►
From YouTube: Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary (6-9-22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
The
interim
joint
committee
on
judiciary-
this
will
be
our
first
meeting
of
obviously
myself
and
chairman
westerfield-
will
rotate
these
meetings.
We've
we've
planned
that
out
so
you'll
you'll
have
him
next
month
and
I'm
sure
it'll
be
as
full
as
the
agenda
is
today.
A
With
that
being
said,
I'm
going
to
ask
everyone
to
silence
their
cell
phones
or
put
them
so
that
they're
on
vibrate
mode,
so
that
we
don't
get
disturbed
or
have
interference
and
then
I'll
ask
all
presenters
when
they
come
today
to
remind
themselves
to
make
sure
you
make
sure
the
mic
is
on
with
the
green
light,
because
we
try
to
pick
that
up
for
purposes
of
recording.
With
that,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
A
Here
well,
thank
you.
Everyone
for
attending
we're
going
to
go
one
item
out
of
order
today,
because
we
have
a
couple
of
things
going
on
judge
goodman,
who
is
going
to
be
with
us
for
the
persistent
felony
offender
matter
is
in
docket
right
now
and
she
should
be
free
by
11
30..
A
I
talked
with
him
this
morning
on
my
way
in
he
is
finishing
up
his
fourth
year
in
the
tennessee
general
assembly.
He
is
currently
running
for
the
tennessee
senate
and
he
was
the
sponsor
of
this
bill.
So
we've
asked
him
to
bring
it
forward
for
us
for
purposes
of
discussion,
and
so
that
you
know
we
had
seen
some
press
coverage
on
this.
I
did
not
know
that
14
states,
I
think,
or
something
of
that
effect
he
mentioned-
have
taken
up
this
issue.
A
E
A
All
right,
I
already
grave
you
a
glorious
introduction,
so
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
that
we're
just
going
to
go
right
into
it.
They
they
know
vaguely
who
you
are
and
I'll.
Let
you
introduce
yourself
and
go
ahead
and
tell
us
about
house
bill
1834
from
the
tennessee
general
assembly.
E
I
represent
cleveland
and
bradley
county,
the
we're
referring
to
what
we
call
as
bentley's
law,
and
it
is
the
regarding
the
basically
if,
if
a
parent
of
a
minor
child
died
at
the
hands
of
a
drunk
driver,
the
drunk
driver
would
then
be
responsible
for
child
support.
It
does
two
things
it.
It
protects
our
greatest
resource,
which
is
our
children
and
also
holds
the
drunk
driver
accountable.
E
14.
Other
states
have
taken
a
step
in
this
direction.
I'm
not
real
sure
how
many
has
crossed
the
finish
line
with
it,
but
but
the
great
state
of
tennessee
was
first
and
it
gives
us
something
to
build
on.
This
is
just
another
tool
in
the
toolbox
to
move
the
needle
in
a
positive
direction
for
addressing
duis.
A
We
would
very
much
like
to
know
how
the
process
went
in
the
tennessee
general
assembly.
What
kind
of
debate
you
had
about
it?
What
kind
of
resistance
you
may
have
had,
etc?
What
kind
of
groups
were
in
support?
Maybe
against,
and
you
know
talk
about
that
with
us,
so
we
could,
you
know,
discuss
this
among
ourselves
and
decide
if
it's
something
this
body
would
like
to
do.
E
Well,
once
once
I
introduced
the
bill
and
it
started
making
its
way
through
the
committee
process,
it
really
started
picking
up
some
momentum
and
building
a
lot
of
support
behind
it.
So
I
felt
like
that
we
had
something
good.
It
was.
You
know
it
had
never
been
tried
before
it
was
a
very
common
sense
approach
and
very
straightforward.
E
So
this
was
this
was
very
foreign
to
us,
because
you
know
it
was
just
a.
I
felt
like
that.
It
was
a
great
bill.
I
felt
like
that.
It
was
gonna
that
that
it
was
gonna
pass,
but
I
didn't
know
what
kind
of
pushback
or
resistance
that
it
was
going
to
have
as
it
made
its
way
through
the
committee
process.
E
But
you
know
it
was
it
it
passed
unanimously,
the
it
it
just
the
further
it
went
in
the
committee
process,
the
stronger
the
bill
became,
so
I
knew
we
had
enough
support
to
to
cross
the
finish
line
with
it.
E
Maybe
a
few
questions,
and
maybe
a
little
bit
of
pushback,
but
but
it
was
just
a
it
was
sort
of
a
no-brainer
for
us.
