Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves SB955 after debate over panel size and status hearings
Summary
SB955, which changes fitness-to-proceed procedures, passed the joint committee with amendments after Judiciary expressed opposition to parts of the bill and the public defender urged retaining three-member panels. Lawmakers reduced automatic examiner requirements while preserving judicial discretion to appoint additional examiners.
The joint Senate committees on Health & Human Services and Judiciary voted to pass SB955 with amendments after a detailed exchange between Judiciary staff, defense representatives and public-health witnesses about how fitness-to-proceed evaluations should be structured.
Jennifer Wong, staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the First Circuit Court, said Judiciary "respectfully opposes portions of the bill due to the practical and perhaps unintended consequences of some of the provisions' implementation." She warned changes could have practical consequences for contested hearings and panel composition.
William Bento of the Office of the Public Defender said his office supports the bill's intent but objected to reducing the evaluation panel from three members to two. "Rarely is there unanimity in these 3 panels," Bento said, adding that three members can reach the same findings for different reasons and provide richer analysis.
Committee discussion focused on how the proposed change would affect contested hearings, the use of court-appointed experts and whether judicial discretion to appoint additional examiners should remain. Witnesses noted routine review hearings already occur in many cases and that the statute currently allows courts to appoint additional examiners. The chair confirmed the bill would not remove the court’s authority to appoint extra examiners in appropriate circumstances.
The committee adopted the chair’s recommendation to pass SB955 with amendments, including reducing the explicit number of qualified examiners in the statute while leaving judicial discretion intact. The measure will move forward with technical edits.
