Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Intervention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel OKs bill letting solicitors admit defendants to pretrial intervention more than once, with domestic-violence carveout
Summary
A Judiciary subcommittee favorably reported H.3057, which would allow solicitors to place defendants into pretrial intervention multiple times with solicitor consent; the bill excludes second-time PTI for prior criminal domestic violence convictions. Members debated whether unlimited uses pose accountability and victim-input concerns.
The House Judiciary Committee’s Bridal (criminal) Law Subcommittee reported H.3057 favorably after debate on whether solicitors should have open-ended discretion to admit defendants into pretrial intervention (PTI) more than once.
Mr. Weeks, the subcommittee presenter, said the bill amends sections 17-22-50 and 17-22-60 to permit a solicitor to consent to PTI for a person who previously participated in PTI, except where the prior participation was for criminal domestic violence. “This bill would lift that bar if the solicitor consents,” Weeks said, explaining the solicitor’s discretion remains central.
Members questioned whether allowing unlimited PTI entries would undermine the program’s purpose. Mr. Quinn asked whether the change would permit limitless PTI entries if the solicitor agreed; several members expressed concern that open-ended discretion could create a “revolving door.” Mr. Kennedy and others asked about fees and accountability; the transcript noted a $100 initial application fee and a $250 fee prior to admission in at least one jurisdiction.
Representative Rutherford and others argued that solicitor control is appropriate because solicitors are accountable locally and can design tailored diversion programs that reduce recidivism. Critics urged safeguards for victim input and suggested caps could be considered on the floor.
The committee recorded a favorable report on H.3057 and provided no amendments at the hearing. Supporters said the proposal gives solicitors another tool to offer treatment and diversion rather than fines; opponents warned of potential abuse without additional limits or transparency about repeated use.
