not actually proving to be a substantial barrier, what's proven to be a substantial barrier is people don't know their legal rights, they don't have legal counsel, it costs money.

It’s very burdensome they have to go to, the you know they have to go to a police station first to get fingerprinted they have to go to court to file the thing then they have to go back to court for a hearing they have to do all of these things that require taking time off, if they live out of the county, they have to travel to the local county, where they were initially convicted all of those things are huge hurdles and actually.

There's another study of uptake of expunged and certain other similar post-conviction, remedies by colleen Chen, and that actually looks at, I don't think Connecticut is among them, but it does look at five different remedies in five or six different States, and it finds uptake that's sub 10% in, and 197 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in many cases sub 5% in all of those contexts, and that's just suggested that like. When you make it hard for people to exercise their legal rights and privileges. They don't do it, especially people who are poor right, and people with records are often struggling, with poverty and they don't have a lot of resources to throw out a problem, like pursuing an expansion.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thank you that's very helpful, I’m appreciate it, so it sounds like just to summarize one suggestion, you'd have would be having a process that is for each experiment, they experiment process initiates automatically the State has an opportunity to object. But the burden of proof, or burden of whatever you want to call it, to stop an experiment by the State, would be have to be pretty high.

SONJA STARR: yeah and I mean my preferences for automatic expansion, I think when you're talking about people in the categories, you know I haven't reviewed every aspect of the Bill, but I do know the waiting period some the general categories of people, who qualify right, and I just don't see why that couldn't, just be automatic right. But if there's a hang up about making it automatic, then I think the key is it can't just be a shifting in the ultimate burden of production, because that won't get the job done.

In terms of making it procedurally easy for people to get it, it's eliminating those administrative burdens, and making it the State that has to bear those burdens, if it wants to block an expansion and making it. So that the State only does, so in a you know, maybe there's some exceptional case out there, where it's inappropriate to have the management, and they could justify pursuing it that way, but you got to have, not just the substantive burden of proof, but the procedural burdens lie on the State.

198 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): appreciate that's very insightful and helpful, and I think counterintuitive to maybe some people, the call and Chen study on uptake is that the second chance got.

SONJA STARR: Yes, great.

REP. BLUMENTHAL (147TH): Thanks, well, I really appreciate your testimony, thank you for being here, and I will not abuse your patient’s any longer well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative other comments, or questions from other Members of the Committee comments, or questions Representative staff strum.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair just super quick Professor Star, thanks for being with us. I just, I think it's important to emphasize this point because that the Connecticut Bill the comparison between the Connecticut Bill and the Michigan Bill, and that we're clear for this Committee that what is being proposed here is not novel or new. That this type of Legislation is automatic ratio procedure has been passed in other States, most recently in Michigan, as I understand the Michigan Bill applies to felony convictions, the carry a maximum sentence of less than 10 years, is that correct well, I think up to what was that.

SONJA STARR: I, it's either less than 10 years or up to an equal to 10 years I can't I can't remember about the exactly 10 years.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Which you may, or may not know is the equivalent of a class C felony in Connecticut laws, so it's classy felonies, and below which is what the with some exceptions, what the Connecticut Bill applies to them correct, okay. And in Michigan the Bill in past applies after 10 years later, of the end of the incarceration, or release from sentence correct. 199 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SONJA STARR: Yes seven for factor misdemeanors.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Seven for Mr. meter 10 for felonies, and Connecticut has we have 12 years for felonies in our Bill correct. Okay, so, is it fair to say, I guess is, do you agree with me, then, that in some respects, particularly with respect to felony conviction automatic ratio the Bill before this Committee is weaker than a Bill that passed in is now lawn in Michigan.

SONJA STARR: Correct yes, I mean don't get me wrong, I think it's a great Bill, but I think the waiting periods that you have are Conservative, I actually think the waiting periods that we passed a Michigan more conservative to their longer, than the five year waiting period that exists in the petition based process in Michigan to be clear, the petition based part process in Michigan, also still exists, so you can still petition after five years it's just the automatic.

SONJA STARR: Deadlines kick in later, I’ll say that this is part of a national trend, though California has passed a Bill that applies automatic expunged meant with either basically no waiting period after completing the sentence or a one year period, depending on which category it applies to that, isn't quite as broad in terms of the levels of felonies, that it reaches, because it reaches felonies only if a person was, it’s not based on what they could be sentenced to it's based on what they actually were sentenced to. So, it's if somebody was, it was not sentenced to prison and then it also covers all misdemeanors, but in terms of waiting periods that, one is actually much more ambitious than either Michigan’s or Connecticut’s.

SONJA STARR: New Jersey, the details are not entirely clear yet, because I think they have a Commission working on the details, but they also have, I think a pretty ambitious Phil, and then, I 200 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of course the first ones were Pennsylvania Utah and South Dakota actually which kind of didn't get a lot of fanfare but quietly past automatic automated expunged meant for fairly minor offenses really, before anyone else did. And so, I should also mention that all these Bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan approval, and I think that's a testament to the fact that I know, that you know, this is something that Americans ought to be able to come together on because it promotes public safety, promotes building participation in the economy and the taxpayer base and promotes the idea of human redemption basically, which I think is something, we should all be able to get by.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): With well, thank you, you anticipated my next question, which is it's my understanding the Bill the past in Michigan passed, out of a Legislature both chambers of which are Republican control the correct yes.

SONJA STARR: Quite yes, and obviously with a Democratic Governor, who signed it, and you know that was also Republican controlled in Utah, and in Pennsylvania’s as well, I believe, and South Dakota. And so yes, I think this really isn't a partisan issue right, which it hasn't man, and it shouldn't be.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you very much appreciate you being with us.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't see any other comments or questions, so I want to thank you for joining us, and offering you a testimony, and your expertise during the rest of your afternoon. Next, we'll have to have our Buford followed by Adalynn low end all and followed by Shelby said Beauford here.

TREVOR BEAUFORD: Yes, I am.

201 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes you may testify.

TREVOR BEAUFORD: To the Honorable Senator Winfield the Honorable Representative struck forum, and distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary.

TREVOR BEAUFORD: I just really appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Pastor Trevor Beauford, and I’m the Senior Pastor of Union Baptist Church located at 1921 Main Street in Hartford, and also, I live in Hartford as well. And also serve at Trinity College as the interim college chaplain and co-director of spiritual religious life.

I’m here today, alongside other leaders from the greater Hartford interfaith action alliance, as well as a number of other groups, and organizations including congregations organized for a new Connecticut who have come here today speaking to you, in one race and shared voice and strong and urgent support of race Bill Senate Number 1019 and at concerning the board of partitions, and paroles a ratio of criminal records for certain misdemeanor, and fill in the offenses prohibiting discrimination based on erased criminal history record information, and concerning the recommendation of the Connecticut sentencing Commission with respect to misdemeanor sentences.

I’m a believer, and one of the core ethics of my faith reminds me, that I am to be kind, and compassionate to one another forgiving one another as Christ has forgiven me. Forgiveness really at its root word means to allow people the freedom to walk out of whatever offense they have and not be seen always carrying the bag of their offense with them. But, allowing them to be able to walk free, knowing that they are forgiven, so I’m here today to call you to pass a real clean slate Bill, but it's a real bee man a real Bill mean. 202 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

A clean slate Bill means passing a Bill that includes all misdemeanors, in addition, a real clean slate Bill means including Class C, D and E felonies while holding exempt convictions for sex crimes and family violence from automatic clean slate renewal. Real clean slate Legislation, keeps Community safe and family secure, because it would allow people, who have already been punished return to society, and remain crime-free, a real second chance to support themselves, provide for our families and contribute to their communities by expanding records, we know that most employers landlords and colleges use background checks, and recruiting process and providing opportunities here in Connecticut and in Hartford.

In the very communities, like those who surround my church right here at Main Street 25% to 31% of black men have a felony conviction. This is driven in part by the fact that black and Latin people continue receive harsher and longer sentences for the same crime says white people. Clean slate would give people who have earnestly and honestly turn their lives around a genuine, second chance, a chance to walk in true forgiveness. A chance for them to know that they don't carry the bag of their past defenses for the rest of their lives, but if they commit to doing better that they can be contributing Members of our society, so I urge you today to pass real clean slate Legislation passed raise Bill Number 1019.

I asked you to offer the opportunity for, so many people who frankly look like me, a chance to do their lives, a little bit better and contribute to the society by allowing their records to be given and allowing them to be given the clean slate of true forgiveness, but.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Pastor Beauford, are there comments, or questions from Members of the Committee comments, or questions. I do not see an 203 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

eight, so I want to thank you for coming offering here strong testimony and supportive the Bill and hope you have a great afternoon, thank you for joining us.

TREVOR BEAUFORD: Thank you for your service.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We'll next here from Adlyn Lowenthal followed by Shelby Henderson, and then Cecilia Baranowski. Is -- lay low and call in, because as long as all that is Shelby Henderson.

ADLYN LOWENTHAL: I’m here for.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You maybe you get your 30 minutes.

ADLYN LOWENTHAL: just a minute there, I am, okay my name is Adlyn Lowenthal, and I live in West. Good afternoon, my name is Adlyn Lowenthal and fall and I’ve lived in West Hartford for 35 years, I’m a member of congregation Beth Israel, a member of the greater Hartford interfaith action alliance and I’m writing to urge you to support the clean State slate Legislation proposed in Senate Bill.

I’m the President of the Commonsense Fund, a Family Foundation that has long supported the work that the duty to warn performance project does with women incarcerated at York Correctional Facility and more recently, with men incarcerated at the Sub-Boesky Correctional Institution. The trustees have been witness to the spoken word movement and musical performances that the prisoners are given the opportunity to create under Judy and her staffs’ direction.

We have seen the psychological work that these women and men do to come to terms with their lives assume responsibility for their actions, and repair what can be repaired in their family relationships. Many of the people incarcerated at York and Seibel ski have been sentenced for drug offenses a majority of 204 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

them come from lives disadvantaged, from the start. When they leave prison, they have the extraordinarily challenging task of building a successful life, when they have to indicate on job rental, and loan applications that they have a criminal history, they are unlikely to receive positive responses to those applications and are of us more likely to remain part of the underclass homeless and unemployed.

Nearly half the population in homeless shelters have been incarcerated a criminal record reduces a job seekers chance of getting a call back, or job offer by nearly 50%. Successfully functioning returning citizens contribute, both financially and socially to the well-being of society. Time served for these felony offenses should end upon release and the formerly incarcerated should not continue serving time by virtue of forever having to check the box.

Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, or felony I urge you to support Senate Bill.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you for your testimony is a comment or question from Members of the Committee. Comment or question, I do not see any Thank you very much for your testimony today, for staying on with us, I hope you have a great rest of the day.

ADLYN LOWENTHAL: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Is Shelby Henderson and.

SHELBY HENDERSON: I’m here.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Shelby you have your three minutes.

SHELBY HENDERSON: Okay, thank you. Good day, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, and Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. 205 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SHELBY HENDERSON: My name is Shelby Henderson; I’m a Smart Justice Leader, with the ACLU of Connecticut. I’m studying for adult MPA, and law degree, I John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the City University of New York School Of Law. I am a formerly incarcerated person, and I believe that Connecticut deserves a criminal legal system that will treat everyone fairly, no matter where they live. I believe and accountability State's attorneys are among the most powerful actors in Connecticut’s criminal legal system, but the least accountable.

Irrespective of evidence State's attorneys can add additional charges dropped charges dismissed the case, and they even have discretion when entering into plea bargains. All without oversight or performance evaluation, which is why it is reasonable to expect public servants, and that's what State's Attorneys are. They serve the public is reasonable to expect public servants to have some form of performance evaluation and accountability, there's no reason, a State's attorney should be exempt from public accountability their job is to represent the interests of the people of Connecticut. All of Connecticut that includes incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals people like me.

How do I know the State’s Attorneys in the Judicial District that I live in are fairly implementing justice, or more appropriately, the question is, how would you know if they were not. Right now, we have no way of measuring State's Attorneys performance, the only way I could comment on their work is once every eight years when a State’s Attorney’s up for appointment. It is necessary to require State's attorneys to be accountable for the decisions they make.

If Connecticut is going to prioritize racial justice and fairness, we have to know whether there is 206 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

patterns of discriminatory sentencing, our patterns of over harsh charges or punishment and the decisions prosecutors, are making. And we need to hold prosecutors accountable if they are discriminating and pursuing punishment, instead of justice, we must hold Connecticut to higher standards than the United States Supreme Court desperate impact and [inaudible] decisions according to the census, can I can population only has 12.9%, African Americans, yet the population of Connecticut’s President gels disproportion disproportionately houses about three times more blacks compared to the other counterparts nationwide per capita per 100,000 residents around the nation 698 people are incarcerated and Connecticut.

We incarcerate 600 in Connecticut, we incarcerate 468 people per capita per capita Connecticut incarcerate more people, than both New York, New Jersey. And again, half of these individuals are black center built in 18, and at concerning prosecutorial accountability is necessary to achieve equal justice for residents of all parts of Connecticut holding State's attorneys accountable for standards of fairness and anti-discrimination, exactly what Center built in 18 proposes a minimum request considering prosecutors unparalleled discretion. Prosecutors hold people's lives in their hands, and accountability for their powerful role and the criminal legal system is long overdue. Right now we're flying blind, because there's no data driven performance evaluations of State's attorneys, because of this, we have ended up with a system where decisions about things such as though yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time has elapsed, if you to summarize.

SHELBY HENDERSON: Absolutely, I’m pretty much things such as bow and you know, charges how things are displayed this positions in court and varies from District to District. We need change in our 207 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

system and without this Bill, we would essentially be perpetuating racial disparities and our justice system that would allow conscious and unconscious racial biases to flourish, we deserve more in Connecticut. Thank you for listening, and I welcome any questions.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Are there comments or questions, excuse me but Members of the Committee comment or question. I don’t see any Shelby, thank you for coming to testify today, and for joining us again as you been before us, before hope, you have a great day. Thank you so much, have a great day.

We have Cecilia Baranowski, Robert Gillis and Cori Mackey. Cecilia -- is Cecilia Baranowski or Robert Gillis?

ROBERT GILLIS: I’m here, can you hear me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I hear you and you have three minutes.

ROBERT GILLIS: Very well, thank you. Good day Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and other Members of the Committee, my name is Robert Gillis, resident of New Haven, and I’m a member of the Steering Committee of Stop Solitary Connecticut. My personal experience, having worked for the Department of correction for 36 years, they've given me the advantage of a range of opportunities, I ended my career as the Director Pro and Community Services after having served as a prison warden in three different facilities the problems which the criminal justice system was wrestling with the time that I started work or the same that existed at the time that I retire.

I’m skeptical that Senate Bill 987 is an adequate pathway towards reinvestment, and I would know advocated good downplaying the need for funding, or additional funding and its current for the Bill is a 208 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

good idea that needs much more work for successful execution, for example, in reviewing the text of the current draft, I note that very few significant differences between the current sections, and the recommended modifications, there is an emphasis on the clear responsibility for DLC to assess the needs of individual incarcerated persons, to fashion a response for the development of reentry plan there's also added recognition that homelessness, and mental health issues have major influence and recidivists. But, there is scant recognition of a means by which these and similar factors once identified can be remedy.

I’ve got some questions doesn't the establishment of a new layer of administration, but, the so called office of reentry supports improve the likely outcomes. How can the success of these initiatives be measured reporting annually to traditionally has been required since 2008, if this practice has continued as is where our changes and reentry service delivery to be introduced, what have we learned from the reports of the intervening 12 years.

What really works and what recidivism studies, for Connecticut, can be used as an effective map to turn her future.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: I couldn't unmute.

ROBERT GILLIS: Excuse me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Continue Mr. Gillis.

ROBERT GILLIS: Okay, and it should DLC be granted the budgetary adjustment, or would it be more productive to direct the funds to Labor, for offenders specific apprenticeship programs, for example; into social services for homeless, he has anyone looked into mentoring, and sponsorship programs in the current scheme of things DLC, as a substantial appropriation for halfway houses, 209 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

supportive housing. With a current model suffice for we simply directing wanting to continue what now may, or may not be work as part of the project, that we get stopped solitary. I’ve identified the need for an oversight and monitoring component for Dios me together, yes.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time has elapsed, if you could summarize.

ROBERT GILLIS: Yes, the establishment of this entity would provide the guidance, and policy direction required to respond to the questions, which I’ve raised funding is recommended they're all, so let's try to get it right, this time. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Mr. Gill is, is there a comment, or question for Members of the Committee comment, or question, I do not see any I want to thank you for joining us to offer your testimony, and sticking through the hearing it's a long day, but I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: Leah is.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I see you, I’m about to, I will call you in a second Cecilia Baranowski, followed by Cori Mackey followed by Kathleen Callahan, Ms. Baranowski you have your three minutes.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: Thank you good afternoon, and thank you, distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary for hearing my testimony in support of SP. My name is Cecilia Baranowski, I am a Roman Catholic Sister and a Member of The Sisters Of Mercy. I am the Sisters of Mercy Representative at the collaborative Center for justice, and a member of the greater Hartford interfaith action alliance, known as via.

210 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I live in Wolcott a predominantly white town, and I reach at the politics of fear and racial division that are used to undermine criminal justice reform efforts. One of our critical concerns that Sisters of Mercy is to work toward anti-racism. Since most of the convicted men are people of color, this is also a racial issue, and poor people are targeted. This build provides relief for those people with felony convictions, and will provide them with the right to dignified work, decent housing and educational opportunities this film gives people a real chance to support themselves provide for their families and contribute to their community.

A criminal record reduces a job seekers chance of getting a call back or a job offer; by nearly 50%, landlords require a background check. So the chances of getting decent housing are diminished without decent housing, people are forced to live in unsafe housing and when they are segregated by income their children are denied a good education. We all have a past, and some of us carry baggage, and so we all deserve second chance, when this Bill passes, it will reduce the cycle of poverty, and enable people to build up their self-esteem, giving them a reason for staying on the right road of life. And so, I urge to Canadian to support S.B. 1019 the clean slate Bill, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Representative Stafstrom?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair and sister, I just wanted to not a question, but just a quick comment to thank you for being with us infographic to see my late grandfather was the long time controller for the sisters and mercy, I don't know.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: So I was going to ask you on…

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): In my grandfather john, was the long time Controller and always held the Sisters 211 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Of Mercy and extremely high regard as I do, I have a couple of my District to do amazing work, and I want to just thank you for your advocacy and for sticking with us today. Thanks so much.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Stafstrom. Now to Senator Haskell.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and thank you, Sister Baranowski. I wanted to just provide an opportunity for you to comment on one element of the clean slate Bill, one thing, that I’ve been really impacted by as I travel around in my District, or I guess prior to the pandemic, of course is how motivated the religious community of all different faiths is around this Bill, I hear from rabbis about the importance of a second chance in their sacred texts, I want, and I wanted to provide you an opportunity, because, I think you know perfectly summarize the importance of this Bill from a structural racism, and a stigmatization and a poverty point of view. But I also just wanted to provide you an opportunity to speak about, why it might be important, from a scriptural perspective as well, to provide individuals with that second chance at success.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: Well Jesus said love, as I have loved you and love encompasses forgiveness and forgiveness and purposes a second chance, and it also has to do with the dignity of people. All people have an inherent dignity, we have the spirit of God within our hearts, which makes us images of the divinity, so we need to respect that.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you so much, sister. Thanks for your time and your testimony, and thanks Mr. Chair.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: You're welcome, glad to be here. 212 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Haskell comments or questions from Members of the Committee and comments or questions, I see none left for you sister, so I want to thank you for joining us today to offer your testimony, hope you can enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

CECILIA BARANOWSKI: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, next we have Cori Mackey followed by Kathleen Callahan fall follow by Merit Lajoie (36), Cori Mackey, Kathleen Callahan you have your three minutes.

KATHLEEN CALLAHAN: Sorry, Senator or am I have now.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yes, you are, you may be, thank you very much.

KATHLEEN CALLAHAN: Good afternoon, distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Kathleen Callahan a resident of Stratford, and I’m testifying on behalf of the National Association of social workers, kinetic social workers Connecticut chapter, which represents over 2300 Members, we call upon the Judiciary Committee to support both S.B. 1019, and S.B. 978, or full testimony has been submitted.

Now, provide a brief version regarding clean slate laws many who are eligible for expunged and do not have the resources to navigate a complex system resulting in inequitable, second chance gap that can be remedied by a technical solution, the clean slate Bill will streamline the process for all eligible individuals alleviating multiple burdens of the current system. There are positive outcomes for all restoring access to jobs, housing and education and decreasing the risk of recidivism help both individuals, and their families, and promote stronger safer and more resilient communities.

213 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We also strongly support this as a racial justice issue, our State is among the worst in the nation for disproportion mentally incarcerated people of color. Only five States are worse than Connecticut for black adults and only seven for Latino adults. As the numbers of those imprisoned in our State decreases, these racial disparities have remained consistent. We believe a criminal conviction should not sense an individual to a lifetime of exclusion and blocked opportunities and acting the clean slate Bill will be part of repairing past wrongs and delivers long overdue justice and equity to our neighbors.

Regarding S.B. 978, we also support Legislation that advances recent research into brain development and the consideration of a young adult stage between adolescence and adulthood. This Bill extends pro opportunities granted to eligible individuals from under 18 years of age 225. Researchers have recently created a new field of work around emerging adulthood, and the understanding that full brain maturity is not completed, until the least the mid- twenties, young adults underestimate risk, have lower impulse control cannot conceptualize future consequences and struggle to moderate social, and emotional responses, and emerging adulthood, is a predominant time for brain neural plasticity. An indicator for potential shifts in behavior compared to adults they're less responsible for actions and more capable of change, and it's w Connecticut believes, promoting opportunity for young adults should be a priority and must include the research into the intersection of trauma and justice involvement.

We know that childhood exposure to traumatic events and toxic stress disrupts brain development. We also know that both individual environmental diversity delays psychosocial maturity and they are more prevalent in the history of justice involved young adults. Legislators in courts across the country have started to respond to the research 214 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

enacting policies and laws that treat young adults or like juveniles. Connecticut should continue its second chance work and follow them and the science toward a more just restorative humane system, or young adults can emerge as full and productive participants in their communities.

