Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Trial Reimbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on bill to create state reimbursement for juror sequestration costs in capital cases
Summary
House Bill 129 would establish a method — subject to legislative appropriation — to reimburse counties that bear juror sequestration and related costs when a capital-murder case is transferred in venue; proponents said rural counties lack facilities and are financially strained.
Representatives and witnesses told the committee that small and rural counties face disproportionate costs when capital-murder trials are transferred to larger counties for venue and sequestration.
House Bill 129, presented by Representative Veidt, would create a mechanism — contingent on future appropriations — enabling a county that originated a capital case to apply for reimbursement of costs associated with sequestering jurors after a change of venue. Supporters said the bill does not guarantee payment but provides a process and requires an appropriation for any reimbursements.
Why it matters: Witnesses described multiweek capital trials that require hotel rooms, round-the-clock marshals and other expenses that can total tens of thousands of dollars. John Beatum, a retired Cole County circuit judge who helped craft the proposal, estimated an earlier capital trial could cost "a hundred and $25,000" for the entire trial and said local jury budgets are far smaller.
Beatum said the bill is designed to "put the pressure back on the county that sent us this case" by requiring the originating county to apply for reimbursement; committee members asked whether the receiving county might instead be allowed to apply. Representative Beach asked whether reimbursement would include transportation costs; the sponsor said the bill's language broadly references costs associated with jurors and would likely include those items.
Cole County representatives and a Cole County official spoke in support. Committee members and witnesses noted the bill would be subject to appropriation and that details of application and administration would be developed if the legislature funds the program. No formal committee vote was taken during the hearing.
