Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families press for right to evidentiary review after closed homicide investigations
Summary
SB625 would allow certain family members of intentional-homicide victims to request a written explanation and petition superior court for an evidentiary hearing when the Department of Justice declines charges. Families described long delays and alleged investigative failings; judicial and DOJ witnesses raised procedural, fiscal and constitutional concerns.
Sen. Regina Burtzel told the Judiciary Committee SB625 is designed to give family members of intentional-homicide victims an avenue for review when the Department of Justice declines to prosecute. "This bill permits family members of intentional homicide victims to seek an evidentiary hearing in cases where [the DOJ] does not file charges," Burtzel said.
Family members, including Karen and Lynn Perkins and Anna Randall, described years of delay and trouble obtaining records; they urged the committee to create a path to "some closure." "We couldn't get answers," one family member said, recounting complications securing 91‑A records and alleging parts of investigations were not completed.
Lauren Warner, deputy general counsel for the judicial branch, said the branch takes no position but noted operational impacts: petitions would likely require recusal of any judge reviewing a petition from later presiding over related criminal matters, and the branch's fiscal note anticipates the need for an additional superior‑court judge. Benjamin Agati, a senior assistant attorney general, said the Department of Justice is neutral and cautioned the bill could raise constitutional problems by creating advisory-like judicial recommendations; Agati also noted the medical examiner's use of the term "homicide" is medical, not legal.
Committee members questioned how an evidentiary hearing would affect grand-jury secrecy, whether hearings would be public, and whether the probable-cause standard used in the proposed judicial review would pressure prosecutors to charge cases they expect not to win. Witnesses said the court process would be discretionary; even if a judge recommended charges, the DOJ would retain prosecutorial discretion.
No formal committee action was recorded; the hearing included extended public testimony from victims' families and technical answers from judiciary and DOJ representatives.