In closing, and as we urge to Committee to vote in favor of both, S.B. 1019 and S.B. 978. Thank you for your time and consideration your work through these long days is much appreciated, and I hope that you all get to enjoy some of this day as well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Miss Callahan, or other comments or questions, Senator Haskell do you have a comment or a question raise your hand is still up.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): I apologize, Mr. Chair; my hand is still raised from the last time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, no problem comments, or questions from Members of the Committee, do not see any, so I will thank you for joining us today and often, your testimony I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

KATHLEEN CALLAHAN: Thank you very much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, we have next Merit Lajoie fall by Raquel via levy Joseph Galen joy, you have your three minutes

MERIT LAJOIE: Afternoon, my name is Merit Lajoie, I’m a survivor of homicide and I’ve been the complaint officer for the office of the victim advocate for 21 years. Senators Winfield and Champagne, Representative Stafstrom, Fishbein and Members of the Judiciary Committee, welcome to my nightmare. On April 30, 1996 my beautiful mother Gail lists love was 54 years young was stalked harassed and brutally murdered, she was shot in the head seven times in our own driveway kills, killer 215 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

was convicted of a felony murder after a trial and sentence to 60 years in prison.

As proposed subsection a of Section 53, a dash 39 will allow Gill's killer to apply for a sentence modification without agreement of the State's attorney, proposed subsection a will permit any inmate convicted after our trial and sentence to any term of incarceration to file for sentence modification, without agreement of the State's Attorney. Currently, any sentence greater than three years requires the agreement of the State's attorney regardless of whether the disposition was a trial, or a plea agreement. Criminal cases that go to trial are generally the most serious and violent felony crimes, including murder and sexual assault.

Further, the new subsection see will allow Gail’s killer to apply every five years until the sentence is reduced, or the killer is discharged every five years. This new subscription will ensure that any inmate convicted and sentenced to incarceration, after a trial, or by a plea agreement will be permitted to file for sentence modification, until the sentence is reduced or the inmate is discharged. Those are the only two outcomes available in this proposal, both leading to the eventual early release of violent criminals. This proposal will only serve to read victimize Gail surviving family and friends on the day of the sentencing Gail’s killer address the Court and proceeded to threaten everyone in the courtroom quote, I am the juggernaut, I cannot be stopped.

Gail’s family and friends were relieved that, her killer would serve 65 years in prison, there was a fire a five year firearm enhancement, without the possibility of release on April 30th, I will have served 25 years of the life sentence imposed on me and my family. While I miss my mother, every single day, knowing her killer would serve 65 years in prison, allowed me and my family to slowly move to our new normal, without her, the last 25 years have 216 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

brought many new memories and life changing events for me and my family, all with a slight sorrowful reminder of my mother. The proposal will force the most terrific traumatic event in my life to the forefront every five years, for the rest of my life, or worse, my night will become reality when the killer is discharged from prison, it was a beautiful woman, a mother a wife, a grandmother, sister, aunt and friend.

I am honored every time, I hear someone say to me, you remind me of your mother, or you sound, just like your mother or my favorite your mother would be proud for a long time, it was difficult for me to remember my mother without immediately thinking of her brutal murder. Time has eased the pain but the loss will always be there. This proposal will ensure that Gail’s family and friends never have peace of mind again. Justice does not include Gail’s family and friends serving a life sentence, while Gail’s family’s killer, so there's less than the 65 year sentence imposed, and this nightmare and reject this proposal. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Comments, or questions for Ms. Lajoie, Representative Fish?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you Eric for coming here today, sure you've heard a lot of the testimony, and it's been troubling, I’m just you know, I just wanted to take the opportunity to read the last lines of your testimony as a survivor homicide and struggle with your victim strongly urge to Committee District second 28 and fill in its entirety. That I want to thank you for coming in today and have the time, the tenacity, to bring this situation to our attention, so, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, thank you Representative, comment questions from other Members of the Committee Representative beach.

217 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. VEACH (30TH): Hello, Mr. Lajoie. Good afternoon. I just want to make a comment, and thank you for coming out and speaking against this Bill, this proposed Bill takes a lot of courage and my heartfelt sympathy for you and your family, which you've had to endure. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Veach comment, or question from other Members of the Committee coming a question, I do not see any. That being a case missile joy, thank you for coming and waiting to testify before I said sharing what I know is not an easy testimony to share before the Committee. Thank you. And I hope you can find some join the rest of the afternoon.

MERIT LAJOIE: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next, we have Raquel Leiva, Joseph Gaylin, and Julia Wilcox. Is Leiva in?

RAQUEL LEIVA: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You have three minutes.

RAQUEL LEIVA: My name is Raquel Leiva, I’m a member of the Guitar Center for Equity, Health and Justice. I’m grateful for the opportunity to testify, before the Judiciary Committee regarding S.B. 987, which relates, the reinvestment of money, Sir saved from the just the closure of northern correctional Institute to Re-Entry and Community Services, the closing of Northern Correctional Institution has offered an opportunity to reinvest resources to the communities in Connecticut, particularly. Minority communities which have been ravaged by the car Cyril system yeah S.B. 987 has written seems quite incomplete, as it was, it is, it explicitly earmark savings from the department of corrections budget to go to programs and services that supports housing, healthcare, jobs and more. The money is your march go back to the Community, as it comes from the general fund, rather than costs savings from 218 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

northern is one of the most expensive facilities to operate in the State and to truly invest the cost savings from its closure, we need to have those funds.

Come directly from northern and not through the general fund that is the only way, we can really ensure that we invest the money from prison closures back into the community. We shouldn't forget that, despite the curtailing of their rights of freedom incarcerated people are still citizens these individuals are parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins. And children of other Connecticut citizens, many of them are former wage earners facing new barriers of discrimination and returning to the workforce following. Their terms served in prison available funds would best serve the Community with a plan for prevention rehabilitation and Reformation rather than allowing the Department of corrections to maintain. Such a large budget that perpetuates punitive practices like the ones that persistent Northern Correctional Institution.

I know this first hand, as I have a loved one in the Department of Corrections Provision, I strongly support is for the funds to be appropriated to inmate medical services, my husband would be a direct recipient of this benefits that will come from her investment of these funds, my husband is incarcerated McDougal Walker and has been adversely affected throughout his many years in the correctional system and, in addition, by the code 19 outbreak in Connecticut prisons, aside from the high need for medical competency do there due to the pandemic, there's a clear need for a standard of care to be established in the department of corrections for incarcerated people, my husband in particular had to with a broken tooth, wait six months to see a dentist, him and others should not have to worry about their lives, due to the lack of medical personnel and services being provided, while incarcerated.

219 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

RAQUEL LEIVA: At the call Center we are engaged in a new campaign called cut shut and invest and this campaign is designed to ensure that Connecticut cut the number of he crusher any people in jails and prisons cut the number of people on parole and probation and shut prisons down and invest in the communities most harmed, by systemic racism and mass incarceration.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Just leave your comments elapsed, if you could summarize in the spirit of cut shut and invest these available funds should, be directed towards supporting and empowering individuals returning from incarceration to become fruitful Members of society.

RAQUEL LEIVA: and investing in these programs earmarked as listed in the Bill should stay in the communities to help these people stay connected to friends and family and keep our Community safe by helping them become productive again, thank.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): You, Thank you miss Raquel. Are there comments or questions for Ms. Leiva? Comments or questions? I don't see any I want to thank you and I apologize for initially messing up your name, I want to thank you for coming to join us today and offering your testimony and sticking through, it with us, I hope you enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

RAQUEL LEIVA: Likewise. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): We have Joseph Gaylin followed by Julia Wilcox and Gaylin. Hi Joseph Gaylin.

JOSEPH GAYLIN: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative staff strum an esteemed Members the Judiciary Committee, my name is Joseph Gaylin; Member of Steering Committee, Member of Stop Solitary CT.

220 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I’m testifying on behalf of the organization about raised Bill 987 and act concerning reinvestment of savings achieved through a reduction and correctional facility population into reentry and community based services and programs. In spirit Stop Solitary CT supports this Legislation friends from the closure of prisons, must be earmarked support formerly incarcerated people and protect the lives of those still behind bars. In particular we're supportive of the initiative to hire formerly incarcerated Community health workers. However, in the case of Legislation, the devil is so often hidden the details, or lack, thereof, we are concerned that this proposed Legislation would fund reentry efforts housed in the department of correction.

Moreover, the funds allocated the DLC, don’t include any mechanism for accountability. The terminology employed throughout this Legislation, speaks broadly about Community-based organizations, which in the parlance, of the Department of correction can mean anything from halfway houses to parole officers. As a result, we figured this Bill could merely shift funding around the department of correction, rather than meaningfully support formerly incarcerated people in their communities, as the intent of the Legislation. Similarly, the history of Justice Reinvestment Legislation and Connecticut and nationwide should teach us.

That funding technical assistance providers is not the same thing, as meaningfully investing in marginalized communities absence, specific language to specify, which communities will receive funds, which organizations in marginalized communities will receive funds, or which individuals will receive funds, we believe the Legislation must at minimum outline a framework for Community oversight. Without these specifications, or meaningful Community oversight, we feel this Legislation will fall prey to mistakes of past justice reinvestment initiatives in our work to solitary confinement, we 221 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

support the creation of a correction accountability Commission Staff largely by formerly incarcerated people that would inform the work of the proposed correction on buds a similar structure is necessary to empower directly impacted communities to take ownership.

Over Justice Reinvestment, who better to evaluate Community based reentry programs, and those who have actually experienced the transition from prison back to their communities. Thank you for your time and for facilitating a public conversation a real justice reinvestment in Connecticut.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sir. Questions or comments from the Committee, seeing none appreciate you being with us today. Thank you, next up will be Julia Wilcox.

JULIA WILCOX: Good afternoon Representative Stafstrom, Senator Winfield, Ranking Members and Distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Julia Wilcox, Manager of Advocacy, and Public Policy for the Connecticut Community Non-Profit Alliance, the Alliance is the Statewide Association that represents the non-profit sector community non- profits right essential services to over half a million individuals and families every year and employ 14% of Connecticut’s workforce, improving the quality of life throughout Connecticut.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and support a Senate Bill 987, AN ACT CONCERNING REINVESTMENT OF SAVINGS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE REDUCTION IN THE CORRECTIONAL POPULATIONS. I’ve submitted written testimony on several Bills on the agenda today, but I would like to focus on Senate Bill 987. We commend the Committee for introducing this important Legislation, the Governor has committed to the closure of more than correctional institutions is outlined in the initiative. These proposals will achieve savings of $15 million dollars in fiscal year 2022 and $42 million dollars in fiscal year 222 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

2023. However, the budget currently proposed by the Governor does not appropriate, the savings to further enhance ongoing unnecessary criminal justice reforms.

Senate Bill 987, will ensure the reinvestment of the savings into critical programs, that focus on diversion recidivism reduction prison alternatives, and support for victims of crime in keeping with a nationally recognized justice reinvestment model, my written testimony includes a link to the annual performance, report of Luis, Luis's justice reinvestment initiative, which illustrates the power of reinvestment in the overall success of criminal, justice reform community justice programs continue to play an essential role, in the ongoing success of reform in Connecticut.

Unfortunately, since 2007 Community non-profits have lost at least $461 million dollars in State funding that is not kept pace with inflation. At the same time, the demand for services has ever increased; you have my written testimony which defines these programs outlines the funding concerns. And also includes statistics garnered from the month the OPM monthly indicators and other areas, and I’d like to highlight just a just a few key points. Non-profit providers have worked tirelessly with their State Agency partners to continue to manage both the programmatic and covered related healthcare needs of both clients and staff.

The commitment of the non-profit provider Community greatly enhanced the ability of DLC, NC’s St to contain the coven 19 pandemic positivity rate in the communities and these are the very programs that would have the opportunity to provide a multitude of diversionary and reentry services as a part of Justice Readmission Reinvestment initiative in Connecticut so once again, we urge or supported Senate Bill 987 the ability of the State to ensure content continuation of the Community justice reforms that position Connecticut as a national 223 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

leader is greatly dependent on the sustainable system with services, as provided by the non-profit sector, and I would encourage you to review the supporting documents and data that I’ve included in my detailed testimony and we look forward to working with you on the implementation and thank you so very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Thank you very much, Representative pump.

REP. PALM (36TH): Hi Julie, and it's good to see you, I just want to thank you very much for your testimony and for the wonderful work of the alliance and all the different non-profits that you work with on. Have you any sense of how much the workload on increased since coven you know, on across the board in the non-profit world.

JULIA WILCOX: And I’m sorry, how much the workload.

REP. PALM (36TH): workload has had increased roughly, by I’m assuming your House, because of the pandemic.

JULIA WILCOX: Sure, with, so thank you so much for the question Representative and yes we've actually done some surveys, and we do have data that I’d be happy to share with the Committee in terms of not only increased workload, but sort of the increase in resources that have been necessary and the so much of the role of the non-profit's throughout this pandemic, has to be, has been to simply provide that opportunity to keep every individual within their programs and their staff as well to keep them safe and that's resulted in everything from providers supplying their own pee, when it was not available to cleaning supplies and keeping the halfway houses and facilities themselves print in CDC compliant and it's also meant that with quarantining and self- isolating some of the individuals in their care it's also meant bringing in additional staff at great 224 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

expense to the organizations, that is not necessarily covered in their contracts.

REP. PALM (36TH): Well, and I know that you're also working in devastated because of the chronic underfunding, so I really appreciate all the work, you're doing in your testimony today. Thank you.

JULIA WILCOX: Thank you so much. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative for the questions. Julia Wilcox, thank you for your testimony and for your research. Although I will say being compared or being behind the Louisiana on our reinvestment or, as others have suggested, today being behind States like Utah on clean slate. I think, certainly highlights, as much work as we've done on this Committee, how much more we have to do on these issues. So, thank you for being with us. Next up will be Callie. Hi.

CALLIE HEILMANN: Hi, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Representative Stafstrom. Nice to see you Senator Winfield, Senator Kasser, and Representative Fishbein, and all the Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Callie Heilmann, and I am the President and Co-Director of Bridgeport Generation. Now we are grassroots member-based organization located in Bridgeport with over 300 members and our mission is to strengthen civic engagement in ourselves and our communities so that we can dismantle systemic racism and corruption in our city and build the just, equitable and livable city, we know as possible. We are here, testifying in support of S.B. 987 in particular section nine that outlines the mobile crisis teams.

When George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis Police Officer in May of last year, it's an A shockwave through our nation and our State. After protest and political pressure, this Committee led the nation by passing the police accountability act unnecessary first step in fixing our current 225 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

policing crisis. But policing is not a crisis unto itself, it is part and parcel of the larger American legacy of racism that has persisted in this nation, since its founding. It is part of a structural system designed to control and keep black people locked out of opportunity and literally in bondage and black lives matter is a call for the liberation of black folks for the removal of the structural institutional and economic violence that has thwarted the progress of black people and the progress of our nation Bridgeport generation now is committed to that liberation and we see S.B. 987 as one tool for making social and economic equity a reality in our public safety and police accountability Committee held a space where Community Members gave testimony on their experience with violence and misconduct within that with the Bridgeport police department and spoke their truth directly to our know former police chief and other Members of the Bridgeport police department.

At this forum, a Bridgeport resident, who is both a probation officer and a mother, spoke deeply about the fear she holds for the safety of her 18 year old black son, who has autism. In her words quote he has an invisible disability and I'm concerned about officers dealing with black and brown children who have invisible disabilities, because they will become combative non-compliant to a simple request, what are you doing. And we all know that, her fear is justified the deaths of Daniel prude Patrick, Warren senior and our own Mubarak Solomon killed by a Connecticut State trooper, show us that armed police responses to mental health and substance abuse crisis can end and tragedy in fact, we heard from Brian Preleski the new Britain State's attorney earlier, who said that introducing a firearm into a volatile situation turns that situation deadly to transform our society to create a system of public safety that in fact keeps us all safe, we must shift our perspective.

226 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We must look at public safety through a public health lens and focus on addressing the root causes of Community violence. Whether it's star in Denver, or cahoots in Eugene Oregon cities and States across this country agree and are creating public health responses to Community needs that do not involve the police, and this is a good thing. But building a new system requires serious commitment and investment at the State level, and this is why we support S.B. 987, which will reinvest money into health care services that meet the needs of this moment, in particular, mobile crisis teams that will respond to 911 calls for mental health emergencies and will not require a police response.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, thank you, Ms. Heilmann.

CALLIE HEILMANN: Thank you three-minute mark.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Are there questions or comments from the Committee, if not Callie, I want to thank you for joining us and, obviously, for all of your advocacy, and work on behalf of so many important causes and issues in the city of Bridgeport. So, thanks for joining us.

CALLIE HEILMANN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Michael Askew.

MICHAEL ASKEW: Yes, good afternoon Representative Stafstrom, my hometown hero Senator Winfield, Representative Fishbein, good afternoon to you and Representative Palm and to all the other Distinguished Members of this Committee.

I’m Director of Recovery Advocacy for CCAR Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery. We promote recovery from substitutes now called by putting a face on recovery, and we do that, to advocacy education and service and I had the 227 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

privilege of speaking on this Bill on behalf of connect. You know, congregations organized before new Connecticut on behalf of new Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church in Norwalk. Last year, and certainly the year before and I do want to believe that, once again I know Representative Fishbein remember me talking about the fear, the fear factor, but I want to make the common sense in regards to this process.

Now that has shifted from paper to technology, and so here once again is a barrier that has associated itself to people, that are not computer literate, and what I mean is that, this I’ve worked for 19 years since 2001 actually, I started training people on educating them, on how to fill out this application to see car, we had monthly trainings and we still do that. And people would physically walk away from this process because, up until 2005 the application was 27 pages that was redundant, it was very few cars were being given in the State and see car actually sat with the Judiciary Committee, over a few years in 2005, some major change was made with the two entities be emerged the part of the Board apartment, board approval was merged, there was some processes that was changed with the application, you know the requirements was lowered, they had to give a right to why someone was being denied, they didn't do that before they just send your letter saying you didn't get it.

So there was a lot of changes made and I think now - - we're in a place now. We're -- because of this online application process I sat with three other individuals that works in the State through legal services initiatives and we spoke to the board and we share some of our concerns, with this online application. If it's not -- if it hadn't been for me, since June of last year, helping individuals, there would have been 22 people, that wouldn't have not gotten this part of Justice here, I’ve got six people calling me saying, thank you for this opportunity, because if you didn't help me, I would 228 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have been lost, and if you look on the website there's very little instruction, we share with you know.

Chairperson to call -- placing more information, so people will not feel threatened and fearful of this process, when they go in there, because when you go on that application online application. There's no direction, is no instruction on how to go through that process, so it's important that we understand and I’ll close with this that here, I am once again, a former felon never got the party, because I never needed to time to stop and get a pardon, but now that I’m retiring from the State of Connecticut represent stash from it all. I know that I need to do this process because I don't know what the future holds because I have a criminal record back in 1989 that felony and I do know that it may come to haunt me, so now, I must, but this is for people in this, many people, that I know and I close with this, that these criminal records, but they're just fearful of this stuff just fearful bad, they say you know what's the US I’m not going to get it.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you.

MICHAEL ASKEW: Thank you for letting me share, I think. We do have questions from the Committee. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I don't actually have a question, I just a must ask you want to let you know, I’m here always here, I just dealing with the kids, but I want to thank you again like I did the other day for the for the work that you do for a lot of people in the Community.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): And echo your point about the fear, I think it was last year, maybe the year before, but I think it was last year that I talked about the story of someone who, and I touched on a 229 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

little bit earlier, who would been good in the Community, for many years doing a lot of good work and had been rejected, and when he came back to the group, I was working with that rejection.

Just reverberating through the group, because many of them are doing some things to be better people that they weren't doing with this guy and the fact that he's rejected just took everybody off the I think a lot of people feel like you are actually making progress, but they just took everybody also that high horse that they were on and get a lot of damage, so I just wanted to thank you, let you know that I’m here let's maybe, and if you don't see me and Jeff, thank you for coming over and over again, do the right thing.

MICHAEL ASKEW: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Represent a fish but thank you.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Michael, nice to see you again.

MICHAEL ASKEW: it's good to see you, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And I do agree that there is a level of fear, but I, I have to admit that, there's a lot of discussion that I think creates the fear also you know I'll tell you. I think it was in my first term of the Legislature I met with somebody in my office on the Clean Slate Legislation and she said to me that the reason, why she was in favor of it, it was because she went to school, she had a drug serious drug felony situation that happened years ago, and she had changed her life, she’s going back to school, she graduated top of her class, and she wanted to apply to be a licensed clinical social worker. And she found out there was a statute in Connecticut That said, if you had a felony on your record you couldn't apply for that license and you know and, quite frankly. 230 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I didn't believe her I questioned her representations me and we ended the meeting and two weeks later, we had a public hearings before the Labor Committee on a different Phil and this woman came and she said, you know; I can't get a license, because of this law, she went and found that that statue and I felt very proud and what I met with her after I talked to her about getting a party and she gave me all of that, you know I’m fearful I don't understand the system. I don't know, if I’m going to be able to do it and I cropped her up a little bit and I explained a little bit about the system, and I said, you can do it, and you know you're not a victim of your geography perhaps a victim of the system that gave her an impetus you know a few months after that I was actually before the bar for departments of roles, representing someone who came out of the door.

But this young lady that I had met, and she was waiting for hearing and I said to her, I want to represent you and we went up to the table and I sat down with her, and you know I told help to tell her story, and she got the part in that day and I was very proud of that. And you know just last week, she emailed me and informed me that she's going to sacred heart university. It is it absolutely is beautiful, and that person wouldn't have had the impetus to file that application herself, if I hadn't sat down with her and explain some veiled some of that fear.

So, I look forward to hearing you know more about that fear perhaps piercing through that you know, I know, one of the things that the particular place that we add to hearing that day, the three people on the panel, they were up high on a bench, and the table, where the people are you know dressing them is low, you know just that in a room, it can be intimidating right and I recognize that everybody should be at the same level.

231 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

You know, because in the end, we are at the same level, so you know I’m sure you and I will cross paths, you know coming years and stuff, but certainly anytime you have a problem with the board that you would like to have worked out. I’m sure your eyes and ears, so thank you, Sir, for coming here today, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Representative Simms.

REP. SIMMS (140TH): Thank you, as the Chair and Michael, thank you for your advocacy, thank you for all that you do. I’ve known you for quite some time and pretty much my whole life and just to see your transformation and the work that you're doing now is just so gratifying to see on, so you know, if anyone is deserving of a second chance you certainly are, and I just want to commend you and thank you for all the work that you're doing in the State of the health.

Just a lot of our issues that are plaguing our Community, so thank you us to cheer, I appreciate it.

MICHAEL ASKEW: Thank you. Thank you Representative Simms.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee, if not use rescue, I want to join my colleagues, and thank you for your advocacy and your work and thank you today, thank you all right, let's keep this string of Bridgeport best going here and call up Attorney Frank Ricky to next, Tony. Riccio, good to see you.

