Virginia criminal law subcommittee advances package on indigent defense, fines reform, testimony protections and AI limits

The House Criminal Law Subcommittee advanced a set of criminal-justice measures addressing indigent defense representation, court fines and payment plans, juvenile testimony protections, limits on use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice decisions, and other procedural changes.

The panel reported several bills to the full House with votes ranging from unanimous to narrowly split and tabled two measures after debate. Most measures were introduced by delegates or by request of state agencies and drew testimony from advocates, returning citizens, legal-aid staff and prosecutors.

The most immediate outcomes: the subcommittee voted to report HB 2111 (adding indigent-defense representation to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission) by voice vote as amended (recorded as 6–0), recommended reporting HB 1665 (mandatory itemized statements for court fines and fees) by 7–1, reported HB 1661 (establishing a $25 minimum installment payment option) by 7–1 as a substitute, and recommended reporting HB 1886 (prohibiting entering a conviction solely for failure to pay costs after completing deferred dispositions) by 7–1. The subcommittee also recommended reporting HB 1642 (requiring a human make final criminal-justice decisions when an AI-based tool is used) unanimously, and HB 1874 (allowing certain retired or former law-enforcement officers to petition to withhold personal contact information) by 8–0. HB 1728 (expanded closed-circuit-television testimony for child victims, Delaney) was reported to full committee and referred to Appropriations for further review; HB 2010 (raising the age for a hearsay exception for victims’ prior statements) and HB 1556 (expanded Attorney General jurisdiction for certain crimes against minors) were tabled by the subcommittee (both table motions passed 5–3). Other, narrower technical bills were also moved forward.

Why it matters: the package touches the mechanics of how low-income and vulnerable Virginians interact with the criminal justice system — from who helps set sentencing guidelines to how people see and repay court debts, to how child victims give testimony and how automated tools may inform decisions. Advocates said the bills would reduce retraumatization, improve transparency and address disparities; some prosecutors and elected commonwealth’s attorneys warned about ceding local prosecutorial discretion or loosening Sixth Amendment protections without careful guardrails.

Key details and testimony

HB 2111 (Herring) — sentencing commission membership: Delegate Michael Herring presented HB 2111, a recommendation from the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, and the subcommittee approved a technical line amendment to change a numeric reference and to add “or his designee” to one line. Maria Jankowski, executive director of the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, testified that the Sentencing Commission lacked statutory defense representation and that adding the executive director would bring indigent-defense perspectives to sentencing guidelines. The subcommittee moved to report HB 2111 as amended; the clerk recorded the recommendation as 6–0.

HB 1665 — itemized court billing statements: Delegate Jones said HB 1665 would require courts to provide itemized statements of fines, fees and restitution so people can track payments and ensure money applied to restitution goes to the right place. Testimony included returning citizens who described receiving invoices that were incorrect or impossible to reconcile (one witness recounted being given a $613 invoice and another for $5,000 that the clerk later deemed an error), advocacy groups including the Legal Aid Justice Center and SARA of Virginia, and the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court (OES), which filed a fiscal note noting a possible cost that DPB suggested might be absorbable but which could cumulatively raise concerns if many small-cost bills accumulate. The subcommittee recommended reporting HB 1665 by a vote of 7–1.

HB 1661 — minimum payment standard for court-ordered fines and fees: Delegate Jones also carried HB 1661, which as substituted establishes a $25-per-month installment option as a consistent minimum payment and requires courts to assess defendants’ ability to pay using a written financial statement or oral examination if a defendant cannot pay $25. The substitute language was offered by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court. Numerous witnesses — including returning citizens, the Commonwealth Institute, Humanization Project, Legal Aid Justice Center and recovery-program speakers — described the harm of inconsistent payment plans across localities and supported a uniform low monthly minimum. The OES/Clerk’s office noted that collections are local and that courts currently require a person to visit each locality to get a full list of obligations. The subcommittee recommended reporting HB 1661 with substitute by a vote of 7–1.

HB 1886 — deferred dispositions and convictions for failure to pay costs: Delegate McFellar’s bill would prevent courts from requiring full payment of court costs as a prerequisite to dismissing charges after a deferred disposition is successfully completed and would bar entry of a conviction solely because a defendant has not paid all costs (the person would still owe costs). Supporters — including public defenders and Legal Aid Justice Center — said the current practice creates a two-tiered justice system where people who cannot afford costs effectively lose dismissals. Testimony included court anecdotes where defendants who completed conditions still faced convictions due to unpaid costs. The subcommittee recommended reporting HB 1886 with substitute by a vote of 7–1.

HB 1665 / HB 1661 fiscal notes and OES comments: OES and DPB witnesses cautioned several times that while the individual fiscal impact of tech or administrative changes might be small and absorbable, multiple bills with many small costs across the session can aggregate into a material fiscal impact; House Appropriations staff were said to be aware of that concern.

