[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6324732,"mediaKeyId","2336401-92c5e21a6f48ac2c0b1ddba148cecada","parentId",2336401,"title","Legislators hear wide support for 'Second Look' law to let long‑served prisoners ask judges to reduce life terms","audioSeconds",1775,"startMs",2006000,"endMs",3781000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336401-92c5e21a6f48ac2c0b1ddba148cecada&start=2006&end=3781","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336401-92c5e21a6f48ac2c0b1ddba148cecada/thumbnail_2006000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6324732/Maryland/Legislators-hear-wide-support-for-Second-Look-law-to-let-longserved-prisoners-ask-judges-to-reduce-life-terms","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324732-6e1f7554e7da533c865b1ae1fec954f7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170678&Signature=VWpvVxvE5MLiC1C-~Z4pJN~modFDB5sX1Qu~0L1O338xfrwT9KtNquuDDUVwG1N17Ms8oyKKbMB~mExWE0EEzfcYPoNBRfFOqo6enP5wXQn3Wc4joCmAzbaZrasZbeLNfs64XYXq7QgCXCI4pAGXFzH4aYpmc2X-YTZmDkL19pgBAna3I8Q34D0fl33qFzGzJ4n-sVjVRA1~FWXHKI4YVF6~Z2bg8myE0iQpjpF4nENJ8kTIWdoHdXwm3gCfFJ2aGv78q3n3cM13rKkrfrJVDB6br7VxwNFA9elPQDYqbPRqSFD-BebGnS-NH0yxjtlD6Y0a9e1EPhXWo5C6lFjgOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","MGA - JUD","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Delegate Cheryl Pasteur introduced HB 853 (the “Second Look Act”), telling the committee the measure would create a judicial review process letting people who have served at least 20 years ask a judge to reconsider their sentences. “Second look is not a ‘get‑out‑of‑jail‑free’ card,” Pasteur said. “It is an assessment and an opportunity for review.”

The hearing drew one of the largest witness lists of the day: formerly incarcerated speakers who described reentry work and rehabilitation; survivors who said they favored a process that allows victims to be heard but still permits review; public‑defense lawyers and legal advocates who said existing post‑conviction routes are insufficient; and civil‑liberties organizations that emphasized racial disparities and the aging prison population. The Maryland ACLU, Office of the Public Defender and multiple reentry nonprofits urged a favorable report. Anthony Mohammed, released under the Juvenile Restoration Act and now active in mentoring, told the panel that returning people have reduced violence and help prevent crime.

Prosecutors and some victims’ advocates questioned the bill’s effects on victims’ privacy and whether repeated review hearings would re‑traumatize families. Supporters pointed to statutory protections requiring victim notification and to programs that already have included victim‑offender mediation. Data cited at the hearing included Maryland statistics on life‑without‑parole sentences, patterns of discretionary charging, and research showing low recidivism after lengthy incarceration for people released under related statutes elsewhere.

Committee members asked about statutory scope (whether all offenses would be eligible), parole board overlaps, and whether the bill would bring meaningful public‑safety benefits. Pasteur and witnesses described judicial discretion built into the bill and said judges would weigh offense seriousness, individual rehabilitation and public safety. The hearing included dozens of formerly incarcerated people who said they now hold jobs, mentor youth, and work to reduce violence. Supporters asked the committee to report favorably; members requested timing and technical amendments and additional briefing on implementation.

The panel did not vote on HB 853 at the session; staff will circulate proposed amendments and fiscal/legal analyses before a later markup.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 2/18/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers took hours of testimony on HB 853, a 'Second Look' bill allowing people who have served at least 20 years to petition a court for sentence review, drawing large panels of formerly incarcerated people, victims, defense lawyers and civil‑liberties groups.","taxTitle","Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15063,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324738,"Panel hears proposal to let judges use probation-before-judgment for defendants with autism or intellectual disability",1326,129000,1455000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336401-92c5e21a6f48ac2c0b1ddba148cecada&start=129&end=1455","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336401-92c5e21a6f48ac2c0b1ddba148cecada/thumbnail_129000.jpg","/articles/6324738/Maryland/Panel-hears-proposal-to-let-judges-use-probation-before-judgment-for-defendants-with-autism-or-intellectual-disability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324738-aaf1b95c968cbe0fc5ddbfefa7c69ecf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771170678&Signature=VzxRKG3Ctxppf2yaqKa2xAu9SKJ11sOKX78V4paOMK~KGZk~FQ-oppPXB2gWpv6Hr02lLpTQirohjdeDXblkgAVygV~i34l4ACp2qzvybf5lPkZ0hzco63-Rx2t~mDHP1A8WEEOE8QyvIdQz30hL152B~iyS9ic1dnvbFHGQGr3TydEcwYpl3VtxMOmy1GimZwcVwG6KkPgBg9nXx4F5AitiAt0yRzKBSOEynp4tLjKVMl27m47cidXgAopkbv7Su113I13Irl2MblScjQ8W-LaTgPeb7xH~eAJLY82Cd-jknrFh6HfYjrAwPBx00mNyOcH4Dr8BN56otfXcjSt5QA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Delegate Dana Kaufman introduced HB 940 and asked the committee for a favorable report on a bill he said was brought at the request of the Autism Society. The measure would require courts to consider placing defendants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability on probation before judgment, rather than entering a conviction, where doing so is consistent with public safety and the views of the state’s attorney and the victim or the victim’s representative. “The bill recognizes that not all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are incompetent to stand trial but their disability should still be considered before sentencing,” Delegate Kaufman told the committee.

Supporters described repeated examples and studies indicating that people with autism can act on impulse or misread social cues rather than act with criminal intent. Kimber Watts of the Office of the Public Defender’s Forensic Mental Health Division told the committee that clinicians and defense counsel often see people who look uncooperative or unremorseful in court but are actually confused by the process; she said judges should be able to account for those impairments when deciding sanctions. Delancey Allred of the Autism Society of America and Brian Kilmar, an advocate who worked on similar Virginia legislation, also urged the panel to adopt the bill, describing potential benefits such as community-based therapy and supports rather than incarceration.

Lawmakers raised constitutional and procedural questions. Committee members asked whether limiting PBJ by diagnosis could invite Fourteenth Amendment challenges; witnesses pointed to Department of Justice guidance and other laws for people with disabilities and said the bill preserves prosecutorial input and public-safety safeguards. Members also pressed whether school records or late diagnoses would qualify; panelists explained clinical diagnosis and adaptive-functioning evidence often underlie intellectual-disability findings and that courts could order neuropsychological testing when warranted. Supporters supplied a draft amendment package submitted earlier to the committee addressing evidentiary and procedural details.

The bill drew many family and self‑advocate witnesses who described personal harm when disabilities were not considered in sentencing and said PBJ or diversionary periods could allow defendants to remain in the community while completing supports. Opponents did not speak in the record during the hearing. Committee members asked staff and counsel to circulate the sponsor’s proposed amendments and the judiciary staff analysis before deliberation. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 940 at the hearing.","The Maryland House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 940, a bill sponsored by Delegate Kaufman that would require courts to consider probation-before-judgment (PBJ) for defendants diagnosed with autism or intellectual disability while preserving public-safety and victim input requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Legislators hear wide support for 'Second Look' law to let long‑served prisoners ask judges to reduce life terms

Panel hears proposal to let judges use probation-before-judgment for defendants with autism or intellectual disability