FRANK RICCIO II: Good to see you Representative Stafstrom and you, Senator Winfield, Ranking Members, Representative Fishbein and Distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Frank Riccio, I am a criminal Defense attorney based out of the great State, the great City of Bridgeport 232 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Connecticut. I’m also President of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. The CCDLA has submitted written testimony on four Bills, in summary fashion, I’ll just touch on the first three, we support in house Bill.6594, Which is the Omnibus Bill that touches on various facets of the criminal law and we supported in full, there were certain.

Parts of it that the Connecticut sensing Commission and Judge Devlin have been working on, we support those in total, we supports Senate Bills.978 that raises, the a's raises the age of eligibility for preview granted to young offenders, from under the science supports it, so you support it, we also support Senate Bill, which we know is commonly called clean slate, we've heard many individuals supporting that. I won't repeat the written testimonial or we've heard today, but I think that, it is very beneficial eliminating convictions, is very beneficial for those who are just suffering the collateral convictions of the collateral consequences of their convictions, for many, many years from their youth into adulthood and beyond it, just it hurts so many people for so long. We do a post Senate Bill, this is the Prosecutorial Accountability Bill and for also for many of the reasons that.

The Committee her today, this proposed Bill in Assisi delays via will eliminate or vastly limited discretion that prosecutors currently have, I’m in court every day, I been to every JD, every GA and every court in Connecticut for the past 22 years, and I can tell you that every State's attorney that I know every prosecutor, I Know does use their discretion and uses it wisely, now do prosecutors always agree with me, of course not, that's part of the process and part of the system. But case evaluation is factor of and it's defended driven, it shouldn't be matrix driven and the concern is that if this proposal does become law these strict standards, that I fear will be applied will limit that discretion, it becomes a matrix, if a then B, I 233 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

think that severely limits the ability of a prosecutor to evaluate a case I could tell you hundreds of examples, of how I bring not only the information about the offense but the offender because that's what's important.

What's important is what is the defender characteristics, what are the offense characteristics and their history and their demeanor you know in their family. This, I think, in many ways, would eliminate that as a point of comparison in the federal system, the US sentencing guidelines are created in 1984 as a way to try to do something. Similar and the constant the upside of the US Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional in. At least as to it's mandatory application, now it serves an advisory function sensibility in, was certainly helpful in increasing transparency and accountability in the system, I don't know if it's been around long enough to really create the information or to collect the information that was necessary, I mean there wasn't much court 2020, so I don't know what numbers would be part of that, I think what's important is the individual treatment and the application of the law leads to fairness. Application through some sort of rigid application like a matrix is not the way to do, prosecutors must retain their discretion, I’ve been satisfied, it should continue that way and with that I’ll take any questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Frank, let me - - let me just ask you real quick on that last one on the Prosecutorial Bill. I guess you know whether agreed, and then I understand where you're coming from the matrix argument, but does your association of pose the entire Bill or just certain sections of it so, for example, sections of the Bill relating to adopting some sort of code of ethics for prosecutors, putting into statute something like the ABA model policy, is that something your association would oppose as well, or just kind of the metrics piece. 234 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

FRANK RICCIO II: It's more than metrics piece, I mean, I know that the division of criminal justice has their own way of dealing with issues that may come up in that regard. I was formerly the Chairman of the State-wide Grievance Committee in Connecticut and I know the prosecutors have been grieved and probable cause has been found, so there is, that available resource, if necessary, so we don't take any position on that. I would just say, I think it already exists, so I don't know if an additional level would be needed.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): For the questions, if no one trying -- Riccio, want to thank you for being with us today.

FRANK RICCIO II: Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, I think Stephen Dougherty has joined us.

STEPHEN DOUGHERTY: Yes. Ranking Members, Senator Champagne, Representative Fishbein, and Members of the Judiciary Committee thank you for this opportunity to testify for Bill S.B. 1019. My name is Stephen Dougherty, at the age of 18 months I became a ward of the State of Connecticut’s foster care system once you're caught in the system it's very hard to get out. My struggle with addiction began, when I was nine years old, these struggles were a combination of the physical, mental and sexual abuse, I experienced in foster care system and its institutions addiction was my escape. As a result of my addiction, I have a record of many misdemeanors and felonies, I was last release from prison in 2005, 16 years ago.

I have a resume that is impeccable, that can get me to the second and third interview, but a partner discovery of my criminal record employment is next to impossible. I began to build my small, one repair business in order to ensure my employment and 235 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

hopefully some employment for others in my situation. But the process is slow, at best I am devoted member of the 12 step recovery and have centered, my life around helping others we go there is. My recovery is my number one priority, I also volunteer with habitat for humanity -- making other organizations and I’ve been a manager of several men's recovery houses in New Haven Connecticut for the last seven years.

I recently began the task of applying for a part of the process has been intimidating daunting even with apartment coach in July, I will be eligible to submit my application and will do so. To ask for your support honestly S.B. 1019, that Connecticut as a victim, many of us now some struggle and some more hard work tonight, you will forgive us. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I want to thank you. Next up will be, Crystal Sherman.

CRYSTAL SHERMAN: Hi, good evening Chairman, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide testimony today, and I’m a resident of Canaan Connecticut, today I’m speaking in support of Bill.978. I appreciate the ability I’ve had today to listen to several Bills and testimony provided regarding our criminal justice system, and reference to Bill.978, there are multiple examples, throughout our incarcerated population that would demonstrate the growth and development changes of individuals, who have been incarcerated within the merging [inaudible] years as a State, we have moved away from referring to our correctional facilities, as gels.

With changing to a correctional facility, the purpose and goal we should look to achieve should not only be to demonstrate, and a name change, but and its regulations processes and procedures changes as well to correct individuals, who have been incarcerated. Furthermore, and support and passing 236 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Bill 978, we support the State's economic interest, by removing the State's responsibility to provide and support people incarcerated that no longer present a threat and can return to society and become contributing taxpayers to the State of Connecticut economically. These individuals with family support systems, when available, Community resources, and support can begin to contribute to society in a positive way to evolve, we must educate ourselves reevaluate and reflect understand forgive and move forward during testimony today, I heard a couple of Statements that lend to this one example was a prosecutors ability to reevaluate their previous decisions during a young career and acknowledge that they may not make the same decisions today, it is an important example that as we mature, we gain new perspective and understanding.

I rarely share my personal experiences, but feel that it's necessary in this forum. I can understand Bill 978 from multiple perspectives victim reformed person and family member, I have lost loved ones due to criminal vinyl violence, so I understand the anger, the pain, the devastation involved. I can also speak to the forgiveness work necessary for me to move forward, as someone, who has had not, so perfect past the criminal justice system in some cases can be discouraging overwhelming and frustrating and attempts to correct and change in order to rebuild.

CRYSTAL SHERMAN: As a family member of an incarcerated loved one, I have been able to promote significant positive changes for someone, who entered the correctional facility during those important emerging adulthood years. This loved one has moved from acting out negatively and fighting the system to evaluating corrections actions, and consequences.

In turn, this has moved to participating and programs utilizing resources and understanding the 237 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

expectation from the correctional facility society and family, the adolescent has grown into an adult, if as a State. We are dedicated to rehabilitating incarcerated individuals support of this Bill will allow those individuals to make positive changes and grow as adults to be reintroduced into society.

Thank you for allowing my testimony today, welcome any questions.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, ma'am. Are there questions from the Committee? Seeing none, I want to thank you for being with us today. Thank you. Next up will be Manuel Sandoval. Mr. Sandoval with us? Hello?

MANUEL SANDOVAL: Please, excuse me, because a little nervous. I’ve actually left my mind, what I have written I work, so did this on the fly Hello Center. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, and Distinguished Members of the Community, thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Manuel Sandoval. I’m hearing support with a clean slate Bill S.B. 1019 however I’m in support, of a more full and inclusive Bill that will provide for those, who have been convicted of a crime who have successfully completed this sentence and therefore Peter that's a society, the same quality of life as that which all of you, currently enjoy.

I see that as a previously incarcerated and currently impacted person, who has completely completed his sentence paid his debt to society and will continue to provide constant civil services to his Community someone, who has educated him, so become a professional and yet continues to wear a huge, huge letter, scarlet letter, because of the crimes that are committed when younger, is it right fair, no that's, not why I’m here. You're honest, it's time that Connecticut leads the way to bring the ancient judicial system of America into the 21st 238 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

century. If this has proven anything is that the system medical pressure has been in tech for century needs to change.

Last year I testified on the collateral consequences of my criminal history, what I didn't say is that, I applied for expansion, and complete pardons for my record I applied, for my part in twice, thus far, and both times , I was denied, I was provided some crazy excuse, that the seriousness of my offense wouldn't, be diminished, by the experiment on my criminal history. What does that mean, because as far as I can determine the offenses will always be the same a crime and the seriousness of those offenses.

Excuse me, I lost my place. Well, only the set up with that document to those that were there, in my case, my life change to the worst. Not to mention in my in my family's life changed even more and has continued to be impacted I have since made dramatic changes to my life, however, this current system is not conducive to this change, according to the system, once a crook, always a quote like if people never change their lives throughout the centuries, a clean slate would help me help people like me avoid reckless behavior by those believing to be superior behavior that would be detrimental to the lives of those making the changes it also avoid negative responses from their partner requests from the border partner for all that have demoralized into the people making the changes the honest.

You may be wondering how much it changes has this guy done well within the last five years I’ve received my peer support specialist certification. Youth development practitioner certification and went on to college I received my bachelor's degree from Springfield college I graduated Magna cum laude it was this class speaker at my commencement ceremony, I received my master's degree from the University of St Joseph and graduated top of my class, and again was class speaker have a volunteer 239 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

at numerous civic duties opportunities, I work with youth who run the risk of becoming disenfranchised.

On a daily basis, I currently work with homeless individuals, who want the majority of have a hard time finding a home through the fact that they have conviction, I recently have recent, student Lawson, when I when I place all this information on application, the border Pearl it doesn't matter because I received the same as previously mentioned. I have lost multiple job opportunities, all because of my record as someone who has lived experience in multiple aspects of my -- many people in my Community I should be able to help them here, however, I currently am unable to hold a license and clinical work, because I’m unable to receive my partner is time that the clean slate take the prejudice away.

I believe that the change that I want to see in this world, it's not right that we have a system built on the intent of creating disparities, when not one person is better than the other. One last thing the new partners parole process, which is supposed to be online seems to be a joke to me, I started doing my part and again and, from what I can determine there are no links to the recommend for your recommendations, no links for the background noise, for your fingerprints, everything has to be separate, and the actual application.

You know, you have to pay over-and-over for the different fees and, as if we haven't paid enough, let alone the fact that you are you're unable to get a good job, because the fact that you have a bad record a clean slate Bill would help me prove that someone that made a mistake is capable groovy demon so, or herself, I just pray that you guys all agree that you change starts with you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, thank you. We appreciate -- we appreciate your testimony. I think -- can understand your struggle with the current 240 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

partner process are there questions or comments from the Committee, if not, I want to thank you for being with a certain. Next up will be Erica Thompson, Thompson one go ahead ma'am.

ERICA THOMPSON: Honorable Senator Winfield, Honorable Representative staffs drum and distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. I am Reverend Eric Thompson the senior Minister at asylum hill congregational church at 814 asylum avenue in Hartford. HCC is a 150 year old congregation in the city of Hartford, and its current Membership around 1200 people has a long history of social action in the city. HCC is also a committed Member to the greater Hartford interfaith action alliance Gaya and I come to you today in support of Senate Bill.

As a person of faith, I believe that all people are made in the image of the divine and that human beings have incredible potential for growth and for transformation and as a leader in the Community, I believe that all people have value and worth, which is why I support SP, also known as clean slate. I specifically support the following inclusions in the Bill misdemeanors and class C D and E felonies, with the exception of sex crimes and family violence, a Bill that does not have a waiting period that exceeds, that of the current petition based system, a Bill that applies retro actively to all those, who have long paid their debt to society, but who have continued to be punished, this must stop and to build that includes strong anti-discrimination protections for people with the aforementioned criminal records.

Beloved our faith teaches us to treat people with human compassion and dignity, therefore, how can we honor this teaching when we uphold a system and laws that violates those very tenants. Many people who have served their time continue to be punished into perpetuity, they are excluded from any real opportunity, jobs, and housing and higher education 241 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

opportunities to build a life and contribute to their fullness with their fullness to our society and economy.

We have been fed a narrative of fear, built on racist beliefs that individuals with criminal records are going to destroy our communities, when, in reality, the opposite is true, those very individuals can help us to build more vibrant communities, if they have the opportunity to be a part of them, I strongly support Senate Bill and urge you to pass this Legislation, I urge each of us to look into the mirrors of our hearts and to recognize that, by grace and grace alone go I.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am, are there questions from the Committee, if not I’d like to thank you for being with us today.

ERICA THOMPSON: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Lisa Puglisi.

LISA PUGLISI: Hi, thank you for having me. The Chairman Winfield, Stafstrom, Ranking Members, and all Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for holding this hearing, and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak. And I am an internist, I’m a primary care doctor at Yale. Originally, though, from Connecticut and I returned to practice I direct a clinical program called the Transitions Clinic Program at Yale and we have also locations in Bridgeport and Hartford this entire program is developed to address the health needs of people, who are leaving correctional systems in our State.

I’m here to speak to you a little bit more about this and supportive Bill 97 particularly section seven which addresses. The hiring and role of previously incarcerated Community health workers this entire program that I run is based around this concept of hiring previously incarcerated Community 242 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

health workers into the health system to address the health needs of people, who are coming back to our Community.

Why in the world do we do that you ask, and it's because the health risks of people who have been incarcerated and return home are staggering, so not only do they have higher rates of chronic conditions, while incarcerated, but the control of essentially all chronic conditions after release worsens and the risk of death is astronomical, so there's a 12 times higher risk of death.

In the weeks following release from present than then in match people in the Community, there are very, when I teach medical residents and students, very few medical conditions put anybody at that higher risk of death. So, while we spend so much money to incarcerate people we then release them into the Community to die without adequate services to address their needs. In order to address that high risk and to engage people in care, we've designed this program we are a national program so we're in over 12 States. And the entire concept is finding an avenue to engage people in the Community health system through hiring previously incarcerated Community health workers.

And I am here to say, though, that is not just my personal opinion that this is a good idea, this is something that we have studied rigorously, and it's one of the very few interventions in the health system that improve outcomes both health outcomes and criminal justice outcomes for people after release, we actually did a big study in a study in Connecticut.

Looking at people, who came home to New Haven versus people who came home to Hartford and who engaged in primary care at our program, where they engage with the Community health worker. They had a much lower odds of they had a lower odds of returning to prison but specifically for probation and parole violations 243 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

and much less interaction with probation and parole which was cost saving. Additionally, we've studied and have lower rates of emergency room, utilization and hospitalization this impacts everybody in the Community, it has to do with health of families and Community Members as well, and also.

Costs and spending in the State, and so it is for these reasons that we find that Community health workers are actually one of the few. Evidence based interventions to help people engage and be healthy and live healthy lives, and not get reincarnated after release from prison, I’m happy to answer questions as well, I see my time is up.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): good job and time, I’m questions or comments from the Committee, if not, thanks for being with us. Next, I think sharing three minutes, we're going to have Judge Devlin and Alex Tsarkov from the sentencing commission to testify judged everyone, how are you. Just run your unmute, Judge.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Okay, can you hear me.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): We can.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Great! Good evening, thank you very much for having us testify here this evening, it's been a very interesting hearing, we are here as Representatives of the Connecticut sensing Commission to testify in favor of three of our proposals, that we have presented, we presented written testimony, I’m going to ask Alex star call our executive director to summarize the proposals and that'd be happy to make some comments after he finishes.

ALEX TSARKOV: Thank you, everyone and thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, and Members of the Committee. We submitted written testimony and it's on the different sections of two Bills first Sanibel. Section 38, which would reduce 244 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the maximum sentence for misdemeanor cases by one day, it's a pretty modest change in the law, but a significant one, given the harsh immigration consequences that could result from such a misdemeanor can misdemeanor conviction. And then we have hospital.6594, sections 25 through 28 sections 25 or 27 deal with 688.

So called drug free zone statutes, and that's what essentially reduced the zones around drug free zones around schools public housing and daycare centers from 1500 feet to 200 feet and then the last section 28 of the Bill deals with a sentence modification under current law in order to modify, sentence that's over three years, the defendant has to get an approval first from the State's attorney you know, in order to bring a case forward to judge. This section would increase the threshold from three years to seven years for a plea bargain cases and four sentences that are result of a trial. This would get rid of that requirement to get a permission from the State's attorney first those are all proposals and, though, we got to take any questions.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Let me know when you look at a couple of things, so the part of the motivation for the reducing that the drug free zone is that in our urban areas, basically, the entire city is within 1500 feet of a school daycare Center or housing project, I mean there's literally no space that's not covered by these enhancements which is three additional years in prison, if you're a convicted of a drug offense and one of these locations.

The idea behind the enhancing that ability of some of the seeker sense modification that we've been working on, that for a couple years now, and this is a joint agreement by the prosecutors and public defenders. That they thought, increasing the threshold, not to have a prosecutor act as a gatekeeper made sense, it's a five year gap between the time that you can make success of applications, 245 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

we think that will really for the most part, people would might get one shot to ask a judge to reduce their sentence, or modify their sentence they'd have to show good cause the process would be involved.

The victims would have an opportunity to participate in these hearings and, ultimately, with the judge's decision to make it, you know, make a call on that one way or the other. And with respect to the immigration change with respect to lowering the maximum sentence for Class a misdemeanor that's really a product of my view federal law going against, you know 400 years of common law, I mean the law in our country has been forever that a one year sentence marks that line of demarcation between a misdemeanor and a felony with the one year exact, when your sense being a misdemeanor regrettably under federal law and aggravated felony is a sentence of crime, the cases of one year or more, which creates a lot of them.

Inability to consider mitigating circumstances for people in Connecticut, who really are convicted of misdemeanors, so that's all I have to save any questions, I’d be happy to try to address them.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, I think we do have some questions by Representative fish but.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): They could Mr. Chairman, good evening, gentlemen, just wanted to focus on the contraction of the drugs, so aspect you know, I guess the underpinnings of that is to try and prevent those transactions occurring within a school area to children, or you know places services children agree that's the underpinnings.

Yes, okay. And I think based upon your presentation that you're saying that one size, doesn't fit all, because certainly a 1500 foot rule in Chaplin would meet that need for based upon your representation to the hundred foot wall in New Haven would not meet 246 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that be Correct. So, why not give the locality, the ability to make that determination.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, look, we have one State, we have one penal code, and part of the equal application of the law is that loss of the same in Scotland, or Chaplin, or New Haven, or Hartford, or Bridgeport, so I think it would be our system is a one penal code, for the residents of our State, and I think it needs to be consistent, now where you draw the line as a matter of policy, that the Legislature decides, but I think it makes sense to have a uniform standard.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But by to attracting it, aren't you eliminating a portion of the goal.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: I actually think, quite frankly, if you get to city blocks from a school in any area that I think sufficient to capture the real essence of this, which is to really not have drug dealing, happen proximate to schools, or daycare centers or housing projects. So, I’m not sure that the distance, I think, is I don't think we've enhanced that policy by expanded a distance, for when this first came into the lows 1000 feet and then it was increased to 1500 feet.

I will say one more thing represent Fishbein, that we have to municipal police chiefs on our sensing Commission and not only did they vote for this, they spoke endorsing this concept of reducing the drug free zone this had really bipartisan support and our condition.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And are those individuals from cities, or like rural areas or URBAN.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Both one is from door lock and one from poverty, so they represent both facets of our State okay well it's.

247 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Interesting, because I, you know I could, in my mind fashion a way that, we could deal with this to give your -- the locality, the ability, you know the law would just say you know transaction within a drug zone as prohibited by X, Y Z and then you know statute xyz says, you can have 200 foot. In a rural area and 1500 or vice versa 1500 foot in a rural area yeah 200 foot in a more URBAN area, let the town make that decision I just little conservative, you know just carte blanche taking it away, because I think it's not good with that, but I thank you for the discussion that was true.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): And, representative Dylan?

REP. DILLON (92ND): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony I was here for a while of that Legislation and it turned into a bit of an arms race, you know where it started out in the south, some feet with schools and then a few years later, someone else for that something else in our State and, it didn't seem to me that there was much thoughtful discussion of the causal relationship that was being implied and I guess, I wonder, because, we live with Jason, I lived in new the elbow and where Jason to Town that has much larger, lots by zoning then, then the Watson in the town, I live in.

And I wonder whether the discussion, whether when I’ve never really looked behind the sentencing folks that do you ever look behind it, to see where the justice is served, or whether any of our decisions that say, when it's 1500 feet would basically end up burdening, one group more than another.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, I can see, this has my experience as a judge, you know as a criminal judge for a long time, rarely, if ever have I seen a case, where drug dealers are targeting school children as to sell drugs to them.

248 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Now, there's this proximity which is legitimate public policy to foster and I'm not questioning that, but the idea that people are the evidence in the case shows, they're pushing drugs intentionally like lurking around school, or something. I’ve never seen that, and I’ve handled thousands of drug cases as a judge, so but it's I think, it's wise public policy, we just think is wiser if we narrow this down to a more reasonable proximity around these protected areas.

REP. DILLON (92ND): I understand that I don't want to engage and, you know and daycare centers always obvious from the street, you know, it could be at home, you know, and so, If you could end up zapping somebody, when they don't need another break in the world that I did you engage in any kind of map- making to see, what the impact would be in certain areas, when you were making your recommendation for 200 feet what.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: We had testimony in the Commission, which actually looked at the other issue, that is how much overlap, the 1500 feet zones would have in Bridgeport Newhaven, Hartford and that was more that than the measuring out the 200 feet, but Alice Can you help me out of that do we have any information, about what that how that 200 feet would impact of various series of our State.

ALEX TSARKOV: We do have some Apps and our presenter what can we can get that to, you know, originally these maps were done back in 2011,2012 around that time. When the Commission propose this first, and so you know we're bringing them back again, but we do have some information that we could get to. Essentially, what it shows is exactly we just haven't described was that all of our major cities within the drug free zone.

I live in the city of Hartford, I’m going to drop resolved by definition.

249 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. DILLON (92ND): Yes, I understand the logic of the schools, I think it got out of hand and I could be wrong, but I think, I think in New Haven, it was the golf course, that was specific to them, which is, in my District at the other end. So, theoretically then everyone to be out there dealing, but I don't think it's happening, and I thank you for your work, and yeah I’m just troubled about the underlying statute, I’m just worried that it doesn't result in them, in the just outcome. But, I know that isn't always, that isn't necessarily your role, you're looking at the larger picture, so thank you very much, and if you could get those maps that would be terrific.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Representative Dillon, and certainly a good point about the golf course, I think here in Bridgeport, it's fair whether Island Lighthouse and maybe the very tip of St. Mary’s by the sea but few and far between certainly. Next up, I have Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, good evening your honor, thanks for being here. Just, I just want to engage you, for just a couple minutes, because you're in, and I’ve been awfully quiet today, it's been a long day and probably going to be a bit longer evening for us, but I do.