HB 1642 — limits on AI use in criminal-justice decisions: Delegate Hayes presented a substitute clarifying that any “artificial intelligence–based tool” used for criminal-justice purposes may inform recommendations or predictions but shall not be the sole basis for a decision affecting pretrial detention or release, prosecution, adjudication, probation, parole or similar criminal-justice outcomes; a human must make the final decision. The subcommittee adopted a staff substitute and voted unanimously to report the measure.

HB 1728 (Delaney) and HB 2010 (Openshain): two bills addressing testimony by child victims

- HB 1728 (Delaney) would expand access to closed-circuit television testimony for child victims and witnesses by lowering the trauma standard from “severe” to “moderate” and requiring a court finding by clear and convincing evidence based on expert testimony (the bill went through negotiated changes and was reported to the full committee and referred to Appropriations for further review). Delaney and several victim-advocacy groups urged the committee to create a more trauma-informed courtroom; prosecutors and defense advocates urged careful compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence (Maryland v. Craig) and cautioned about overbroad language that could invite constitutional challenge.

- HB 2010 (Openshain) would raise the age threshold used in the current hearsay exception for victims’ prior statements (sometimes called the “tender years” exception) from 13 to 15. The bill drew discussion on the statutory placement of evidence rules (title 19.2 vs 18.2) and constitutional safeguards; after debate the subcommittee voted to table HB 2010 by 5–3.

HB 1556 — Attorney General jurisdiction for crimes against minors: Delegate Williams presented HB 1556, which would expand the attorney general’s authority to prosecute certain crimes (including criminal sexual assault and commercial sexual exploitation against minors) across county lines without a required concurrence from the local commonwealth’s attorney. Supporters argued the AG’s office has resources to investigate multi-jurisdictional trafficking cases; elected commonwealth’s attorneys objected that the bill would usurp locally elected prosecutors’ authority and undermine local accountability. The subcommittee voted to table HB 1556 (motion passed 5–3).

Other bills moved forward: HB 1874 (petition to withhold retired officer personal contact information) was recommended 8–0; HB 1858 (clarifying speedy-trial treatment of ancillary misdemeanors after felony certification) was recommended for reporting; and technical bills from the Virginia Criminal Justice Conference passed without extended debate.

What was not decided or remains to be worked: HB 1728 (CCTV testimony) will continue to be negotiated and then considered by full committee and appropriations; several bills carried fiscal notes that require further appropriations review if reported by the full House. Several members, including elected local prosecutors, asked for guarantees that changes would not narrow constitutional protections or strip the tools prosecutors need to try cases effectively.

Votes at a glance (subcommittee outcomes)

- HB 2111 (Herring) — report as amended; recorded recommendation: 6–0. - HB 1665 (Jones) — report; vote recorded: 7–1. - HB 1661 (Jones) — report with substitute; recorded recommendation: 7–1. - HB 1886 (McFellar) — report with substitute; recorded recommendation: 7–1. - HB 1642 (Hayes) — report with substitute; unanimous (recorded as unanimous by clerk). - HB 1874 (Henson) — report with amendments; recorded recommendation: 8–0. - HB 1858 (Arnold) — reported (clerk opened roll; recorded vote not specified in transcript). - HB 2010 (Openshain) — motion to table: passed 5–3 (tabled). - HB 1728 (Delaney) — reported to full committee; referred to Appropriations (recorded as 7–0 to report and refer). - HB 1556 (Williams) — motion to table: passed 5–3 (tabled).

What to watch next: full-committee action on HB 1728 (CCTV testimony) and Appropriations review for bills with fiscal notes; potential floor amendments to substituted bills.

Speakers quoted in this story are identified in subcommittee testimony: Delegate Michael Herring; Maria Jankowski, executive director, Virginia Indigent Defense Commission; Delegate Jones; Michael Sizemore, advocacy manager, SARA of Virginia; Maize (Macey) Osteen, Legal Aid Justice Center; Mike Berryman and Gerard Palms (returning citizens); Cammy Blatt, policy analyst, Commonwealth Institute; Abby Curran (individual witness); Dominic Martin, New Virginia Majority; Emily King, Fines and Fees Justice Center; Brad Haywood, Justice Forward/Justice For Virginia; Delegate Delaney; Delegate Hayes; and others. All quoted excerpts are from the subcommittee transcript.

Ending note: Committee members and witnesses emphasized bipartisan goals — clearer court accounting, protections for vulnerable victims, and careful limits on automated decision-making — while disagreeing over local prosecutorial authority and constitutional safeguards. The bills now proceed to the House for further committee review and appropriations consideration where noted.