House Judiciary Committee debates pro se access to sealed records and embezzlement waiting period

The House Judiciary Committee met May 14 to consider changes to a sealing and expungement bill, focusing on whether defendants who represent themselves should be explicitly allowed to use sealed criminal-history records in their own defense and whether embezzlement should be treated differently from other offenses for sealing timelines.

Committee members said the immediate question is narrow: make explicit in statute that a defendant — including a pro se defendant — may use a sealed criminal-history record in their defense. Committee members also reopened a longer-running debate about whether felony embezzlement should be excluded from the bill or subject to a longer waiting period (10 years) rather than the seven years the committee has used previously.

The committee heard that Marshall Hall had raised concerns about how sealed records could be used outside court, and that Judge Zonay reviewed proposed language and “said from his perspective, it’s fine.” Members also reported that the Department of State’s Attorneys opposed adding new statutory restrictions on how attorneys handle confidential materials, arguing that professional rules of conduct already govern attorney handling of confidential records and protect against improper disclosure to lay witnesses.

Lawmakers discussed practical checks in the proposal. Committee members emphasized that sealing under the bill is petition-driven, not automatic: a court reviews the underlying charge, plea or conviction, supervision time and whether sealing is “in the interest of justice.” Committee members and staff noted this judicial review as a safeguard that can prevent sealing of high‑harm offenses even if those offenses are included in a broader sealing framework.

The embezzlement discussion traced the bill’s history: a 2022 effort to expand automatic sealing and include property crimes led to a veto by the governor; subsequent work pivoted to a broader sealing approach. Some committee members urged staying with a seven‑year waiting period, citing recidivism data used in earlier work, and concern that making an exception for embezzlement could prompt many other carve‑outs and imperil the broader reform. Other members, and at least one speaker with banking experience, urged extending the waiting period to 10 years for embezzlement as a compromise, arguing the financial‑sector harms are different from minor offenses referenced in testimony supporting fair‑chance hiring laws (the committee referenced testimony that cites the Fair Hiring and Banking Act and related testimony from JPMorgan Chase).

Committee members also discussed elapsed time in real cases: speakers said the investigative and court processes plus average sentences (reported to the committee as commonly three to five years for felony embezzlement) mean the effective wait between the underlying conduct and a sealing petition often already exceeds the statutory waiting period. Members asked staff to collect and publish the sentencing and timeline data referenced during the hearing for further review.

No formal committee vote on changing the embezzlement element was taken at the hearing. Committee members asked staff and counsel (several times referencing a staff member by first name) to review drafting choices — including whether explicitly naming pro se defendants in statute would create unintended consequences in other statutes — and to return with a recommended drafting fix. One member said he planned to take a floor vote later the same day to accommodate a member’s schedule; the committee did not record a final disposition on the sealing‑timing question at the hearing.

The committee’s next steps include getting drafting confirmation from legislative counsel on the pro se language and circulating the sentencing/timeframe material noted by staff so members can decide whether to keep the seven‑year standard, adopt a 10‑year compromise for embezzlement, or pursue other amendments.