First, let me tell you I’ve worked in narcotics, I’ve been a police officer for a long time, and I mean, I work in a suburban area, but, I’m inclined to agree with you that. In my experience, I mean it's not like you have a drug dealer standing on the side of the road, trying to push drugs to people on the corner, at least not where I work. And I also have seen in my career police officers, who have stopped folks just happens to be there, driving by the school, when they get pulled over and they get charged with his possession than 1500 feet of the school, I think we're sort of in agreement, that's not the intent of the statue right. So, and this sort of the reason I’m interested in talking to you 250 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

about this, because you said you've had several narcotics cases, before you is, because I think this sort of brings into a combination of several things that were discussed throughout his day, because when police officers do that, yes, it fits the corporate select I have the statute, I get that but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate use of it.

So, in your experience in the case that you've seen when police officers are doing that, where they're charging somebody possession within 1500 feet of a school and it's just coincidental that happened to be there, like you say, because they're just there's a school in every corner and some cities are the prosecutors doing a good job of sort of filtering that out, and saying I like, yeah, I get it fits, but we're going to knock this one out, or crossbow described, whatever you want to call it, because it's not the intent of the law.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, my experience, I would say that first off, I think, police officers charged at one is chargeable, which is, in most cases, because of the proximity of the face of the arrest, and the protected area. I would say to your first point, that this modified statute would also eliminate the situation, where someone was just stopped in a car and coincidentally near, when it's protected areas, that wouldn't be within the enhancement, they did have person would have to be intending to deal drugs at a location, not necessarily near a school, but at a particular location and then that would cause the enhancement, but as far as the actual practical application of this I think most prosecutors are reasonable, about it in the sense that you know they're able to not prosecute that we see this back, we looked at the stats on this, and the a lot of arrests, and not a lot of convictions on this enhancement statute, but you know it figures into the mix I think it's.

251 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

You know, overall, I think prosecutors are reasonable in terms of the way they handle this, that's what I’ll say.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): And thank you for that your honor. And it's the reason -- as you could probably gather, if you've listened to most of the testimony table. And you said it very well, I think that you know, we have one Penal Code, right in the State of Connecticut well, in fact, we have one set of statutes in the State of Connecticut, and we have to apply them.

To everyone, and the fact is, as I know my experience, I’m sure you know and yours and every attorney on this call knows that every arrest has its own unique set of circumstances with the offense the offender the circumstances, through which it became an offense and all of that. And when you talk about, you say it's good policy, and I agree with you and I’ll tell you in my experience that sometimes you know things happen that really people engage activity that should be, illegal and it's not and I found myself on many times, saying listen I’m not saying, it's, not that I agree with what this person did I’m telling you, it doesn't violate the law.

So, to have those policies for the times and somebody in maybe targeting school age kids to have it, there to be able to do it, but then rely on the good work that our prosecutors do to filter out each circumstance it, I think, is important and that's why we talked about you know the prosecutor discretion, or transparency, accountability, that we've been discussing today, I just think, it's so important for prosecutors to hold on, to their ability to take everything on a case, by case basis and try to see how it fits now, I’m wondering if you could comment on that maybe in this realm.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, look, I mean I was a State Prosecutor was a federal prosecutor and I 252 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

thought my job was exercising wise discretion that's really what I got paid to do. And so I think that's a huge part of the job, and I think you know we have in Connecticut, I think we're, we have good prosecutors that exercise your discretion wisely, so I’m in favor of prosecutorial discretion, I think as judicial discretion is part of our sort of independence of our of our system, which is a strong point.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Right, thank you and I’ve often said in you know, two decades of working in the system, it's not perfect, because you can't have a perfect system for everyone, just but it works well, and I’m glad that you said that and I just well I have your attention just want to make one more point, because I had had colleagues call me and they're concerned about juveniles being charged with this, but just so that my colleagues here know the Statue, if you're enrolled in that school the Statute cannot apply to you, it's already in the Statute that way, we agree on that.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: yeah okay.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): And you're on it, Thank you so much for being here, and you know I just thought it was a great opportunity to take your experience in sort of bring that whole much of today's discussion together, so I thank you for that and Mr. Chairman, I think he was well.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Howard. Representative Labriola?

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you judge Devlin for your testimony and thank you Alex I’ve talked to both of you before on these issues, thank you for all the good work that you do with the sentencing Commission.

First, on the one day change. Alex, I believe you, said it's a small change, but it would have you 253 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

know, a large effect, and I thank you judge for giving an historical context with regard to the common law about, the misdemeanors and the one year sentence Alex or judge, did you want to comment about how the one day would have such a large effect, even though it's a relatively small change.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Sure, I can start an analysis and supplement, we had a veteran of the United States army comment testify at our hearing a couple of years ago on this on this Bill on this proposal and he had gotten a conviction of assault and third degree, which is a class a misdemeanor minor scuffling got convicted of it and. He was in jeopardy, of being deported because of that and well, the reason was that the immigration judge, was not allowed to consider mitigating circumstances, because he had been convicted of what immigration status thought was an aggravated felony were in Connecticut we saw it as a misdemeanor punish it as a minister meter prosecutor as a misdemeanor but immigration judges have certain discretionary tools at their disposal, where they can, in my case, not in every case in the right case you know, maybe exercise discretion to mitigate deportation because of someone legitimately seeking asylum or legitimately is a victim of domestic violence or legitimately cancellation removal, that seems to make sense, so Alex did you add anything to that.

ALEX TSARKOV: Yes, I would just point out that you know. This would allow for greater judicial discretion, as you just mentioned just that one would also facilitate plea bargaining process in some way too, because some lower level misdemeanors. A difficult to resolve because of these issues right, you have a really low level misdemeanor let's say larceny forth that really should be resolved quickly, but because of the uncertainty of immigration consequences. It may be difficult to resolve and so, this does not prevent, you know, deportation, but it gives people a little bit more process, gives judges a little bit more to work 254 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

with. And it would adjust this inconsistency between the State Criminal Code and Federal Immigration Law.

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Yes, well, thank you and, through you, Mr. Chairman, I do think that the changing of the -- that particular Statute, that one day change is -- it makes sense I’ve supported in the past, I would support it again for the reasons that you both had just elicited.

Now, with regard to the drug-free zones, I think both of these proposals have shown once again to Rep. Howard's point, the importance of discretion with prosecutors, I know that's a big topic today about how critical it is that we not tank -- you know, tinker with the discretion that a prosecutor uses wisely in these cases, but with regard to the drug-free zone I do -- I have supported contracting the zone in the past, and I would support it again, because it does make sense, because even as in not only New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport but also Waterbury.

I’ve looked at those maps and it does, it covers the whole city and so perhaps to -- to -- to either one of you or both, isn't it true that when -- when -- when the police charge this crime of selling drugs in drug-free zone that in practice the -- the prosecutors don't even proceed, they might be used as a plea bargaining tool, but it's rarely actually prosecuted.

And so, it's kind of a [inaudible] and it's not even used as a tool. And so, in that sense, it kind of goes against the original intent, through you.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, there's certainly a big disparity between the number of arrests and the convictions, huge, and I think the convictions are largely drug cases that go to trial. And if it goes to trial, they add -- they add whatever charges that 255 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

can be added, which -- which is what prosecutors should do.

I think in the day to day negotiation cases, it can be used sometimes as -- as a plea bargaining sort of tool to the prosecutors have, but it's I think -- yeah, I mean, there's -- there's a lot of arrest on this and very few convictions, that's just a fact. So that's what--

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Right, so through you, Mr. Chairman, so, you know, we're not talking about making it legal to sell narcotics, we're just saying that this idea that the whole city is a drug-free zone is impractical, you know, as to how it's actually utilized and so wouldn't it make sense to - - to contract the zone.

I can say in my practice, 34 years of doing this as a Criminal Defense Attorney, rarely do you see -- I don't -- I can't remember no instance where the facts were that somebody, as you said, judges, was actually targeting -- you know, children, school children. It's just -- that's just not -- you just don't see it.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: I mean, you can get 15 years for dealing drugs in Connecticut, so it's not like it's a life sentence, I mean, just this is an enhancement, but I mean, we treat our -- so, yes there's a lot of ability to fashion appropriate sentences.

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Under the current law, even -- just on the regular possession with intent to sell or selling drugs statutes, right?

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Yes, yes.

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Okay, and then, finally, through you, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the sentence modification, I also support that proposal, I’ve talked to both of you about that in the past, I 256 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

think that makes sense, we do have to make some changes, Alex, as you were talking about currently you need the permission of a prosecutor if a sentence is more than three years, three years or more, and so this would change it, and I think you said, if it was a plea bargain, it would change it to seven years.

I’m just wondering if you would be open to some type of negotiation, if this Bill moves -- moves forward and you'd be -- you'd be either one of you would be interested in some change, but maybe not this exact change? Through you, Mr. Chairman.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Well, we certainly would work with the Judiciary Committee on any -- if they sought our input on anything regarding this Bill or any other so, for sure, we would participate and offer whatever assistance we could.

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, going forward, I would be interested in trying to see if we can fashion a solution to that sentence modification Bill. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you Representative and certainly, I think your -- your support for these proposal shows or indicates exactly the fine work that the sentencing Commission does in working to define consensus, you know, I think if I had if - - I had my perfect way, we would get to -- do away with school zone enhancements all together and there wouldn't be a -- wouldn't be a radius at all, but, I’m sure the -- the 200 or 300 yards was a -- was a compromise.

And that's precisely why we asked the sentencing Commission to look at these types of issues and come up with what should be nonpartisan solutions. Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Mr. Chair, and I won't take very long, because I know we have a lot 257 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

of people left to go. Judge Devlin, Mr. Tsarkov, thank you for showing up before and for picking this issue back up, I know you know that it's so many years ago I ran this Bill over and over again with various iterations on a theme, including the one that we're looking at right now.

And we just couldn't -- we just couldn't make progress, so I want to thank you for the -- for the work that that you've done on this, and hopefully, we can -- we can move forward on this. I think it makes a lot of sense -- well, obviously I do. I think it makes a lot of sense, I think it's good public policy and -- and I hope it prevails this session, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I want to thank you both for being with us today.

JUDGE ROBERT DEVLIN: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Councilman Ernie Newton.

ERNIE NEWTON: Thank you Representative Stafstrom and Senator Winfield and Representative Fishbein and Senator Kissel, and the members of this Committee. I came to testify on two Bills. One Bill is 1018 and 1019. 1018 is very important, and I think this Committee should support it.

And I’m speaking from a person from experience, not what I read. As you all know, I’ve had some issues and I’ve dealt with them. But you -- systemic racism always starts from the top down, never from the bottom up. And when you -- when you compare apples to apples, and I have to use this because I want you to see why we need to have checks and balances. In my case and in other cases of the Governor, a year in a day, five years, you cannot tell me and if you weighed the crime, if you 258 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

weighted it in justice because of systemic racism, nothing to do with the charges.

Recently, you all read campaign, something in the campaign. I’ve served 17 years in the General Assembly, never in the history of the State of Connecticut has anybody been charged criminally on campaign irregularities, never. Our prosecutors, our State's attorneys, there must be checks and balances. It costs the State a lot of money.

And it was overturned by the Supreme Court, because the Judge in the case did not instruct the jury the right way. So we're going to always have a two tier system, and I think our prosecutors, our State's attorneys ought to be held accountable for those kinds of things. And I’m not telling you something I read, I’m telling you something that happened to me, so it's something to look at and I hope that you all will look at.

The other Bill, 1019, is a Bill that's very important. And the expungement Bill is important, because I also wear the hat, I work for career resources. We have four group homes, four halfway houses, we have father programs, we have stems, so that we pay our men and women when they come out of prison for jobs.

I’ve given three work -- the three successful job fairs where people have gotten jobs, but there are men and women, as you and I talked about this Bill, who have been clinically-- who have been out of the system five years, three years, 10 years with a record still hanging over their heads. Now, the only time you should have an L is when you're doing life in prison.

But what you've said to men and women who have done their time, you really have a life sentence--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time has expired, if you could summarize? 259 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ERNIE NEWTON: Okay. I would ask this Committee to seriously think about a clear, clean expungement, because if you put it in the hands of somebody else, same thing could happen. So I thank you, gentlemen, for allowing me this opportunity and I can say Senator I’ve been here since 10 o'clock watching it, so it's been fun.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, thank you for joining us again. Are there comments or questions or members of the Committee? I do not see any, but I just like to say to you, thank you for joining us and, you know, offering some very expert opinion from your -- from your experience and for joining us by staying all day. So I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening, it's dark out now but still.

Next is Esther McCune, yeah, it’s Esther, I see Esther you -- and please, unmute, you have your three minutes.

ESTHER MCCUNE: My name is Esther McCune and I’m here to testify, because of a lecture I heard in 2016, at [inaudible]. It was delivered by David Simon, you know, the one who wrote that wonderful TV show The Wire, it was a long lecture but I took away one story. And this was above the young people of Baltimore, who gather on sidewalks because those little gatherings were like home to them.

It's where they were accepted, where they could talk and laugh, and unfortunately smoke marijuana. And in one swoop, their lives will end, for they would be arrested and they would be -- they would be shackled by criminal records and this prohibited from the getting good jobs, good housing and even schooling and, obviously, the story struck me because that was five years ago.

And I thought about it and realized that the same thing happens here in Connecticut. Earlier today, because I believe a whole day, the Mayor said that 260 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

these laws affect 7000 people and that only increases my grief. And I’m here, unfortunately, with no experience, just me, a 90-year old from a white Community called Glastonbury, but I bring all of my enthusiasm in support for this Bill, because a clean slate means that there would be relief for people with felonies, and it's very important for me to mention, anti-discrimination protection for those whose records will be expunged.

And I imagine when this Bill is passed, all the doors that will open for these people and for their families, they'll be able to get good jobs, housing will be better. Not only doors will open, their lives will open. And so I urge you to pass this Bill because, finally opportunities will rain down upon marginal communities. With the greatest of hope, I thank you for listening.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Miss McCune. Are there comments or questions, members of the Committee? Comments or questions? I don't see any, but I want to say to you, just you is good enough, you know, I’m on the cusp of 47, I don't know if I were 90 years old, if I’d be sitting here.

This is a very long day, so thank you immensely for -- for sitting here with us and offer your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening. Alright, have a great evening. We're going to hear next from Representative Hughes, followed by Charles Stango and then Cindy Prizio. Representative Hughes, you have your three minutes.

REP. HUGHES (135TH): Thank you, Chairman Winfield and Stafstrom and Ranking Members Fishbein and Kissel and the esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee for allowing me to testify. I am just so honored to go after Esther and her beautiful testimony which I echo.

I’m a -- you know, proud co-sponsor of 1018, which Bills on the accountability legislation that we 261 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

passed in 2019 and 2020, and I think it's a beautiful compliment to creating accountability on all levels, but I’m also really passionate about the Clean Slate Bill, and I -- mostly as a social worker and -- as I think about, we don't refer to the formerly homeless as homeless, we should not really refer to the formerly incarcerated as criminals or as convicts.

And when we create access to -- to economic justice, to safe housing, to treatment, we can interrupt to this cycle of harm and really create a trauma informed reentry program which, which I believe Clean Slate will help open up. I did want to say something about one of the unintended harms that our current system does wreaks on elderly.

Because we don't have-- create access to safe housing, one of the ways that we perpetuate a cycle harm is we put elderly family members in the position of having to be the only option often for - - formerly incarcerated coming out and that creates a cycle of economic dependency and puts older family members at -- at risk of financial exploitation, at risk of opioid dependency or medication exploitation, and elder abuse, and neglect, because people are trapped and have no economic justice and no economic access and no dignity and support.

So -- because we don't provide housing and if we could create more wraparound services from before -- before, you know, reentry to society through that very, very fragile period, we can interrupt this cycle of trauma and harm, and create -- and stop criminalizing poverty and the formerly incarcerated. So I support both of these Bills wholeheartedly.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much, Representative. Are there -- is a comment or question from members of the Committee? Comment or question? I don't see any. Thank you very much for joining us. And thank you for offering your testimony. I hope you enjoy the rest of your 262 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

evening. We’ll hear from Charles Stango, followed by Cindy Prizio and Sharon Dorne. I see Mr. Stango, good to see you again, you have your three minutes.

CHARLES STANGO: Thank you, Senator. Chairman Winfield, Chairman Stafstrom and distinguished Members of this Judiciary Committee, my name is Charles M. Stango. And I am a 23-year prosecutor who is currently the Supervising Prosecutor in GA22, Milford.

I’m also the President of the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors and I’m here today to express our opposition to Raised Bill 1018, AN ACT CONCERNING PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. And our written testimony cap is outlined, and we feel that the changes being sought in this Bill are constitutionally in-permissible.

But I want to take my time before you today to stress to you that should they be imposed, these changes would have profoundly negative effects on a day-to-day operation of our State's criminal justice system. The law of unintended consequences states that the actions of people, and especially Government, often have effects that are unanticipated and possibly contrary to their initial goals.

That's the case here. Proponents of this Bill believe that quantifying prosecutorial discretion into a global set of principles will enhance the quality of justice each accused person affected by our system would receive. As a veteran prosecutor, a line prosecutor who supervises three other line prosecutors, let me assure you that's not the case. In pre-pandemic times, my team handled between 125 and 200 cases per day, covering every type of case, other than those involving A and B felonies.

In every one of these cases, we go through an assessment which assist us in determining how best to use our prosecutorial discretion. Is this 263 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

something we should be prosecuting at all? If so, what are the proper charges or charges to pursue, what -- what does the victim want in this manner? Will this be the accused first conviction or, even worse, first felony conviction? Does this matter call for a period of incarceration, has the accused been incarcerated before?

In dealing with these and the endless other questions that arise in every case we handle, I always stress to my people that our job is simply to do the right thing in each case, while cautioning them that the right thing varies from case to case, because each one involves a different human being and a different set of unique facts and circumstances.

When I was going in front of the criminal justice Commission in April 1998, a lawyer, with -- whom I respected, gave me this advice, don't be afraid to help people, that's what it's about, you will have discretion in the GA to help people and he was absolutely right. Part of the allure of work in the GA, the front line, so to speak, is that you can help everyone involved in the case, both the accused and the victim.

And my most fulfilling moments of my job were when I can bring these two parties together to resolve the matter where everybody wins. In conclusion, I’ll leave you with the wise and eloquent testimony submitted by my friend and frequent adversary over the years, attorney Norm Pattis. One size doesn't fit all.

The standards of the prosecutorial accountability Bill are appropriate for an assembly line or a sausage factory, but not the halls of justice. I am requesting that you reject this piece of legislation, it will have consequences you do not intend, thank you.

264 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, attorney Stango. Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney Stango, good evening, thanks for sticking with us after what I’m sure it's been a long day for you, as well. GA22, you said you had three that work for you, is it fair to say is four prosecutors at GA22?

CHARLES STANGO: Yes, it's myself and three other prosecutors, yes.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Many people working at the Public Defender's office at GA22.

CHARLES STANGO: Well, they were in a big city flux right now, but I’m going to tell you it's the same amount, is maybe one extra person, there's -- there’s Head Public Defendant who handles apart A cases as well, and then there is now four they hired another one.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): So four prosecutors and four public defenders handling the same GA22. Now, of all the defendants that come in, they don't all use the Public Defender's office, right?

CHARLES STANGO: Right, I would respectfully say that our caseload is -- is all the cases and their caseload -- well, a larger portion every year, but not all the cases.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Anecdotally, how many the Public Defender's office handles?

CHARLES STANGO: Of those that are represented by Council, it is an increasing amount every year. I’m going to suggest to you that one out of every three to every -- one don't go to -- one of the every two has a lawyer. We do a lot of pro se individuals and of those represented, I would say 75% are represented by the Public Defender's office. 265 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Okay, so it's important thing that we just learned here in matt, right, because at GA22, which is similar to many other GAs, you have the same number of prosecutors and the same number of -- of public defenders, and then you add in special, and you add in private counsel, and you find that each case gets more attention, simply mathematically, from a defense side that does from the State side.

So when you consider the good work that you and your colleagues do, and because justice isn't always putting people in jail, right, sometimes justice is an ally, right? Depends on the circumstances

CHARLES STANGO: Representative, we go through a great deal of trouble work to avoid incarceration. Every threshold case that we have, whether it be the person's first conviction, the first felony conviction, whether it be the first period of incarceration, we try very hard to come up with a unique alternatives to forestall those threshold events in that person's life.

And -- and then, and I think I’m not alone in that, my jurisdiction is not novel in that, I think that's the mandate that we all operate in in the GA courts.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): And I -- and I would, in my experience, agree with you 100%, and I will -- I’m glad we had this exchange, because I think it outlines the underlying thing here that our prosecutors are trying to do a good job and to try to do the right thing that’s best for everybody and the interest of justice, whatever that may be, and the -- the idea that prosecutors are perhaps out of control, here and there, first off the data doesn't support that, we don't have it yet.

But more importantly, to your point, the defense -- the defendants are provided, you know, more resource to make sure that that doesn't happen, whether it be 266 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

a special, whether it be a private council or a public defender, and when you look at the -- the mathematical attention that these cases, that individual docket, gets you see that -- are imperfect system and imperfect as it may be, is set up to in every way possible to make sure that the defendant gets a fair opportunity beginning at pretrial. Would you agree with that?

CHARLES STANGO: Well, yeah, and that’s the way it should be, the accused has constitutional rights that we really make sure are preserved at every step of the way.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Right, and I agree with you, and I think that that was important information for -- for my colleagues to hear, and for me to hear, so I thank you for that, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you, as well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Howard. Comment or question from members of the Committee, comment or question? I don't see any, attorney Stango, thank you for joining us this evening, hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

CHARLES STANGO: You too, Senator, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Next we’ll hear from Cindy Prizio, followed by Sharon Dorne and then, Dawn -- Dawn Grant-Lockley. Cindy Prizio, you have your three minutes.

CINDY PRIZIO: Good evening Senator Winfield and all members of the Committee. My name is Cindy Prizio. I’m the Executive Director of One Standard of Justice, a Statewide civil rights advocacy organization.

OSJ works with men and women arrested or convicted of sexual offenses and their families. I also identify as a member of a justice involved family on both sides of the sexual harm issue. We celebrate 267 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the landmark Bill S.B. 1019, but we can't support it until it includes all misdemeanors and all C, D, E felonies.

Having been around the capital for the past seven years, I continue to hear language that discriminates against or excludes people with sexual offenses. As a side note, both people who identify as having received sexual harm and those who have harmed are stigmatized in this way. It's hurtful and it harms.

