Bill would let Oregon judges place defendants on probation before plea; supporters say it restores judicial discretion

Senate Committee on Judiciary — March 18, 2025: Supporters and opponents sparred in a public hearing over Senate Bill 11-69, which would let a court defer proceedings and place a person on probation before a guilty plea in many cases, removing certain statutory prerequisites for conditional discharge and specialty-court entry.

The bill “authorizes the court, if it is in the interest of justice and the benefit of the defendant and the community, to defer further proceedings and place a person on probation prior to entering a plea,” a committee staff overview said. The measure would exclude Measure 11 offenses and driving under the influence, allow more than one discharge after fulfilling a probation agreement and remove requirements for district attorney consent and specialty-court acceptance.

Proponents described the change as a modest restoration of judicial discretion that could broaden access to treatment courts and reduce collateral consequences from convictions. “This bill is an opportunity to return a little bit of that power … back to the bench,” said Grant Hartley, Multnomah County director for Metropolitan Public Defenders. Hartley told the committee judges operate as neutral arbiters and that restoring discretion would allow courts to supervise some defendants on probation and dismiss charges after successful completion, avoiding a conviction that can create barriers to housing, employment and services.

Michael Hajarazada, a staff attorney at Public Defender Services of Lane County and a veterans-treatment-court defense attorney, described how treatment courts typically require intensive supervision and often a guilty plea under current national models. He gave a case example of a veteran who faced felony methamphetamine charges but was denied a conditional discharge by prosecutors despite being a likely candidate for treatment. “When the judge at the end of this period of time sees a participant … they’re in a better position to determine whether a conviction should be discharged,” Hajarazada said.

Opponents, including Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth and Deputy District Attorney Brian Powell, said the bill would displace prosecutorial judgment and could undercut specialty courts and statewide consistency. “Our system is built on the notion that the adversarial nature of the process informs and betters our outcomes,” Wentworth told the committee, arguing the bill would reduce the district attorney’s role to a “file carrier” in diversion decisions. Powell said many specialty courts require guilty pleas as a first step and warned a new route without a plea could reduce enrollment in established programs, jeopardize grant funding and create disparate outcomes “from county to county and even from judge to judge.”

The Oregon Judicial Department testified neutral and emphasized resource limits. Aaron Knott, director of government relations and communications for the OJD, noted that past statutory expansions of conditional discharge (including a 2020 drug-possession program discussed in testimony) included funding for treatment and probation supervision. “This bill greatly expands access to conditional discharge; it doesn’t necessarily create new resources for the supervision or assessment of compliance,” Knott said, adding that bench probation and formal (state-funded) probation differ significantly in available services.

Committee members asked about existing tools judges already have, Measure 11 exclusions and whether defendants select judges. Witnesses described practical court assignment practices and raised concerns about retrofitting probation and pre-sentencing investigation capacity if the statute expands diversion without added funding. Several witnesses urged careful drafting to preserve treatment-court integrity while allowing judicial discretion.

The public hearing record included five scheduled testimony slots: two supporters, two opposed and one neutral. The committee closed testimony on SB 11-69 at the conclusion of the panel and moved to other bills on the agenda.