Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require prosecutors to file motions to reinstate charges dismissed at preliminary hearing
Summary
AB 19 17 would force prosecutors to file a court motion explaining why charges a judge dismissed at a preliminary hearing should be reinstated, with amendments exempting violent‑felony refilings and new charges. Supporters said the change increases transparency; prosecutors warned the placement of the motion in the code could create burdens on trial courts.
Assemblymember Schultz presented AB 19 17, the "Respect Judicial Decisions Act," proposing that when a judge dismisses a charge at the preliminary hearing for insufficiency of evidence, a prosecutor must file a motion explaining why the count should be reinstated rather than adding it back without explanation.
Ilona Yanez of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a co‑sponsor, argued the bill ensures charges that hang over a person’s head are supported by evidence and that reinstatement should require an explanation to the court. Supporters including criminal‑defense coalitions framed the bill as restoring meaning to preliminary hearings.
Opponents from district attorney offices acknowledged the problem but expressed concern about procedure: Assistant DA Nicholas Hunt argued the bill, as drafted, used the wrong statutory vehicle (relying on section 871.5) and could needlessly burden trial courts. He suggested an alternative placement in the code (a 995.5 motion mechanism) to avoid duplicative processes.
Committee amendments clarified that prosecutors may still file new charges based on evidence disclosed at the preliminary hearing and that refiling restrictions would not apply to violent‑felony charges. After debate the committee voted to pass AB 19 17 as amended to appropriations.
The measure attracted a broad coalition of support from public defender offices, criminal‑justice reform groups, and several county offices, while DA offices sought technical changes to the procedural mechanism.