There's no sound reason to eliminate people on the registry, unless at the root of the proposal is the belief that sex offenders, the label, are a unique scourge they are. Rather, they are our brothers, sisters, spouses, mothers, fathers, our children, our friends, they can be you and me.

By the grace of God, go I. S.B. 1019, with these exclusions, lacks supporting evidence to single out sexual offense. It stigmatizes with extreme prejudice the men and women with these convictions. The stigmatization perpetuates -- perpetuates an inaccurate narrative to all Connecticut citizens that people with sexual misconduct are and always will be dangerous and unworthy.

World-class expert, Dr Carl Hanson, states sexual offense recidivism rates are low. Once convicted, these guys don't reoffend. The longer offense rate in the Community, the less likely to refend-- to reoffend, and within 10 years, the highest risk individuals are reduced to recidivism risk of low levels.

And we've got the robust data and the desistance data to support this, because I heard the conversation earlier with Commissioner Giles. So I asked everyone listening today, will you look at the sound robust data, will you meet us, get to know who we are, and correct the misconception that people with these convictions don't belong in 1019? 268 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

There's been prejudice within the Judicial system for over 400 years now, people with sexual assault convictions are the ones targeted now. We believe in forgiveness and restoration, without the carve outs that I’ve heard from so many on the call today. Justice for some is not justice--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Your time -- your time is elapsed, if you could summarize.

CINDY PRIZIO: Okay, I just wanted to say, I took a look at a very small city in Fairfield county, with about 68 people on the sex offender registry, because I’ve heard all day about the racial disparity and racial inequity. In Connecticut, we have under 10% of black people on -- in our population, and yet we have them represented on the sex offender registry at about 23%.

So in this smaller city, very mixed population, urban, we ended up with 38 people of color out of 66 people on the registry. And I just wanted everyone to know, 15 of those would have been eligible for 1019 if we -- if we put back sexual convictions and the reason that's important is that the--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Cindy, thank you, thank you. Representative O’Dea.

REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just pulled over to testify -- reflect I’m not driving while I’m asking my questions. Cindy, I just want to say thank you for your testimony. I know you've been in the capital a lot and as you know, I’m appreciative of our exchanges and I certainly will voice your concerns to the Chairs and the proponents and see what we can do. Thank you.

CINDY PRIZIO: Thank you, Representative O’Dea.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Representative O’Dea. Senator Haskell. 269 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I basically -- I want to echo what Representative O’Dea said, thanks for your advocacy Cindy. I did just want to give you an opportunity to -- to expand upon something that you mentioned briefly, which is that stigmatization really doesn't reduce harm, it actually could increase recidivism. Is -- do I have that basically right?

CINDY PRIZIO: Well, I don't know if it would it could increase recidivism, but what we've done as a society because, especially in America, we have the fear factor when it comes to sex. And -- and the fear, the -- the -- the emotion as -- as Senator Winfield would say, is that the public, and I’ve heard it on this call today by some of the legislators that we talked about people who have received -- received sexual harm as never being able to cross over, jump over the broom and recover.

That we see them as these lifelong victims and just the way a person on the sex offender registry, that no two are alike, or heterogeneous population. That victims or vic -- survivor victims all identify differently. I mean we heard from -- you know, we're going to hear from one of my members next who's going to talk about her story.

I personally can identify as a victim of sexual assault, but what we've learned from the experts and these experts also identify as being harmed or victimized is that, you know, my trauma is your Tuesday, we all feel and behave differently, so we can't lump everyone together. And -- and victims, by the way, get angry, because they’ve done the work and they -- they crossed over. So it's another labeling, that's all will -- we keep people in a box, as opposed to -- I remember one woman saying you're talking about me as if I’d be better off dead. I’m alive, I survived, I’m happy, I’m breathing.

270 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thank you so much Cindy. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Senator Haskell. Comment or question from other members of the Committee? Comment or question? I do not see any Cindy, I want to thank you for your testimony this evening, for sitting here waiting. And I also want to thank you for the work you've done to provide opportunities for myself and my colleagues to get further information on the research during this session, so thank you very much, I am sure I will hear from you shortly.

CINDY PRIZIO: Very probably.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Have a good evening.

CINDY PRIZIO: Thank you. Good night

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Good night. Next we'll hear from Sharon Dorne, Dawn Grant-Lockley, Sharmese Walcott and David LaGrand. Sharon Dorne, you have three minutes.

SHARON DORNE: Okay, so good evening everyone. My name is Sharon Dorne and I live in Southbury, Connecticut. I am a sexual assault survivor who believes in the humanity of all people regardless of their offenses or convictions. I’m a member of One Standard of Justice, a volunteer organization in our State committed to the civil rights of those accused of and convicted of sexual offenses in Connecticut.

I speak to you today regarding the Bill’s discriminatory exclusion of those convicted of family violence, nonviolence, sexual assault and sexual -- sexually violent assault. I do not support the language of that -- of this Bill, and I can only support it if it's removed.

As a survivor of a violent crime, you might expect that I would not be in support of this Bill at all. 271 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Instead, I believe that everyone with convictions of the misdemeanors and the felonies included in this Bill, without exception, deserve a path toward automatic erasure and a clean slate.

I cannot look through only one lens as a human being. People with sex offenses should not be singled out as unworthy of inclusion on this Bill. Though well intended those who crafted the Bill shows through misinformation and fear to carve out of the Bill C and D class felonies that are sexual in nature.

This population of men and women in Connecticut deserve the same path to erasure of their criminal records, as everyone else who would be eligible through this Bill. One Standard of Justice has been promoting and providing webinars to share the most up-to-date information that address evidence-based reform, recidivism rates, restorative justice practices and other current thinking on this complex issue.

If this Committee listens to outdated misleading information and buries their head in the sand regarding the evidence-based research available, then we will continue to have a flawed system based on fear that is only punitive in nature and waste time and resources. We punish those who commit offenses and we all understand what it means to do our -- do your time and pay your debts.

But when people with sex offenses are deemed irreparable and unredeemable, then we are also guilty, guilty of losing opportunities for honest discussion and true reform. There is evidence that most people convicted of a sexual offense remain offense-free in their communities and, over time become less likely to offense sexually than any individual who has never committed a sexual offense.

We must stop looking at them as lifelong threats to society. Think what could be done with our State's 272 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

resources if we shed the outdated, misinformed policies that do not benefit a safer Connecticut and keep this population from being treated with dignity. The same dignity, all of us want and need. We can't throw people away, we've got to stop.

Although it may be flawed, we have a system in place that deals with sex offenses. The system arrests, convicts, incarcerates, imposes conditions of release, provides therapy, and monitors then through a parole and probation, when do we start to provide a system that then considers that they have paid their debts and done their time. We cannot play God.

I’m fortunate to be a survivor. I’m fortunate that I’m a member of One Standard of Justice, and I have met and gotten to know men on the sex offence registry, who I’m privileged to speak for today, thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, Miss Dorne. Comment or question for members of the Committee, comment or question? I do not see any, so I want to take a moment to thank you for your testimony and for your continued advocacy, thanks for spending probably most of your day with us. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

SHARON DORNE: Thank you everyone.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Dawn Grant-Lockley, followed by David LaGrand and Nicole Johnson. Dawn Grant-Lockley, good to see you again, you have three minutes.

DAWN GRANT-LOCKLEY: Good to see you. Thank you co- Chair, Senator Winfield and Representative Stafstrom and esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Dawn Grant-Lockley and I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 1019.

273 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Connecticut is considered the second chance society. The question is who determines whether a second -- whether a person gets a second chance. I’m an ex- offender. I’ve been home since 1998. I graduated from Columbia University, with a GPA of approximately 3.8.

I am a licensed clinical social worker and I run a private practice in New Haven, Connecticut. I have not had any interactions with police since my release in 1998. I have applied for a pardon, full pardon four times, and each of the four times I’ve been denied full pardon.

When I applied for the third time, I was given what was called a provisional pardon or a certificate of employability, which is supposed to say that you earned the right to be employed in the State of Connecticut. I brought that certificate to several job interviews and they dismissed it.

When I did get a job, I was harassed by the property owner, one of the owners, because she said that she could not believe that her program director would hire a criminal like me, and that her staff feared for their safety. So who is deserving of a second chance, is it the young man who commits a crime to feed his addiction, is it the young woman who is -- has dealt with abuse and commits a crime because she needs to get away?

People -- black and brown people, are dramatically over-represented in Connecticut prisons. The world has watched the unfolding of events from a mass violence this past year, from the murders of a Ahmaud Arbery to George Floyd, to the protest for Black Lives Matter to even our own capital insurrection.

The one thing that they all have in common is that, far too often, black and brown people are persecuted and white people that are committing these crimes are granted a license to kill. Clean slate in a 274 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

small way helps to level that playing field by finally granting freedom to a population that are to this point has been overlooked. Because of my felony record--

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Miss Grant, your time has elapsed, if you could summarize.

DAWN GRANT-LOCKLEY: I’ve been denied employment, housing. We need to play -- pass a clean slate Bill this session that includes felonies. I and so many other people that have convictions deserve a second chance and we need to clean, strong clean slate Bill. Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Comment or question for members of the Committee, comment or question? I do not see any, I want to thank you, you've joined us many times, both in the General Assembly and -- and in other forums and I know I’ve talked to you, so I know how you feel about this whole situation, so thank you for spending part of your day helping us think about this issue, and I hope you have a great evening.

DAWN GRANT-LOCKLEY: Thank you, thank you for having me.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Absolutely. Next we'll hear from David LaGrand, followed by Nicole Johnson, followed by Amy Eppler-Epstein. Mr. LaGrand, you are unmuted, you have your three minutes.

DAVID LAGRAND: Thank you, colleagues. My name is David LaGrand, I’m a State Representative from Michigan and was the lead on our clean slate package that we passed last session. I’m the minority Vice Chair of our Judiciary Committee, which means I’m the Ranking Democrat, because I think you heard earlier in the day, this is a Republican-controlled House and Senate in Michigan.

275 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

This was my initiative, but it passed, and it passed bicameraly so that's worth pointing out, this is something I drove but it -- but it passed with a lot of Republican support. I want to thank you all, I’m very impressed with your level of expertise, for what it's worth. Obviously, I’m really heartened to see how many of you really are conversant with the key issues here.

The backgrounds you got here, you got defense lawyers, you got people from with law enforcement background, your level of expertise is really very impressive and I’m heartened to see it. I got to say, you guys are animals, like, what is it, seven o'clock at night and you're still here. I actually went and Googled like 10 minutes ago, like are these guys getting paid a lot more than me, and you're not, you get paid a lot less, so thank you for your public service, you're earning like half my salary.

And you're -- you're maniacs, like, there's no way I would hold a hearing for nine hours, there's no way David LaGrand would that be getting to hear you in the State of Michigan at seven o'clock at night.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Representative, you muted yourself.

DAVID LAGRAND: Sorry, hit -- hit the button, half the time I’m also Julia LaGrand because my daughter uses the computer, so look, I -- you've heard it all today, right? There are a couple things I want to emphasize before we get two questions, one is, in Michigan we used a very big data set, we were fortunate that the State police let us look at 10s of thousands of people who had expungements.

And so, our data -- our, you know, our conclusions are not based on small samples. When I’m having elevator speeches about criminal justice reform, I say, look, the evidence shows that there's really three big ways to reduce recidivism. One is have people get employment, one is to have them get 276 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

education, and the third, to have them get older, because I don't have a time machine, I can only work on those first two issues.

And this strikes to the heart of getting people employment. Now, as a fellow legislator, what I want my Community, what I assume you want in your community, is public safety. This Bill 1019 will emphatically be good for public safety, because it's going to lead people get employment, and that is a key to having people not lapse back into recidivism.

Can't stress that enough. Now, the other thing I will say, when I’m sarcastic, in a bad mood about -- about it -- the expungement process in Michigan, before we made it automatic, I said, look, you can have a bright shiny wonderful monument to justice, but if nobody gets access to it, that's hypocrisy.

We had a system that everyone would tell you was easy to access, but when the rubber meets the road, if only 6% of the people who are eligible to get an experiment, get it, that's not a system that's working. So I don't know what your numbers are in Connecticut, I’m not going to debate them, I don't have your data. But I will tell you our system was not onerous, it was not complicated and only one in 16 people who are eligible actually applied.

That is why automatic is so important. Now, feel free to be cautious and conservative about what you include and I think you have been, so I love your Bill, I hope you pass it and I hope you join us.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative LaGrand. I know I’ll tell you that if you take this hearing as long, you should have been here for the cannabis hearing, that went close, went till 12:30 or almost one o'clock in the morning. So I see a Representative Quinn who has a comment or question.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative LaGrand, it's good to talk to you, 277 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

good to hear from you. I spent three years in Lansing at Cooley Law School so I’m familiar with the area. How long has Michigan’s eraser -- erasure statute been on the books?

DAVID LAGRAND: The answer is, we only passed it last session, so if you're talking about the automatic piece we had expungement for decades. So -- so my little elevator speech in Michigan we did two things, we widened eligibility for the petition- based process substantially, so we used to have -- our statute was incredibly restrictive.

You can only have two misdemeanors in your entire life and not -- and if you had three, you're out of luck. So now we've moved to unlimited misdemeanors, faster application for misdemeanors, but in additional, widening the door for eligibility. We then also did the automatic, that has not taken effect yet, we've had conversations with a group called Code for America out of California about making sure we can actually get the data in place, so we got a two year rollout implementation period for this with some safety valves.

So if the State police throw their hands up and say, oh my gosh, we can't do this, they can have a six month -- they can have up to two six month extensions. Now this a coding issue, so I can't imagine that the IT folks can't figure this out in two years, but it's not the -- so the automatic is not going to implement for a full two years because we want to get it right.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. And does your automatic expungement applied to everything, or what did you take out of it?

DAVID LAGRAND: Absolutely not. So -- so in our -- first of all, there are some things that are ineligible. Murder has never been eligible for experiment, for example, right? Serious sex crimes 278 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

have never been eligible for expungement in Michigan.

By that I mean like forcible rape, I don't mean low- level things like, you know, over the clothes fondling but, you know, the serious sex crimes have never been eligible. Life offenses have not been eligible, to be precise, so we didn't alter any of that architecture, we did include some new things. I got lost. Rats. What was your question? Sorry, it's been a long day.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Just what -- what you excluded from your automatic expungement?

DAVID LAGRAND: Yeah, I’m sorry. What I -- what I used to talk about this in sort of Venn diagram or circle forms, I’m like, look, we should have a big circle that -- that is eligible for someone to examine, take a look at and see if they want to expunge, right, so more serious felonies -- lot of human beings look at them and you've got a parole board that does that.

But some things we shouldn't really have to have a complicated discussion about it. I mean, for example, misdemeanors, there's a reason we use the word misdemeanor for some crimes, because they're not as serious. If they were serious, we would use another word, that word is felony. Now not all felonies are created equal and so I know you had testimony from Sonja Starr, I’ve been watching all day. I -- Sonja is my hero, love her, but she pointed out, she couldn't remember whether it was -- automatic was 10 years, you know, 10 years and below or the things that were, you know, with whether a 10 year fell in and out of the basket.

I spent my summer vacation making sure that we included 10 years in the -- in the automatic, so that was our breaking point. Felonies that are -- that are sentenced by more than 10 years maximum are not eligible for automatic. Also, a fewer -- fewer 279 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

number, because there's a lifetime limit in Michigan, so we have a lifetime limit of four felonies by the expunged -- by the petition process, but only two automatically.

So those are -- I mean, I can tell you all day about the granular details, but those are -- so we made that distinction, because you know, sometimes it’s - - maybe it's a close call and you want someone to come in and have a conversation about how they've rebuilt their life and contributed to the Community and how they're really not a risk.

And some people you're saying like, you got to jaywalking in 1972, like, why are we still talking about this? Yeah, so--

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay, so for your felonies, though, at least the ones that you do cover, it's not what the actual sentence was, but what you could have been sentenced to?

DAVID LAGRAND: Correct. The statutory maximum. So I’m guessing and, look, I didn't -- I didn't have time to like read your criminal code, but I’m guessing, it's a rough overlay with your -- you go A, B, C D, E for your felonies, correct? So your -- your lower level felonies--

REP. QUINN (82ND): Yes, right.

DAVID LAGRAND: So sorry, I’m not -- I’m not an expert in your criminal code.

REP. QUINN (82ND): That's quite all right.

DAVID LAGRAND: But I should have given you my bio quickly, I was a prosecutor for eight years, I was a Defense attorney for 15 years, I’ve done a ton of work in restorative justice, lots of lecturing on it, so this is my happy place, like, I’ve spent my life working on criminal justice reform.

280 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. QUINN (82ND): Okay. All right, thank you very much, I appreciate your perspective from my former home for three years.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Quinn. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. David, you certainly perked me up tonight.

DAVID LAGRAND: I loved your questions all day and next you're going to ask me, do you have the Bill in front of you, and the answer is, yes, I’ve got it. Now you going to ask me, have I read it all, the answer is yes, but I haven't memorized it because it is 34 pages long, so you want to talk about parts of it, let's talk about parts of it.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): If I ever get to Michigan, you get -- you and I are sitting down together so anyway.

DAVID LAGRAND: And I own a distillery. So have I got a deal for you, you come to Michigan, I’ll give you a bottle of whiskey.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): There you go. Thank you. I’m -- I don't want to ask you about our Bill, I want to ask you about Michigan’s process which you seem to have a lot of knowledge about and that automatic erasure situation, you know, my concern is since that happens in a vacuum, it just happens automatically, how does your process deal with the situation where somebody has been convicted again within that time period?

DAVID LAGRAND: Well, they would -- they would get - - we have a system, we have a Statewide system called the Law Enforcement Information Network, so we all call it LEAN in -- in -- in the prosecutor's office we, you know, you do a LIEN check. So we have -- we have this data system, right, so if you 281 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

get -- if you got arrested, you're going to get a LIEN hit right away.

And that would then chuck you out of -- because, you know, to write -- if you write the code right, you get the conviction, it gets entered into LEAN. And then you've got a clock that starts, so the computer should be able to scrub you but should stop -- the clock stops if you have a new interaction with law enforcement, to put it simply.

So, you know, it's going to be coding, but, you know, if you got your data sets right, that should work. Now, I’ve heard you guys talk a lot about how you don't have the data yet. And you know, Lord knows, right, like the government is always 20 years behind private industry.

You know, Steve -- you know, Bezos can tell you how many people bought iPhones while we were having this conversation with two keystrokes, right? The government's always 10 years behind on IT, I know. But we ought to be able to get this done and the pieces do make sense, as far as I can see.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I don't know that in Connecticut we have that sets, you know, or the discussion -- I guess the other concern that I have is the individual who's -- there -- they're being investigated by law enforcement. FBI has just questioned them on some -- some issue and now we're going to erase, so how does -- does Michigan consider that situation, or it's just happen automatic, you know, because you could have an affidavit by the individual.

DAVID LAGRAND: Sure, yeah, well I guess I’d have a couple answers to that and, like my Defense lawyer response to that is, you know, an investigation that in 10 cents get you a cup of coffee, right, like if you right now called Homeland Security and said you saw anthrax in David LaGrand’s living room on a Zoom call. 282 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I can guarantee I’d have ninjas rappelling off my roof within an hour or two, that doesn't mean I’m guilty, right? So I think -- I think we got it -- you know, I think it's appropriate to look at convictions, not investigations, when you're talking about these kinds of things. So that'd be my first response.

And the second is, okay, let's talk about jaywalking, right? Okay, so David LaGrand is being investigated for money laundering and the feds are involved. Do you really care whether he's got jaywalking still on his record, I mean, you guys are only focusing on misdemeanors on low level felonies, so I think is appropriate to ask, are there low level -- is that low level felony basket right?

Do you want to pull some other things out of that and you're questioning earlier in the day was very much to that point, right, do you want to -- do you want to exclude child pornography charges from things that get automatically expunged, because if you don't, then it's going to get out automatically, and are there situations where you wish people had that information?

That's a totally legitimate question, but at some point, when you get down to disorderly conduct, jaywalking, you know, loud stereo, I mean, I don't know what your misdemeanors are in your code, but you know, if somebody's a criminal mastermind, who cares if they get their misdemeanors expunged, and I don't care that much if they get their -- if they get their low level felonies expunged, especially since this is a criminal mastermind who hasn't had any contact -- who hasn't any convictions for a long time.

So we -- we’re starting to talk about a pretty theoretical person, right, statistically the odds are lower, that that person is going to go out and reoffend than that, you know, a random jet -- 283 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

randomly pick number of your populations can offend in the first place. Well, when you get below the general population level, you got to wonder, why are we paying attention to these people so carefully?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, no, I appreciate that, very interested in the future discussion. I think, you know, Michigan’s a little bit different from here, you know, like in Connecticut if you have a pistol permit, and you're merely arrested for a felony, merely upon the arrest, your permits taken away. It doesn't have to be, you know, felony of domestic violence, or felony tax evasion, you know.

DAVID LAGRAND: Well, hey --

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): It’s different out there.

DAVID LAGRAND: We've all got stupid things in our codes, right, like we used to have worrying a duck. That was my favorite when I was at the Prosecutor's Office, like, how do you worry a duck, like audit its taxes? But, you know, it was on the books, right, so, yeah, there's always things to fix right?

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, thank you, I thank you for your -- your addition to this discussion here today. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

DAVID LAGRAND: Well I’m excited you're taking it up.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative Fishbein. Comment or question from other members of the Committee, comment or question?

DAVID LAGRAND: Going once.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I not see any, wanted to thank you Representative LaGrand for joining us and you certainly did perk us up a little bit.

284 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

DAVID LAGRAND: Well, I hope I get some continuing ED credits for this, because I feel like it was like -- it's really fun to see so many of the issues that you guys are dealing, like the proximity to school thing. You bet we had a whole discussion last year, like there's lots of overlay, but it was -- it's great.

And again, I want to compliment you guys, you are -- you are operating in an incredibly high level of expertise, better than 90% of the Committees in Michigan, if that makes you feel any better. Like you are a bunch of professional, smart people, and I am proud to be colleagues with you, like, really well done today.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, we’ll always take the puffery. Represented Stafstrom wants--

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Mr. Chair, that was going to be my question, whether the Judiciary Committee in Michigan -- I wasn't going to ask whether, you know, whether the Chairs are as handsome as there here, but it was going to ask whether they have 12 hour Public Hearings or not?

DAVID LAGRAND: No, no, no, only when Rudy Giuliani comes to -- town and then it's four. Even Rudy, we kept -- we kept him to four. Now, he was a super spreader but, like, even Rudy Giuliani. Really Rudy came in and said that there was a secret conspiracy of -- of generations of democrats.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Well, I don't want -- I don't want to get -- I don't want to get us off target, my -- my question was -- my question is really just about the length of time of the hearings, but I guess it’s just us and our old puritan ways here in Connecticut.

DAVID LAGRAND: You’re just masochists, yep, what can I tell you. All right. Thank you.

285 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you Representative. We will hear next from Nicole Johnson, followed by Amy Eppler-Epstein, follow by Indria Mitto. Nicole Johnson, I see you here, you have your three minutes.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Thank you. Good evening. I’m sorry- -

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): No, I was just saying good evening.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Okay. I’m reaching out to proclaim our support for Senate Bill 978, providing those serving long sentences for crimes committed before the age of 25 a chance of released on parole. My name is Nicole Johnson, and my husband and I have a son currently incarcerated. At the age of 18, he made a mistake he is truly remorseful for and was given a long sentence. I’m sorry. He was selected for the True program at Rusher Correctional Institution and this program has truly been a blessing.

He is humbled and he’s grateful to God. There are so many young men who were given long sentences when they were between the age of 18 and 25 years young. And this Bill will give him and others an opportunity to come home sooner and make a difference. He has learned various life skills to prepare him for the real world, he now knows how to manage a budget, handle disputes through communication, and learn how to confront his pat -- his path which required him to be vulnerable.

He was headed down the wrong path. He’s a completely different young man and I’m so grateful to God that he's currently being mentored by older prisoners who can relate to what he's been doing his life, has totally changed his life around. He now has a GED and he's -- he's matured. He's eager to 286 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

give back by helping others headed down the wrong path with his testimony.

His future is very bright. This is something we look forward to, and we are proud of his positive transition. Between the age of 18 to 25, that time -- it's a time in their lives where they're still growing to become an adult, they're not adults at that age yet, their brains are not fully developed. And science, it does back that statement.

Legislation has been passed in other States and has been successful, and it's financially irresponsible for us to continue to incarcerate low-risk individuals who don't hold a public safety risk, who can instead be contributing members of the State of Connecticut. We fully support this Bill, and I thank you for your time, please give them a second chance.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there a comment or question from the members of the Committee? Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Nicole, I -- you know, I want to -- I know it's an emotional situation, but I just want to share with you that I have a similar situation in my family. 23 year old young man sentenced to 20 years. And it's for motor vehicle situation. And while this young man has been incarcerated, he's become the chaplain for his prison, basically, he’s totally changed his life around and he's got his four-year degree and is going to get his master's degree.

You know, so -- you know, I can totally identify where you're coming from here, so it was a lot of Bills before us here today, a lot of language. What -- I think you said you're here in support of 987, right?

NICOLE JOHNSON: 978. 287 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): 978. And in particular, it's the portion that allows for the review of cases when somebody is sentenced when something was happening before the age of 25.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And is there any portion -- I mean, you know, I noticed on the list you're testifying for yourself, you're not here on behalf of any agency. So you're just a mom, I’m not diminishing you being a mom. You’re a mom.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Yeah, very involved.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I got it, and -- the language, you know, you -- you're totally comfortable with all the language, I just want to -- want to make sure, because I know you don't -- you know, you don't come from an agency or something like that and I don’t know if you had a lot of help with regards to this.

And I haven't heard a lot about this Bill today. I just want to make sure that this Bill meet your needs, you're fine with all parts of it.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Yeah, I mean, he was 18 years old, you know, when all this happened and, you know, just young and dumb, you know, hanging with the wrong crowd and the fact that he was chosen to be in the True program where they rehabilitate these young men, it truly has opened his eyes. And he's -- he's truly remorseful, but it gave him hope, that's what it did. It gave him hope.

So like I said, we’re grateful to God, we’re you know, a Christian family, you know, try to raise our kids the best we can, but at the end of the day, you know, they make their own decisions and, you know, he -- yeah, it was a tough one for him, but glory to God. 288 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, at some point you got to have faith that you've instilled in them, you know, the ability to make those decisions correctly, but they don't always, so.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Right.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Totally appreciate it. Thank you -- thank you for coming on.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Thank you, take care.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, thank you Representative. Comment or question from the rest Members of the Committee, comment or question? If not, Miss Johnson, thank you for joining us and one thing I -- I know by watching you is that he has a real support network and that is extremely important and I’m happy that he does.

NICOLE JOHNSON: Thank you so much.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you for joining us and offering your personal testimony, and I hope you have a great evening. We next have Amy Eppler- Epstein, followed by Indria Mitto, and then a non -- anonymous -- an anonymous person to testify. Amy Eppler-Epstein.

AMY EPPLER-EPSTEIN: There I am. Good evening everybody, and thank you so much for your energy and attentiveness to all the important issues before you, my name is Amy Eppler-Epstein, I’m an attorney at New Haven Legal Assistance and I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 1019, the clean slate Bill, and also to offer one important -- small but important amendment that has been submitted to you in writing.

So first just in support of it, I think you've heard a lot today about why clean slate is so important, one of the many hats I wear at legal aid is I co- 289 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

teach at reentry clinic with law students, helping folks in the reentry community, and I can tell you that just today in our class, we were talking about a new case we got, with somebody who has a conviction that is for -- some fairly minor connections that are 45 years old and are still causing problems, and although we generally focus on employment and housing problems, this woman is now having trouble getting custody of her granddaughter who is being sent into foster care because of this conviction on her record from 45 years ago.

So I just give you the example to say one of the many kinds of reasons that Clean Slate is so important is the incredible burdens that criminal convictions can cause in people's lives, housing, and employment, certainly, is what we see the most but in all sorts of ways. The -- the amendment that we are seeking -- this has been submitted to you in writing and testimony from two people, Rafie Podolsky from Connecticut Legal Services, and my colleague Ellen Messily in New Haven Legal Assistance, so the specific language that we're asking for is spelled out in both of those written testimonies.

Basically, what it is to do is to deal with two unintended impacts of the Bill as written, one regarding domestic violence cases, and the other regarding immigration proceedings. And, as you know probably, in our office we help all sorts of people, reentry population is one group of that, but we help a lot of victims of domestic violence, we work with people who have immigration problems, and so what this -- in terms of the immigration issue what you find is that even cases that are pardoned, erased, whatever, they still live on for the Federal Government and immigration issues.

You have to disclose your past convictions even that have been erased, and what we find is that people sometimes if they can't get records if -- you know, if this is from years and years ago, people don't 290 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

always remember what those convictions are, and if you don't report accurately, that could be the grounds to deny immigration relief and even deport somebody.

And so what this proposed language would do would just apply to erase records where the -- where the record still exist, but have not been destroyed, then so it doesn't affect the -- doesn't prevent the destruction of the erased records at all, but if they still exist, then asking that those records be available, number one, for a person to use themselves in their own immigration cases, or for their attorney, and number two, in domestic violence cases, it would allow the State's attorney, Family Relations Office and the victim of a domestic violence incident, to have access to a record of a non-domestic violence crime in the case when somebody's seeking a protective order, or if they need it in a immigration matter.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Miss Eppler-Epstein, if you could summarize?

AMY EPPLER-EPSTEIN: I think that is pretty much it, language -- so and we have a suggestion of where you might submit it, put it into the Bill, at line 173. The language, as I said, is in written testimony in two places, too small but important changes that really don't affect the overall importance of that Bill, but do -- will be very significant in domestic violence and immigration folks that we serve. So I appreciate your attention, if there’s any questions- -

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you very much. Are there comments or questions from Members of the Committee, comments or questions? I do not see any, thank you for -- for joining us and sticking around into the evening. Appreciate your testimony and hope you can enjoy the rest of the evening.

AMY EPPLER-EPSTEIN: Thank you so much. 291 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): All right, next we have Indria Mitto, followed by anonymous and Shirley Watson.

INDRIA MITTO: Good evening, Senator Winfield and Representative Stafstrom -- sorry if I said his name wrong, and members of the Committee, my name is Indria Mitto. I’m a discharge planner at Osborn Corrections. I worked for DOC for 13 years, my job there is a discharge planner. What we do is we help prepare inmates for their release from prison.

We help them to acquire skills programs that are needed for stability and successful rejoining of our Community. I’m here today to testify in support of Bill 987. My coworkers and I were very disappointed in the Governor's budget because of the lack of access to reentry services that the Governor has proposed in this budget.

Because of this, District 1199 has joined the Justice Innovation Coalition to demand that we fight for equality, for justice-impacted people in Connecticut, we demand investments of current and future DOC dollars into resources such as assistance finding and retaining housing, expanding medical and behavioral health services in the Community, funding criminal record erase and creating a 24 hour -- 24/7 mobile crisis unit to respond to people in mental health crisis.

This will help avoid criminalization and incarceration in the first place. Our demand to expand reentry service is a demand for racial justice. Statistics have shown the State disproportionately incarcerates people of color. The population we serve, people of every color, but especially black and brown, often have very acute medical and mental health needs. This means that, on a daily basis, I am constantly making sure inmates released from the facility have active medical orders, appointments, insurance, etc. 292 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We are -- we do assist them with social services, we don't actually activate the money portion of it or the social security, but we do point them in direct -- the right direction, so that they will have that in place as well. Our demand to expand reentry services is a demand for racial justice -- statistics -- oh, I’ve read that, I’m sorry.

Over the last several years, we have been cut to the bone, along with other critical medical and mental health services for inmates. We can't simply restore these services, we must expand the reentry services that people need, especially now that more individuals are getting released to the pandemic.

We need more support for people when they leave prison housing, employment, mental health, medical, bus passes, driver's license, jobs, only these things, Community support, will individuals have a chance to succeed. I see firsthand how the absence of robust reentry services for firmly -- formerly incarcerated reinforced structural racism. Because of the huge barriers and community -- communities of color face in terms of employment, housing, health care, and education, people of color who are leaving prison and making and trying to reenter their communities, lack of support system necessary to do so.

Making a situation even worse, these people have a dapple of nonviolent charges, like smoking marijuana. The system in our society have felt people, especially people of color, and send them to prison, prison is what happens when people don't have their basic needs met. And it also is what sends people back to prison.

We need the programs, the people to follow them, the people to encourage them in a system, so they can successfully-- please support Senate Bill 987, thank you for your time. I just want to add to that by saying that, I deal with people like Miss Johnson’s 293 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

son and when they come into the office, we try to encourage them, but when we don't have the resources to send them, it's okay to release them, but we still need these resources, because without these resources, without the money, with them cutting the budget, I mean, we can release people on day, but when you release them to nothing, what are they going to do but reoffend to support themselves.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you. Any comments or questions from Members of the Committee, comment, or question? I don't see any. Miss Mitto. Thank you very much for joining us, you provide us a very important perspective. Hope it -- hope it was okay to spend your day with us, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.

INDRIA MITTO: Thank you.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Okay, next we have anonymous, Shirley Watson, Harvey Gemme, Wanda Jofre, Mandi Smith and Tessa Bialek, Grace Ronayne. I don’t see anonymous, I don't see Shirley Watson, don't see Harvey Gemme, Wanda Jofre, Mandi Smith, I do see Grace Ronayne. So Grace Ronayne, you may unmute and you have three minutes.

GRACE RONAYNE: Thank you. Good evening, my name is Grace Ronayne and I’m a law student intern with the Legal Clinic at Quinnipiac University School of Law. I’m testifying in support of Bill 978. Bill 978 offers a chance for a second look at people’s sentence for crimes, as older teenagers and young adults, before their brains had fully developed.

If they have sufficiently matured, rehabilitated, accepted responsibility for their crimes, and reformed, they have an opportunity to begin to make amends in a different way, by contributing to their communities outside of prison. The Bill does not provide for automatic release, instead, it enables the parole board with important-- input from the State's Attorney's office, as well as the victims to 294 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

take a second look and consider whether early released on parole is appropriate.

We know from the hearings already happening for people under 18 at the time of the crime, that the parole board has been making these decisions carefully after thorough -- thorough consideration and detailed questioning. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that people who commit crimes under the age of 18 are less culpable and more capable of reform.

This informed our State's decision to pass public act 1584, promoting a second look for people serving long sentences for crimes committed as juveniles. We now know that the science animating the Supreme Court's decision extends beyond the age of 18 and our brains continue to develop beyond until age 25. Specifically, brain structures, including those involved in self-regulation and higher order cognition continue to develop and mature well into the MIDs 20s.

Individuals in their late teens and early 20s are less mature than older adults in several ways, including underestimating risk, reduced ability to control impulses and consider future consequences, and social and emotional immaturity. The late teens and early 20s is also one of the periods marked by the most neuro -- neuroplasticity of the brain, suggesting that individuals in this age group have a strong potential for behavioral change.

Connecticut would not be the first State to extend juvenile parole to older teenagers and young adults. In 2017, California passed a statute that extends youth offender parole eligibility to individuals who have committed offensive before age 25. Among other requirements, the Statute instructs the parole board in reviewing a youthful offender suitability for parole, to quote, give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles, as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth and any 295 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

This also happened in 2019 in Illinois, where the State enacted a statute, providing for parole review for people under 21 at the time of the commission of the crime. Similarly -- similarly, the review board is directed to consider, among other things, quote, the diminished capability of youthful offenders, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity of youthful offender during incarceration. In some, this Bill recognizes that older teenagers and young adults are, like juveniles, less culpable and more capable of change and they deserve a second look. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, are there comments or questions of members of the Committee, comment, or question? I do not see any. Thank you very much for joining us and offering your testimony. I hope you can enjoy the rest of the evening.

GRACE RONAYNE: Thank you, you as well.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): I see that Tessa Bialek hadn't been in is in. And you may unmute and provide your testimony.

TESSA BIALEK: I was here to support Grace who's one of the law student interns in our clinic. Thank you so much for having us, and I hope you all have a wonderful evening.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Thank you, and that was perfect. So next we have Andrea Lafaro, Rebecca Simonsen, Corrie Betts. Andrea Lafaro, Rebecca Simonsen and Corrie Betts. Thought I saw Corrie

CORRIE BETTS: I’m here, I’m sorry about that, I’m trying to -- I’m in two hearings right now, so--

296 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Well, you have your three minutes in this hearing.

CORRIE BETTS: And let me give it to you. Good evening Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel, Fishbein and the distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Corrie Betts, I serve as the Chair of Criminal Justice Committee for the Connecticut State Conference at the NAACP. The NAACP believes that a prosecutorial accountability Bill is long overdue.

There is no question in our minds that justice has been fleeting and many instances for black people who find themselves in Connecticut’s criminal justice system. Let us be clear, we do not coddle those who break the law, nor do we wish to make excuses for those who break the law. But what we do champion, what we do fight for, and what we do believe in is equal justice under the law, so I come before you today to state the following.

That an eight year term for State's Attorney is -- Attorneys is ancient concept that should be abandoned immediately and replaced with a four or five year term. And if four -- four years is good enough for a presidential term of office, then it's good enough for State's Attorney here in Connecticut.

Additionally, those who serve in these positions have nothing to fear at the conclusion of their respective term, if they are performing their job in a manner that embodies the principle of equal justice under the law. We support provisions of this Bill which mandates that State's Attorneys create Statewide uniform policies that will bring about consistency and fairness throughout Connecticut criminal justice system.

For far too long we have witnessed an uneven display of justice for individuals charged with the same offense, with similar criminal history, but reside 297 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

in different zip code. This Bill aims to create uniformity in Connecticut’s criminal courts, and we support ongoing training for prosecutors regarding racial bias, collateral consequences, sentences, sentencing alternatives for mental illness, trauma, and reentry.

As it pertains to implicit bias, I am reminded of a quote that says, in the struggle to overcome bias, there is no obstacles more entrenched or effective than the conceit that you're exempt. In closing, please note, it is not our intent to construct barriers that impede the mission of our State's attorneys, but if the truth be told, communities of color and black people, in particular, have a long documented history replete with the failing of criminal justice system towards our Community.

And those we seek to hold accountable on this Bill are as much to blame for the history of -- as police officers and other law enforcement officials. So we unequivocally support this Bill and, more importantly, we support the national movement to hold the law enforcement community accountable as it pertains to the policing of our communities and the implementation of law in our criminal courts in Connecticut. Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, appreciate it. Are there any questions from the Committee? Seeing none, appreciate you being with us.

CORRIE BETTS: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Ken Okwuosa.

KEN OKWUOSA: Okwuosa, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry about that, Stafstrom is not an easy one either so--

298 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

KEN OKWUOSA: It's not, it's not, I’m glad you said, I was -- I was going to mess it up, but I’ll try not to. Co-Chair Senator Winfield and Representative Stafstrom and esteemed members of the Judicial Committee, I’m testifying in support of the S.B. 1019.

My name is Ken Okwuosa, again. I have a background in criminal justice and human services and I am a retired adult probation officer after 26 years of service. I am currently a Community health organizer and a business owner. I still for a probation officer, community health organizer and business owner who employs people with record.

I’m here simply to support S.B. 1019. As a probation officer, I witnessed firsthand how my clients lives were negatively impacted and stigmatized by the criminal records in the workforce. 20% of my clients have special conditions of probation, which directs them to seek and maintain verifiable employment, meaning that they have to go out, get employment in the system that has created multiple barriers to sabotage the opportunities to gain employment, to begin with.

Furthermore, in -- if my clients fail to secure employment by the end of the year, probation terms they are most likely to get re-admitted. The system continues to promote and uphold continued mass incarceration, even after they -- they are released from prison. When this records fellow people forever, it hundred percent has a negative impact, because our clients are often immediately disqualified from employment opportunities, based solely upon the criminal records. They sometimes engage in criminal activities to supplement the lack of income.

There are not healthy alternatives. Oftentimes people give up trying, simply because of concerns pushed by by the systems. This is the real threat to public safety. Public safety is threatened when 299 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

there are no equal employment opportunities for everyone. Employment discrimination targets and continues to suppress this marginalized communities.

As a business owner, I believe in second chances. I employ people with criminal records to work for my company. My best workers they have felony records, they are my most appreciative, hardworking, reliable employees. I am providing resources and employment to them so that they can have a normal lifestyle for themselves and their families.

Crime is caused by poverty and lack of resources. If we remove these barriers and create equality employment opportunities, crime would definitely go down. As a community health organizer, I have also witnessed the impact that criminal record have on many loving, dedicated, parents limiting the ability to provide basic needs for their families. When you have food, housing and employment, crime will go down. Let us move forward with this S.B. 1019 Bill of -- and forward -- moving forward to create employment opportunities for everyone and advanced public safety. I want to thank you guys for your time tonight, and I want to thank you for the hard work you do to the Community, and let's keep going forward, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sir. Questions from the Committee? Seeing none. I want to thank you for being with us. I think Rebecca Simonsen is with us now.

REBECCA SIMONSEN: Yes.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Go ahead Ma’am.

REBECCA SIMONSEN: Good evening, Co-Chairs and members of the Committee, my name is Rebecca Simonsen and I’m the Vice President at 1199 New England. Our union represents 26,000 healthcare workers, approximately 3,000 of which deliver care within DMHAS and DOC. Our union brings together 300 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

working people of every color but our Members are disproportionately black and brown and the vast majority are women.

1199 members provide critical safety that services to our most vulnerable residents, and I come before you today to testify in support of S.B. 987, but with one addition. Let's be honest, we live in one of the wealthiest States in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we are also among the most unequal and racially segregated. Some people in Connecticut have access to every kind of benefit the State has to offer due to their zip code, class and skin color, housing, education, quality healthcare, decent employment, mental health care if they need it, etc.

Yet other people in our State are not afforded those same resources to thrive, purely because of the extreme inequalities of race and class and gender that we have allowed to skyrocket over the last few decades. And when society, like others have spoken about, when society does not meet the basic needs of working people, especially working people of color, it vastly increases the chance that they will wind up in prison.

The absence of a robust support system also prevents the formerly incarcerated from reintegrating safely into their communities. A person leaving prison is 12 times more likely to die in the first two weeks of their release than a person in the general population. Connecticut residents with the criminal record face over 550 systemic barriers to reintegration into society.

And our policy choices are the key way for us to finally address systemic inequalities that lead to such horrifying outcomes, and in this historic moment, District 1199 has joined with organizations like ACLU, the Coalition on Homelessness, the Transitions Clinic and other organizations to advocate for what we're calling justice 301 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

reinvestment, so that we take a step towards -- so that we take a step towards putting an end to the disastrous system of mass incarceration and reverse the decades of austerity and segregation that have hurt all of us.

This Bill funds an expansion to the DMHAS-run mobile crisis unit, a critical jail diversion intervention, so that anyone across the State experiencing a mental health emergency can receive mobile crisis services 24/7/365. And we have seen the need for these services skyrocket during the pandemic. This Bill would also expand reentry support services within DOC and DMHAS by adding reentry health care workers to help them prepare for their transition to connect individuals to existing reentry services in the Community and to target support for the specific populations that have fallen through the cracks.

And along with the housing, community health care and other investments, these targeted reinvestment add up to what is really not just piecemeal reforms, but would represent really a paradigm shift by addressing the ways that the criminal justice system has harmed people and expanding the lifesaving services that people need. And the one edition that we would make to--

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, if you could just quickly -- is it in your written testimony, cause we're at a three minutes, could you summarize it?

REBECCA SIMONSEN: We just advocate to add a clean slate.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Great. Thank you. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. I want to thank you for being with us. Next up will be Asti Jackson.

ASTI JACKSON: Thank you, Co-Chairs Senator Whitfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members 302 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Senator Kissel and Representative Fishbein, and esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee, I’m writing in support of -- I’m here in support of S.B. number 1019. I am Dr Asti Jackson, I am the Co- Chair of the Criminal Justice Reform team of Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut, with Phil Kent, I’m a resident of New Haven, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and I support Senate Bill 1019, for the automatic erasure of criminal records.

Mass incarceration has had real ongoing consequences -- consequences, not only on people who are incarcerated, but also their families. My father was incarcerated for over a decade in federal prison. I always thought he was the one being punished by doing time in prison, but I was being punished as well, I did time too, time without him.

In the 11 years he was in prison, I matriculated from the fifth grade to my senior year in college, he missed my elementary school graduation, my high school graduation, and my college graduation. I remember all of those times. Even when my father left prison, he was still -- he's still have to do time, he had to wait for permission from his parole officer to leave the State and wait on numerous occasions for employers to deny him a job because he was labeled a felon.

Even after finishing parole in 2018, he's still waiting for his time to end, for his time that he can actually get a job that pays a livable wage and get real independence, a life similar to the one he had before prison. I’ve shared my story many times, I even shared my story here in front of the Judiciary Committee two years ago in support of 2019’s clean slate Bill. It doesn't bring me any joy to have to tell my story again in support of another clean slate Bill, because the State of Connecticut still hasn't passed a clean slate Bill.

303 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It's frustrating, because there are a lot of people who will possibly be impacted by this Bill, and they have been waiting a long time, especially those kids in the State of Connecticut who have an absent father, because of criminal justice involvement. In fact, more than half of the Connecticut State prison population are parents. These are parents who may face barriers to employment, housing, and higher education upon release.

And we know that the current position -- our expungement process, it cannot get takes too much time, justice delayed is justice denied. With S.B. 1019, Connecticut can strengthen its the economy and prove public safety and advanced racial justice. The time to pass clean slate is now because we don't have time to wait any longer, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Asti. Any questions or comments from the Committee? If not, Asti, I want to thank you for all of your advocacy and work and organizing on this Bill over many years. I mean this in the nicest way possible, I truly hope this is the last time you have to testify before this Committee on this Bill.

ASTI JACKSON: Hopefully. Thank you. Thank you so much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, thanks for being with us. Next up will be Brendan Bernicker.

BRENDAN BERNICKER: Yes, thank you Representative Stafstrom. Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Brendan Bernicker and I’m here testifying on behalf of the Challenging Mass Incarceration Clinic at Yale Law School.

Our Clinic has submitted written testimony supporting S.B. 978, which would make people who committed crimes when they were young adults ages 18 304 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

to 24 eligible for parole. Out of respect to the Committee's time, I will not repeat our testimony here, I’ve been on Zoom listening to the hearing today for a while. And I’m glad that I called in early, because the very first witness, Chief State’s Attorney Colangelo, said in response to a question from Senator Winfield, but a different Bill, that there are people he sent to prison 25 years ago, who he would not send to prison today.

Now I’m not sure if Mr. Colangelo was thinking of anybody in particular when he made that comment, but I was. I was thinking about my Clinic’s clients, because in the Mass Incarceration Clinic, we represent people who are serving long sentences and trying to have those sentences reduced. Through this work, we've seen firsthand that many people in Connecticut and Connecticut prisons don't have to be there.

They've been successfully rehabilitated and continuing to incarcerate them hurts them, it hurts their families, their communities and it cost the taxpayers more than $60,000 dollars per person, per year. Now this Bill would extend parole eligibility to many people who are incarcerated for crimes that they committed as young adults, including crimes that caused real and significant harm to their victims.

But the question for this Committee is not whether these individuals deserve to be punished, every one of them will serve at least 12 years in prison before even being considered for parole under this Bill. The question for the Committee is also not who, in particular, should stay in prison. The question for the Committee is who decides who stays in prison, and how should we decide who stays in prison?

Because when we categorically deny parole to a group of people, we can't consider individual evidence about each person. And we can't hear directly from 305 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the victims, instead, we make decisions about who stays in prison based on our assumptions about what typical members of a group are like or what a typical victim wants or needs. As Seminar Champagne asked earlier about victims, I want to address those concerns.

I’ve had the opportunity to read all the written opposition to this Bill. And some of it -- some of it indicates that victims would oppose this Bill, specifically the testimony from the Judicial branch of External Affairs Office. But victims aren't a monolith. This Committee has heard powerful testimony today, including from Amber Vlangas who bravely shared her story of being raped, while she was serving in the US Marine Corps.

She's a victim of a serious crime, but she told the Committee that denying restoration is not justice to victims and she said, quote, it's a disservice to survivors to create broken people, end quote. She also pointed out that victims and survivors are often the same people as offenders, our Clinic has seen this firsthand. Many of our clients have been victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse, and other violent crimes.

This doesn't excuse their behavior, but it certainly helps to explain it. Expanding parole is not about silencing victims. Before somebody can receive parole, victims have an opportunity to make a Statement and be heard. Instead of assuming that all victims want the same thing, and that thing is to see people continuously punished, regardless of their level of rehabilitation, this Bill would allow victims to express their particular wants and needs, but to have those weighed against the public interest and the interest of an incarcerated person and their family.

Now, I’ll end with this, for somebody testifying in support of a Bill, it's always nice to be able to come in and say truthfully that passing the Bill 306 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

will save taxpayer money, reduce crime, and reduce racial imbalances in the justice system. And for the reason set out in our written testimony, we believe that S.B. 978 will do all of those things and that's why I will support the Bill -- that's why we’ll support the Bill.

So I’ve read the entire Bill and testimony against it and I’m prepared to respond to arguments against it, or to answer any questions you have about my testimony, definitely the clinic and the Bill itself, but I also recognize that it's late. And so, I’m happy to make myself available to Members of the Committee over the next few weeks as you consider this Bill, you can feel free to contact me using the address that's contained in our written testimony.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, thanks for being with us.

BRENDAN BERNICKER: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Andrew Clark. Andrew Clark.

ANDREW CLARK: I’m here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, go ahead, sir.

ANDREW CLARK: Thank you, good evening, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom, Senator Kissel, Representative Fishbein and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Andrew Clark and I’m here to support the concept of justice reinvestment as outlined in Senate Bill 987.

It was nearly years ago in this very Committee that Connecticut began its bipartisan journey towards justice reinvestment, one that was grounded in the belief that our State could realize both a decreased prison population and increased public safety. At 307 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that time it was Raised Bill 5211, an act conserving-- concerning prison overcrowding, and with its final passage, Connecticut not only became the first State in the nation to commit to such concept, but has led the way in thoughtful and meaningful justice reform ever since. And the results of this work are clear, a prison population nearly half of that in 2004 and crime rates at 60- year lows.

Yet there's still work to be done, the one promise of justice reinvestment that Connecticut as never truly realized, is that of reinvesting savings in the very communities most impacted by incarceration in the first place. And that first year of implementation, the Legislature used savings from the termination of an $11 million dollars per year contract for up to 500 out-of-State prisoners and Wallens Ridge State prison in Virginia to reinvest in reentry services, much of which went to State agencies to administer.

Also in that Bill was the creation of the requirement of reentry -- strategy again to produce -- produced by State agencies. For multitude of reasons, the momentum in these early provisions did not bear out to a full realization of the promise of reinvestment. That and further reducing recidivism creating even greater public safety and making individuals and communities most impacted by the justice system more whole.

The spirit of this type of reinvestment is once again outlined this time in Senate Bill 987. What I would suggest is that, learning from the past, we strongly encourage the consideration of a corresponding and no less transformative systems change to the support of the reinvestment to ensure the spirit of these investments and that are supported over time.

It would again transfer a significant portion of the ownership to Community reintegration to the very 308 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

places that are most invested in its success. And I’ll end with this, over the last few months, I’ve been part of a research team composed of experts from the University Network for Human Rights, the Institute for municipal and regional policy, and with assistance from a number of students, we produced a white paper.

The white paper is entitled Connecticut at the Crossroads and there's a link in my testimony, which I submitted earlier, it's 105-page document that outlines the strategies and nearly 300 stakeholders have signed on to the letter. Happy to answer any questions and again, very happy for the moment Connecticut is now to realize justice reinvestment.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sir. Questions or comments from the Committee? If not, thanks for being with us.

ANDREW CLARK: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Jorge Guzman. Good evening, Sir, how are you?

JORGE GUZMAN: I’m good. May I start?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): You can, please.

JORGE GUZMAN: Good evening, Chairman Winfield, Co- Chairman Stafstrom, and members of the Committee, my name is Jorge Guzman. I was raised in the Salvation Army as the minister’s kid, moved all over the United States, and I was always open to give a helping hand to anybody.

Like the slogan says, heart to God, hand to men. When I was 16 years old, hurricane [inaudible] hit Puerto Rico. Me and my dad went out in the middle of the hurricane to rescue a neighbor, and those following days, my family and I started cooking three meals a day for over 2000 people affected by the hurricane. Later, we moved to Connecticut and 309 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

9/11 happened. My dad and I were volunteering 12 midnight to 12 noon shifts helping the men and women assigned to the clean up and at ground zero.

I always grew up helping my fellow man and I never got into any trouble. Today, I am on the public sex offence registry here in Connecticut. I made some mistakes and I have taken responsibility for them. I have been offense-free for nine years and with the support of friends and family, I was able to find stable housing and I’ve have a stable job as a manager for nine years now.

My boss treats me like family. My journey on probation wasn't always easy, with its restrictions, I did receive violations and I did spend some time in jail. But without hesitation, my boss took me back. The violations weren’t for anything serious, just for things not -- a person not on probation would take for granted in their everyday lives. For example, I was playing Pokémon Go, while I was on probation. with a group of adults and because I was playing on my phone, I was violated my probation.

My -- and my marriage ended because my ex-wife cannot take the pressures of probation and her son's biological father using my offense as a weapon against us. Recently, I was fortunate enough to receive early termination of probation, but not in time to save my marriage. I have been offense-free for nine years. I have been back in the Community, I have only one year left on the registry, I have a nonviolence C-class felony that, unfortunately, this Bill includes because I have a sexual offense. Why shouldn’t I be afforded the liberties offered by this Bill?

Why shouldn't I have the same opportunities for automatic erasure of my criminal record as anybody else as a nonviolent C-class felony? I would like to live my life on hold to buy -- from my past mistakes, I have paid my debt to the society. When will enough be enough? 310 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank -- thank you, Sir, appreciate your testimony and sharing your story with us. Seeing no questions from the Committee, next up will be Lori Stewart.

LORI STEWART: Good evening. -- Stafstrom, Vice Chairs Kasser and Blumenthal, Ranking Members Kissel and Fishbein, and esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Lori Stewart, and I’m testifying this evening, as in my role as Legislative Liaison for the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference in support of the concept of Raised Senate Bill 1019.

As the public policy office of Connecticut’s Catholic bishops, the Connecticut Public Affairs Conference supports the concept espoused in Raised Senate Bill number 1019, namely, erasure of criminal records for certain misdemeanor and felony offenses. The Conference supports the goal of this legislation, but leaves final resolution of these initiatives to persons more experienced in criminal law to establish the boundaries of the criminal activities to which the final legislation will apply.

Catholic teaching affirms the purpose and goals of our Judicial system, we are called to protect public safety, promote the common good, and restore community. Furthermore, the Catholic community itself is called to believe as our faith instructs, that justice is required for both the victims and convicts, but not vengeance.

On the national level, in the year 2000, United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, called the USCCB, published a statement entitled Responsibility Rehabilitation and Restoration, a Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, which noted the following, we are all sinners and our response to sin and failure should not be abandonment and despair, but rather justice, 311 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

contrition, reparation and return or reintegration of all into the community.

Proper reintegration of former prisoners aims to address recidivism, which improves public safety and helps former offenders to become productive members of our Community. The USCCB statement also advocated for, quote unquote, new approaches that move beyond slogans, such as three-strikes-and- you're-out or excuses of the past, such as criminals are simply trapped by their background.

Crime, corrections and the search for real Community require far more than policy cliches of both conservatives and liberals. Raised Senate Bill 1019, the clean slate Act can be one such new approach. Thank you for allowing me time to speak this evening.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Miss Stuart. Questions from the Committee? Representative Palm.

REP. PALM (36TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Good evening, Miss Stewart. Unless I’m mistaken, it seems as though in your testimony you sort of went out of your way to avoid talking about the specifics of the Bill, you said you appreciate -- you approve of it in concept and intent. Was there any language that you objected to or were you just applauding the overarching goal?

LORI STEWART: Just applauding the overarching goal, thank you for asking for clarification.

REP. PALM (36TH): Okay, thank you, I appreciate it, that's it Mr. Chair, my only question.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, and thank you, Miss Stewart. I have sat on and lead this Committee for several years now, this is the first time I can recall the Catholic Bishops weighing in on a matter of criminal justice policy before us. I -- I think it's refreshing and welcome and. my thanks to you, 312 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Archbishop Blair and Bishop Caggiano for taking the time to be here today.

LORI STEWART: Thank you so much Representatives Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next we will hear from Kathy Williamson.

KATHY WILLIAMSON: Good evening Co-Chairs Senator Winfield and Representative Stafstrom, and Ranking Members Senator Kissel and Representative Fishbein, and the esteemed members of the Judiciary Committee. I am here speaking tonight in support of Senate Bill number 1019.

My name again is Kathy Williamson, and I am a resident of Bridgeport. This Bill is particularly important to me and the Community in which I serve. I am the Assistant Pastor of Mount Aery Baptist Church located in the Hollow section of Bridgeport. In this capacity, I am keenly aware of the limitations that many in our Community are faced with due to previous records.

In addition, I am the retired superintendent of the Bridgeport Juvenile Detention Center where I served the Judicial branch for over 20 years. In my role as Community leader, I have sat with many black and brown men and women as they -- work to complete the process of erasure, as well as sitting with them before the Board of Pardons and Parole.

The concept of erasure has the propensity to disproportionately affect black and brown people. Having worked with juveniles in completing their applications, many had become discouraged and had previously given up on the process. Whether inability to understand the application, or the inability to complete the process, many had lost the will it through. In addition, I have sat with individuals who had to present before the Board of Pardons. I’ve witnessed one individual in 313 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

particular be denied a pardon with no reason given. His crime was over 20 years, the individual has not committed another crime and had served his sentence 15 years ago.

Serving in his faith Community for at least 15 years -- the humiliation -- in a packed room to plead for forgiveness for crime committed over 20 years prior and having already served their time for the said crime, is traumatizing at best. These individuals become victims of a system that was set to be a place of rehabilitation.

Automatic erasure of demeanors and certain felonies would provide those having served their time an opportunity to return to their community -- communities as productive citizens. A criminal record should not become a life sentence. I am extremely -- the strides the State of Connecticut has made since I began my career in 1990. But I am aware of the work that's still left to be done.

Mass incarceration has had an impact on our Community. It has had ongoing consequences in Connecticut, disproportionately hurting black and brown communities and burdening hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents with a criminal record. For these individuals, it presents barriers to employment, to housing, occupational licensing, and, in some cases, education. Bill 1019, Connecticut can strengthen our economy, it can improve public safety and advance racial justice, I encourage all members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle to support this very important measure, thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, ma'am and certainly appreciate your -- your service in the city of Bridgeport and work at Mount Aery. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, appreciate you being with us. Next up will be James Jeter.

314 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

JAMES JETER: Hello. Hi. I got three minutes. I can go, okay. I’m sorry. I want to apologize for the noisy background. I’m at church and my pastor let me use the office. I’ve been watching all day, I just -- I didn't want to miss an opportunity. To the, Co-Chairs Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and esteemed Members of the Judiciary, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of S.B. 978, a Bill that would raise the age of incarcerated persons who commit an offense before the age 18 to the age of 25, from the age of 18 to the age of 25, to receive a second look in the form of parole upon completion of 50% of their sentence.

What we -- what we are here today to begin deciding is whether we believe in trust science or are we driven by other belief systems, systems that are entangled with racial undertones, antiquated understandings of crime and punishment, as a catch all for social ills and failures. Societal failures to invest in wellness of our poorest and black communities.

We have, I believe we approached this subject of brain development with trepidation and biases. The science has given us the facts and the fact is that the brain is not fully developed in cognitive function until the age of 25. Yet we have decided to act in opposition to the science, up until this point, we're only allowing the second chance for those who have committed offenses under the age of 18.

This decision, this line in the sand, is a line of comfort and a line that one day history will Judge us on. We have not come to this age conclusion based on facts, yet on comfortability and that in itself is a scary place to make decisions from. I argue that the prolonged problems of our country and State are problems that have gone ignored for the comfort of many at the pain and expense of the marginalized in our country and State. 315 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

And yet, here we are with a chance to begin to rectify and only our lack of compliance and for the acknowledgement of the science by codifying in law., we have a chance to begin to examine this one law as a part of rectifying the fallout and consequences of other broken systems that have harmed black and brown communities for -- well, for a very, very long time. I heard the first gentleman this morning by Chief State Attorney and he mentioned that the practices that were -- were taking place in his office at the beginning of his career, the thought processes and the culture are now shifted, that these things are no longer done.

However, there are people who are still in prison who were sentenced under this -- this -- this culture, under these practices. I myself am a benefactor of the current law, I was -- I was convicted of a crime at the age of 17, I was paroled under the current statue at the age of 36. I know - - I neither woke up on my 18th or 25th birthday and got it. I don't think anybody did.

It took -- it took me to my late 20s to fully start to see the breath and width and depth of my harm to my city, into a neighborhood and, more importantly, to a family. And it took me to my early 30s to begin to start to understand how the pain I caused doesn't negate the pain I’ve been dealt and live with, and that both have space in me, and all of me needs to heal in order to begin to do the work of restoration.

And furthermore, I find it borderline abusive of the State to ask the men and women who give and pour themselves out, day in and day -- day in and day out, and the true [inaudible] for a -- for incarcerated person under the age of 25 to build programs and aid in their successful transition and in the same breath ignore that these lifers themselves, who would have been in these units, they existed when they were from the prison, the 316 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

overwhelming majority of these mentors came to prison under the age of 25 and none of them resemble the child or young adult that came into the system.

And we trust these new person, the person they become, these adults who have made the transformation, that can only come in age of self- reflection, that seeds growth, to be the greatest influence and aid our young returning population, and then we turn around that same trusted breath and tell them that they are unfair for society still. We have a chance-- I’m done, Sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Yeah, appreciate your -- your testimony and certainly your -- your enthusiasm and for taking the time out of your church service to be with us for a couple minutes tonight. Questions from the Committee? If not, thanks again. Next up will be Lonnie Spalding. Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Spalding, you're on mute.

LONNIE SPAULDING: Hello.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): There you go, Sir. Yep, go ahead, yes, three minutes.

LONNIE SPAULDING: Right. Good afternoon, good evening, I appreciate you giving me the time to speak. Senator Winfield, and Representative Stafstrom and members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity for me to testify. I’m here to speak in support of S.B. 1019, clean slate.

My name is Lonnie Spaulding. I’m a member of the Mount Aery Baptist Church and the leader of the men's ministry. I like to just tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up in New York City and, most of the guys that around me were ex-offenders, and when I was young, I turned to a life of crime, selling drugs and stealing and stuff like that, and by the age of 17, I was sentenced to a sentence of three to five years in the Youth Detention Center. 317 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

I stayed in at the Youth Detention Center until I was 21. I knew that when I returned back to the Community, I would have a criminal record and that stigma of having a record will likely prevent me from finding good jobs. So I decided to start my own business. 35 years later, I’m still in that same business that I started decades ago, restoring leather and vinyl interiors.

As an employer, I hire people with records, they make -- they have been excellent employees for me, and I hire them because I think that a person has made a mistake and paid his debt shouldn't be shunned forever, because they made a mistake. The record shouldn’t keep them from finding employment, getting loans for progress to go to school and finding decent paying jobs.

I believe in redemption, I believe in my employees’ redemption, and I believe in the redemption of 10s of thousands of black men across Connecticut, who have been over-represented in our criminal justice system, and currently struggling to rebuild their lives because the burden of a criminal record. I’m doing my part to help make redemption real for myself and for my employees and for my Community.

Now I ask you, my elected leaders, to do your part, help Connecticut make redemption real for the crime of mass incarceration, I would like for you to pass clean slate, thank you for your time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sir, appreciate your testimony and advocacy. Questions or comments from the Committee, if not, thanks again. Next up will be Dianne Daniels.

DIANNE DANIELS: Good evening everyone, to the Honorable Senator Winfield, the Honorable Representative Stafstrom and distinguished Members of the Joint Commission on Judiciary, my name is Dianne Daniels and I am the intern Minister at the 318 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

Unitarian Society of Hartford, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation with over 200 members from around the region. I’m also the CEO and founder of DivaStyle ministry and I’m one of the original members of the Connecticut pardon team.

I worked with its founder, former Norwich city councilwoman Jacqueline Plowden-Karen from 2004 until 2014/ I’m here to testify on behalf of an in support of Senate Bill 1019 concerning the Board of Pardons and Paroles. When we started holding informational sessions to give affected persons information on the pardon process, it wasn't simple, it wasn't clear or easy to apply for a pardon.

We leaned heavily on Jackie's personal experience to help guide others through the process and we worked hard to help them stay hopeful about reclaiming their lives. The part and process gives hope and a way forward for people who have successfully completed their period of incarceration, their parole and or probation and they've gone above and beyond, in not just staying out of trouble, but giving back to their community.

The people who attended our information sessions were grocery store clerks, administrative assistants, teachers, managers, corporate directors, entrepreneurs and some elected officials, all looking for help. A criminal record is a serious hurdle to overcome and passing Senate Bill will help people who need and deserve a second chance to receive one.

The provisions of the Bill, including the parole orientation program for eligible inmates, formal training for members of the Board of Pardons and Parole, provisions regarding expungement and erasure of not only the criminal record, but copies of those records held by background screening providers or similar database services, and prohibiting companies that have purchased records of criminal matters from disclosing those records are critically important. 319 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

We all make mistakes, we perfectly imperfect human beings mess up sometimes. A mistake that result in a criminal record should not become a life sentence. An individual who applies themselves and completes the arduous process of applying for and receiving a pardon should not be forced to deal with the sword over their head in the form of old records that are not updated or expunged when their pardon is received.

Passing Senate Bill 1019 will generate a new sense of hope for those members of our communities who work for and deserve a second chance and a clean slate, with which to move forward in their lives and to fulfill their potential as human beings. I strongly encourage you to approve Senate Bill 1019. In faith in love, I am Dianne Daniels.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am, appreciate your testimony and certainly work with the pardons team as well. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, thanks for being with us.

DIANNE DANIELS: Thank you very much.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Adam Osmond.

ADAM OSMOND: Good evening Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and distinguished Members of Judicial Committee, I’m here to some testified in support of Senate Bill 1019. My name is Adam Osmond, I’m a Connecticut resident, and also a fellow of the Paper Prisons Initiative, led by professor of law Colleen Chien. And we submitted our report Connecticut second chance pardon gap, which -- which we did analysis 407,000 people with criminal records in Connecticut.

I’m also testifying as someone who personally dealt with the injustice of Connecticut criminal justice. More than a decade ago, I was persecuted for 320 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

something I didn't do. In 2008, I was arrested for larceny, when Connecticut law claimed that I didn't pay for tickets that I cashed at a store. This was 100% false, this was also the only time that have ever been arrested.

The prosecutor kept my case in Court for almost two years and after running out of money, I pled guilty to larceny misdemeanor and [inaudible], in order to close that chapter. To my surprise, the prosecutor decided to punish me for life. I was given an illegal sentence of five years for perpetration of misdemeanor. I was told to have -- I have to report every month and I did that for five years, every month, and never miss an appointment.

Was shocking money legal expert was also that I was Court ordered not to ask any documents related to my case for five years, I believe this was done in order to cover up the wrongdoings until that statute of limitation run out. During those five years that I was serving the illegal probation, I lost my business, my child, my house. My wife and two young daughters were forced to move out of the State because of my financial condition.

I eventually became homeless, because I -- I lost my house. After finishing the five years of probation of illegal sentence Connecticut lottery and prosecutor were not finished with me yet. They claimed that I had $912 dollar bonds to pay after I finished a five year probation and they arrested me again for validation of probation and threw me in jail with a $50,000 dollar bond. This was the only time that they ever -- I was ever told that I was violating the probation. Thankfully, a new -- new Judge took a look at my case and questioned it, why was I given five years of probation for in the first place, because that's illegal in Connecticut.

She released a new with no bond and asked the prosecutor to come to Court and explain what happened. A few weeks later, the prosecutor agreed 321 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the sentence was illegal -- illegal and the charge through the probation violation and the remaining money of the Connecticut lottery was claimed that I still owe.

To this day, I still have the misdemeanor conviction in my record. I have been denied chance because of that one conviction over a decade ago, misdemeanor. I have been discriminated against because of that one conviction. I cannot apply for pardon because it requires admitting to a crime that I did not do.

Professor Colleen Chien said in your report, and I just wanted to point out a few things on that report. In Connecticut, there are 168,000 black men--

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sorry to interrupt you, we’re at the three minute mark, so if you could just quickly summarize or--

ADAM OSMOND: Sure, there’s a 168,000 black men over 18 years old, 50% of them have some type of criminal record, 27 of them -- 27% of them have felony. This only -- there's only 5% of the population that is black men of 18 and old. They also represent 20% in the database and 40% of the prison population.

In sum, I just wanted to ask you that please pass this law, because this Bill will improve the lives of all Canadian residents, regardless of the race. And I did -- we just sent you that report, and please take a look at that, because it shows that Hartford -- the top five cities have almost 100,000 people with criminal records, thank you, and if you have any questions I’ll be glad to answer.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Sir, are there questions from Committee? Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH): Yeah, just -- just briefly, I just wanted to say to Mr. Osmond, good evening and just so you know, I know you -- you send 322 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

out a lot of information and you sent me directly a lot of information, I just want you to know that I’m actually consuming it, so I just want to let you know that.

ADAM OSMOND: Yeah. Thank you, I really appreciate for your work and I don't know why you guys consider this as a part time job because it's almost nine o'clock so you guys still here. So thank you for all your work, for all of you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank -- thank you, Sir. I wish I could say this was only once this year this is going to happen, but unfortunately this is probably our second and third hearing like this this year, so we get it, and for those who are listening still with us, you know, Senator Winfield the raises a great point, which is, you know, we'll -- we'll have about 100 -- we’ll have about 100 folks testify before us today. But we do read the testimony, the testimony that comes in the emails obviously we were not able to respond to it all, and certainly -- personally, but it is -- it is important for folks out there listening that if you want to submit testimony to Community, the Members, the Members do read it, so thank you, Sir, for being with us.

ADAM OSMOND: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next up will be Michele Voigt.

MICHELE VOIGT: Good evening, Senator Winfield, Representative Stafstrom and Judiciary Committee, my name is Michele Voigt. I am a Greenwich resident with a professional background in community-based social services and vocational rehabilitation. For three years I’ve been supporting survivors of gun violence in Connecticut. I’m -- I’m testifying today in opposition to S.B. 978.

Through my work with survivors and their families, I have become acutely aware of how lives can be 323 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

destroyed by violent crimes and how the Judicial system re-traumatizes victims and survivors through systemic disregard. The ever-changing criminal justice system is devoid of humanity. It neglects their trauma, losses and most significantly, their life-preserving need for justice.

Justice as an absolute, not a forever-changing ideal, pinned on legislative whims and political tides. Forgive me, this evening I had to change my testimony for this hearing itself is a perfect example of survivor re-traumatization. I have been supporting courageous Jennifer Lawlor, mother of Emily Todd who was murdered in Bridgeport in December of 2018. Today's hearing has rendered her paralyzed without words, so defeated she could not speak or testify.

Understanding how these conversations and proposed legislation affects survivors and victims of violent crime is critical. Oh, my God, this is my worst nightmare, having to live like this and dangled around in, with pretty much for -- forever. Like a puppet, the death of my child has yet to kill me, but the system will. These Bills that make me feel hopeless. It's inhumane, I’m devastated, beaten down, no one cares about victims, not the people making policy.

These policies make me question my ability to live, my daughter got a death sentence and I have a life sentence. These are the voices I hear, the anguish of victims, survivors and their families. I’m outraged that victims and survivors have not been equally considered in this legislation. Basic humanity would reason that the most impacted by the crimes are due full consideration.

Changing the parole opportunities for individuals up to the age of 25 who are serving lengthy sentences is reckless. According to the US Department of Justice, 21% of violent crimes are committed by individuals aged 18 to 24. As for murder and 324 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

manslaughter, 33% are committed by individuals aged 18 to 24. These percentages are a significant number of people.

They are our neighbors, families, friends and they are victims and survivors whose lives are forever shattered. Criminal justice reform must include all parties and the proposed reform must consider the needs of crime victims and survivors. When victims do not have a voice in the criminal justice system, it is injustice.

When victims are treated as just a piece of evidence, it is injustice. When a sentence is ever- changeable and their life becomes nearly to ensure that justice is served, it is injustice. I ask you to spend a minute in Jennifer Lawlor’s shoes to consider victims and survivors in all proposed legislation and to oppose S.B. 978. I thank you for your time and consideration.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am. Senator Kasser.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize that I’m in a car, but I want to thank Michele for speaking on behalf of Jen and Jen for her bravery in coming forth on this -- on this legislation, which I know is very painful to her and to other survivors of violent crimes.

And I just wanted to ask Michelle if she could recount some of the facts of -- of what Jen has experienced since her daughter was murdered in, I believe, it was December 2018. Has there been a trial, has there been -- you know, what -- what is the -- what is her life like and how is it impacted by the justice system and maybe lack of resolution?

MICHELE VOIGT: There has not been a trial, clearly we're in the middle of a pandemic which has made things impossible. Her -- her every day is controlled by the Judicial system and just hoping 325 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

that she can have justice for her daughter. So the thought of sentencing and plea deals and pardons are terrifying when someone is merely surviving.

And I see this so often with survivors of violent crime and particularly mothers and fathers who have had their children murdered, justice is all they live for, and so to have this idea that justice, even after sentencing or even after a plea deal, that the sentence could change based on parole or based on legislation changing, it's terrifying to them to think that they will forever be fighting.

And just to discover all of a sudden that there's a Bill up, and you need to get up and you need to rally and you need to fight to make sure that your voice is heard, it's very hard for people who are already living day to day in extreme trauma.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you and so, as I understand it, she's not expecting that there will be a trial until 2025, seven years after her daughter was murdered, and--

MICHELE VOIGT: That’s what she -- yes.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): And who knows what the result of the trial will be, but assuming just for purposes of argument that there's a conviction, she will then have to, in addition to seven years of ongoing and. -- you know, an ongoing legal situation, she will then have to revisit. that situation every five years when the -- if the person is up for parole, is that right?

MICHELE VOIGT: Correct. And as concerned, she as she is for herself and her ability to survive that, she also has a son who will survive her and who has survived Emily, who would ultimately eventually carry this burden.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, thanks so much for explaining what it is -- what the reality is and 326 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

the real impact is not on the -- not just on the family, but on the siblings of those who've been violently killed. Thank you so much, Michele.

MICHELE VOIGT: Thank you.

SENATOR KASSER (36TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions or comments from the Committee? If not, I would just - - the only thing I would comment is obviously, this Committee, we try to be open to hearing every voice on every issue. Victims have just as much right to testify here today as anyone that this legislation may help put a previous conviction and a mistake in the prior record beyond them.

I -- I hope folks do understand that certainly this Public Hearing process, as we sit here on our number 10.5 and a half is open to anyone who wants to testify. And so, I do just feel compelled to mention that, when you say victims feel they don't have a voice. It is important for folks to recognize that they, again, as I said on the last person testifying, they should feel free to submit written testimony or, you know, props to the Committee because people do read it.

But obviously, there are there are multiple sides to every issue so. Thank you for being with us. Next up will be Steve Ginsburg. Sir, we don't have audio for you.

STEVE GINSBURG: Is that better? Yep, thanks very much. Senator Stafstrom, Chairman Winfield, Vice Chairs Kasser and Blumenthal, Ranking Members Fishbein and Kissel and all the members of the Judiciary Committee, I’m Steve Ginsburg. I’m the director of the Connecticut office of the Anti- Defamation League and I’m here to testify in support of Senate Bill 989.

327 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

For over 100 years, ADL has been combating anti- Semitism, prejudice, and bigotry of all kinds. In ADL offices here in Connecticut and across the country, every day we see -- we receive reports of online hate, harassment and violent threats. In fact, my coworkers and I myself, and I would imagine, many of you as elected officials, have been the targets of online threats.

Locally, our team responds and helps. Nationally, ADL center for technology and society analyzes online hate, from cyber-bullying, civil rights abuses, to extremists threats, the Internet and social media are increasingly where those who traffic and hate are congregating. And with this Bill, Connecticut is forging a 21st century weapon in the fight against the 21st century hate.

Recent ADL studies have shown that more than one in four Americans has experienced online hate and harassment. Our studies also show that those in minority and marginalized communities, including women, members of the LGBTQ community, Muslims, Jewish people, African-Americans, Latin community are targeted at higher rates.

Over the past year, we've seen a new phenomenon, Zoom-bombing. It's when a stranger enters a video meeting to disrupt it, harass the attendees with hateful symbols and slurs. In 2020, Connecticut houses of worship, Community meetings, even a meeting with US congresswoman Hayes was Zoom-bombed.

As lockdowns persisted and more of our social interaction was forced to take place online, these tactics have become increasingly popular. Connecticut’s own Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was killed in the Sandy Hook attack, has also been the target of virulent cyber-stalking by conspiracy theorists. And then, after posting proof of his son's life and death, he was the target of an onslaught of hate and personal threats, forcing his family to move in the six times, causing him to 328 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

suffer substantial emotional distress, economic damage, and fear for physical injury.

This Bill would strengthen Connecticut’s laws governing criminal conduct that takes place online. It closes gaps, it fixes our cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment statues, it covers things like cyber-hacking, secretly installed passwords, sending a barrage of messages to someone from a fake account, and it also criminalizes the selling of personal information.

It'll enable the courts to require violators to attend awareness programs and have creative restorative justice approaches to if required, if those are what makes sense. We're pleased that the law expands this -- these types of -- expands the crime of cyber harassment to include something called doxing. Doxing is the act of posting private or identifying information about someone, or a group, online with the intent that that information will be used to target them for an unlawful purpose.

This is a great step forward, it will put Connecticut as a leader of cyber laws, but we recommend a tweak. We want to make sure that if we're going to make that type of doxing kind of criminal that we insert the language to ensure that the person who didn't have the intent to harm, who was recklessly disregarding someone or a group, and recklessly disregarding that there could be bodily injury or stalking.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thanks -- thanks you.

STEVE GINSBURG: I got like 30, 15 seconds. This would be a huge step forward for us. And thank you very much for your attention. You have the power here to give law enforcement the tools they need and protect vulnerable groups -- vulnerable groups. Please vote out Senate Bill 989 favorably. I’m happy to take any questions.

329 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you. Senator Haskell.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Thanks so much, Mr. Chair. And just very briefly, Steve, thank you for all of your advocacy on this, I didn't quite understand one portion of your testimony. Are you saying that this is an opportunity for Connecticut to be a leader, or were you saying that were sort of playing catch up with other States?

STEVE GINSBURG: On the doxing piece, we’ll be a leader, no one's got doxing covered the way we can. Some States are working on it right now. we're kind of in a race to be the first. Cyber harassment, cyber stalking, I think we're playing catch up. I think some other States are ahead of us and we need to play catch up.

SENATOR HASKELL (26TH): Well, thanks so much for that clarification, it's hard to imagine a more important time to do this Bill, and really grateful for your work. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, Senator. Further questions or comments? If not, next up is going to be Phillip Kent.

PHILIP KENT: Good evening. Thank you very much Co- Chairs, Ranking Members and esteemed Members of the Judiciary Committee, glad to be with you tonight after a long night. My name is Phil Kent from Congregation Mishkan Israel in Hamden, Connecticut. I’m a litigator, educator and Co-Chair with Dr Asti Jackson of the criminal justice reform team of Congregations Organized for a New Connecticut, or CONNECT.

I support S.B. 1019, and ask that you vote for it. In Connecticut, if you have a record, you can't really reenter society. The clean slate Bill automatically expunges eligible misdemeanors and low-level felonies for people who remain crime-free. 330 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

It impacts hundreds of thousands who live with the stigma of a record that locks them into serving a life sentence after leaving prison, because they are unable to secure better jobs or adequate housing or higher education.

Clean slate is about redemption for formerly incarcerated people, but it's also a racial justice issue. In Connecticut, we allow 60% of people to be jobless one year out from release. And thousands leave prisons each year, but most have no legal way to support themselves, and if you -- if you do get work, you typically are underemployed, under-housed and under-educated for life.

People of color are up to nine times more likely than whites to be jailed in Connecticut, so people of color and their families are far more likely to live in a permanent second-class status. But when we lift people up, we all do better, because under the existing system, Connecticut loses an estimated $1.2 billion dollars annually in economic activity.

There's been too little change, while race-based fear intensifies and racial disparities grow. Racism is a public health emergency, an economic crisis, and immoral abyss, we all must work to overcome, because overlooking and sidestepping racism is not acceptable. We need to recognize as part of that, that the current pardon system is broken, it's an onerous expensive process that serves only about 3% of those eligible for a pardon.

And in fact if all eligible people applied, it would take literally hundreds of years to process, the latest report says, 577 years. That system is simply inadequate, clearly, to serve the need. Clean slate helps to change that by giving people a real second chance that actually improves public safety, and you heard earlier from Professor Starr all about that.

331 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So voting for clean slate, that requires your leadership at a critical time. This Bill addresses a moral imperative to remove the many barriers to true reentry into society. We need you, our legislators, to act in a truly bipartisan way, as they have in other States that you've heard about today that have passed clean slate laws and vote yes on S.B. 1019.

And I just want to say one more thing, which is, there were questions and testimony today from -- from Representatives and prosecutors that seem to suggest that mass incarceration doesn't exist which is total nonsense. It's sort of a uniquely American phenomenon, but it's a national problem, because we lock up 2.2 million people, especially it's a problem for people of color and it can be intergenerational. And -- just about done. Simply put-- yeah, go ahead.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I just want to ask you, I want to ask you a question, we are -- we're past the three minute mark. Give me that stat again, 1.2 billion, what was that number?

PHILIP KENT: $1.2 billion dollars annually is lost in economic activity, because we are under-employing people with criminal -- you know, with a criminal record. If we were to lift them up, you know, then we would be adding to the State economy dramatically.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): So that's $1.2 billion dollars for the State, not nationally, that's $1.2 billion dollars for Connecticut.

PHILIP KENT: I believe that's for the State of Connecticut. I can try to find that -- that site for you and get it to you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): And that's based on -- okay, so you don't have--

332 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

PHILIP KENT: I don't know the exact site off the top my head, but I -- I can find that.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, I know Phil, I know you've been working on this issue a long time and been an advocate. I’m sure you've been with us since the very beginning, but I asked Mayor Bronin a story about the Hartford statistics on this earlier today.

And I -- I for one would to be very interested in that stat, because I think as this Bill moves out of this Committee, we will hear about the technical costs to reprogram a computer system at the Judicial branch, and we'll hear about -- you know, the man hours related to whatever, the quote unquote fiscal note is this building likes to talk about, and will -- we will look at that in terms of what is a State dollar outlay. To me, it's much more critical that we, as a Legislature, look at the human cost of -- or the human advantage or opportunity gain of passing legislation like this.

So if that opportunity gain for the State economy is anywhere even remotely in the realm of $1.2 billion dollars, this Legislature needs to pass this Bill ASAP.

PHILIP KENT: I appreciate that, I’ll just point out, as well, I don't know if Professor Starr touched on this, but in the Michigan study, it was - - you know, they -- they found that that expungement over job training, for example, was -- was the factor that increased people's ability to earn dramatically.

So -- so I don't have those exact figures either, but I know you have the report and if you don't, I can certainly send it to you. But, you know, rather than job training which we put a lot of resources into, expungement alone seem to -- seem to truly increase people's earning power, because they had more opportunities to get better jobs. 333 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): I think we're all -- we're all looking for ways to recover out of this pandemic and grow our economy and this is a -- this is a piece to it. Representative Howard.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have the number roughly if -- if this Bill were to pass, how many individuals would enter the workforce that currently cannot because of their criminal record?

PHILIP KENT: Representative Howard, I appreciate the question, in that context, I’m not sure I have the exact figure. What I -- what I understand is that about 277,000 people in Connecticut would benefit under this Bill, based on --on their -- you know, criminal history.

So -- so if that's a measure, then I think I would point to that number, because I think, you know, to the extent that they're impacted by their -- their history in getting a job, I think that that would make sense.

REP. HOWARD (43RD): Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Further questions from the Committee? If not, thanks for being with us.

PHILIP KENT: Thank you so much, I appreciate you all working so late.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Next we're going to go back to Maria Solomon, who I believe is with us. Is Maria Solomon on? Okay, if not, we're going to try Olivia Rinkes. Olivia Rinkes. Is Olivia Rinkes with us? All right, let's try Alexandrea Merrell.

ALEXANDREA MERRELL: Hi. Can you see me?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Yeah we see and hear you. 334 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

ALEXANDREA MERRELL: All right, well it's been a long day so I want to thank you, Chairman Winfield, and Stafstrom, Chairs Kasser and Blumenthal, Ranking Members Fishbein and Kissel, and members of the Judiciary Committee. I’d also like to thank Steve Ginsburg from the Connecticut ADL for inviting us to speak.

I'd like to be giving testimony today in defense of S.B. 989. My name is Alexandria Merrell, I am the Director of Public Relations and Policy for the HONR network, a nonprofit founded by Lenny Pozner, who's six year old son Noah was the youngest victim of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

After Noah’s murder, the Pozner family and other -- families that were victimized in the shooting became the target of really unrelenting online harassment. In response, Mr. Pozner founded the HONR Network which researches, reports and ultimately, removes online defamation and targeted harassment.

Today, the HONR network is regarded largely as one of the most influential organizations in the online -- online defamation space. You may have seen their recent 60-minutes episode that featured Mr. Pozner, our work and our successes. To date, HONR has been responsible for the removal of hundreds of thousands of pieces of defamatory, doxing, harassing and targeted content.

So you may wonder, with all that success, why Lenny isn't here himself. Despite the passage of time, Mr. Posner and his family have had to move nearly a dozen times, due in part to doxing, which is as -- as you said, the release of private and personally identifying information.

In Mr. Pozner’s case, predators not only bought and posted his personal TransUnion comprehensive backup report online, they bartered the information with people who had publicly declared that they wanted to 335 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

kill him. They posted videos of his home on YouTube and they threatened his surviving children. You might say, well Lenny is an extreme case, why should we implement laws that really helped one person or a small group of people.

And I might agree if that were true, but it isn't, thousands of people in Connecticut alone are victimized online, which includes doxing. Police Officers, frontline workers, teachers, judges and their families are often doxed, threatened and terrorized online, as their addresses, personal details, and details of their family are posted. People who have shared pictures of themselves on their own social media peacefully protesting or attention -- attending political events on either side of the political aisle are keenly targeted for retaliatory doxing.

People who have been targeted by extortion, they've been driven to suicide when threats of revealing intimate details about their personal life is made. Women, members of the LGBTQ communities, and people of color are disproportionately targeted. In fact, doxing the opposition in divorces or custody cases has become commonplace.

Doxing has become one of the favorite tools of online abusers, simply because posting information can take a few minutes, but ultimately, can create a chain reaction that destroys lives. But doxing needn't reveal actual information. In many cases, online abusers will mix real Social Security Numbers, photos, addresses, and other identifying information with completely fabricated information, in order to terrorize, fake criminal records, cheating accusations, drug abuse accusations, claims without charger proof that someone is a pedophile or rapist or a domestic abuser are common.

Abusers don't have to be accurate to be devastating, so the HONR Network joins with the American Defamation League cause -- in calling for specific 336 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

anti-doxing statutes and amending the current stalking statutes to include cyber-specific wording and criminalizing the use and manipulation of personal, medical, financial, occupational and other identifying information. Thank you for your attention, I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you ma'am. Are there questions from the Committee? Seeing none, I want to thank you for being with us.

ALEXANDREA MERRELL: Thank you.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): All right, we will try again Maria Solomon. Is Maria Solomon with us? How about Olivia Rinkes? Is Olivia Rinkes with us?

OLIVIA RINKES: Hello, yes, I am here.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Okay, go ahead. Your video is -- your video is off, if you want to turn it on but--

OLIVIA RINKES: I’m currently traveling by car, is it alright if I leave the video off?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Sure go ahead ma’am, you have three minutes.

OLIVIA RINKES: Okay. Thank you Members of the Committee, the Judiciary Committee, my name is Olivia Rinkes, I’m from North Stonington Connecticut. I’m here to testify in favor of three Bills today, Bill S.B. 987 -- excuse me, S.B. 987, AN ACT CONCERNING REINVESTMENT OF SAVINGS ACHIEVED THROUGH A REDUCTION IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY POPULATION REENTRY AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICE AND PROGRAMS.

The closure of northern prison is an opportunity to reinvest into the communities, based on the damages that is done so far, on this opportunity to be lost, 337 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

it should be reinvested into social services and helping, like, people who have been affected by prison population. I’m also testifying in favor of S.B. 1018, AN ACT CONCERNING PROSECUTE -- PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

There absolutely needs to be accountability in the Judicial system at all levels. It's -- it's just not reasonable to think that mistakes can’t be made that, like, judgment can be, like, off and prosecutors should be absolutely scrutinized and, like, held accountable, when necessary.

I’m also in favor of -- testifying in favor of S.B. 1019, AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PARDONS ANDPAROLES, ERASURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR CERTAIN MISDEMEANOR ANDFELONY OFFENSES, PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON ERASED CRIMINALHISTORY RECORD INFORMATION AND CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OFTHE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO MISDEMEANOR SENTENCEs.

A person's record -- once a person has served their time and been released back into society, they have been -- they have been deemed by the Court to be fed back into society, there's absolutely no reason to hold their record against them. They should have full access to all of their constitute-- excuse me constitutional rights. And to any human right, any basic human right or needs, such as food, shelter, housing, employment, social services if necessary, health care. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Thank you, ma’am, appreciate you sticking it out for us. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Get home safe wherever you're driving from. I will try, one more time for Maria Solomon. Hearing no response, I’m looking at the administrator, who seems to have a wide smile on our face, which I assume means we've reached the end of our list.

338 MARCH 10, 2021 rr/jb/ib/mi JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.

So with that, I will declare this Public Hearing closed.