You
know
if,
in
the
great
state
of
tennessee,
if
you
were
to
get
a
dui
today,
you
would
only
have
a
17
chance
of
getting
a
second.
But
if
you
had
a
second
you'd
have
a
70
chance
of
getting
a
third,
so
this
was
just
one
tool
we
didn't
know.
E
You
know
what
kind
of
effect
long
term
that
it
would
have,
but
we
felt
like
this
was
this
was
one
tool
in
the
toolbox
that
was
going
to
make
it
make
a
difference
in
our
state.
So
I
felt
good
about
it
very
little
pushback
as
it
as
it
started,
making
its
way
through
the
committee
process
it
it
became
stronger
and
stronger
and
a
lot
more
support
behind.
A
With
with
regards
to
that,
is
there
obviously,
depending
on
the
person
you
know
obviously
may
be
incarcerated
et
cetera,
may
not
have
any
financials
to
to
do
that,
so
it
could
be.
Some
could
say
it's
an
empty,
an
empty
shell,
but
is
there
like
a
restitution
order
that
would
go
with
that?
Or
can
you
tell
us
that.
E
Well,
I
left
it
open-ended
on
purpose
for
the
simple
fact
I
wanted
to
take
the
shackles
off
of
the
d.a
and
the
and
the
judges
to
allow
them
to
use
their
own
discretion.
E
It's
my
belief
that
there
will
be
a
a
formula
in
place
almost
like
a
a
divorce
settlement
agreement
to
where,
depending
on
the
needs
of
the
child
and
the
income
of
the
offender
it,
it
would
sort
of
be
set
in
place
to
what
they
owe
and,
of
course,
the
the
payments
doesn't
start
until
one
year
after
in
car
after
they
were
released
from
incarceration.
So
I
felt
like
that.
It
was
important
that
we
had
this,
that
we
had
this
law
in
place.
E
It
gives
us
something
to
build
off
of
and
and
I'm
you
know,
I'm
anticipating-
that
it's
going
to
be
amended
and
tweaked
along
the
way
to
even
make
it
stronger
in
the
future.
A
F
A
I
think
I
could
probably
help
you
with
that
question
or
help
you
understand
it
from
from
my
perspective,
if
it's
a
you
know
a
family,
a
you
know,
that's
doing
well
and
husband,
wife,
whatever
there's
no
child
support
order,
it's
just
a
good
family
situation.
Then,
if
one
of
the
family
one
of
the
parents
is
killed,
then
there
would
be
an
obligation
by
the
offender
to
pay
child
support
under
your
law.
A
On
the
other
hand,
if
there
was
a
situation
where
there
was
already
an
order
of
support,
it
would
almost
be
that
the
person
would
replace
that
person
already
paying
support
the
obligor,
and
so
that
you
know,
maybe
that's
why
you
left
it
open-ended,
so
that
could
be
merited
out
or
dealt
with
through
the
prosecuting
attorney.
E
Yes,
sir,
that
is
correct
and,
and
the
bill
is
left
open-ended
on
purpose,
to
allow
the
judge
to
maneuver
through
the
through
the
maze
of
craziness
and
it
allows
it
it.
It
takes
the
shackles
off
of
the
judges
and
allow
them
to
use
their
own
discretion,
so
that
was
that
was
by
design.
E
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
main
thing
a
lot
of
people
think
that
that
this
bill
is
drafted
to
punish
you
know
dui
offenders
and
it
was
but
but
more
importantly,
it
was
to
protect
our
children,
so
I'm
anticipating
there
will
be
in
the
future.
There's
there's
gonna
be
a
formula
in
place
just
like
a
divorce
settlement
agreement
that
that
each
each
case
would
be
totally
different,
but
the
formula
would
would
remain
the
same.
F
Just
just
a
quick
follow-up
so,
as
I
understand
this
you're
envisioning
some
type
of
potential
offset
if
there
were
litigation
in
a
wrongful
death
case
which
that's
what
we
term
it
here
and
and
I'm
not
saying
I'm
for
it
against.
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
mechanics
of
it.
F
Would
there
be
an
offset
that
if
there
was
a
wrongful
death
action
that
that
would
offset
some
of
the
child
support
obligation
or
not?
Is
that
to
be
factored
in
it?
Or
is
this
still
kind
of
how
you're
leaving
it
to
the
discretion
of
the
court
to
factor
in
what
may
come
into
play
into
an
overall
calculation.
E
Mr
chairman
he's
I
can.
I
can
just
barely
hear
the
audio
and
my
apologies,
but
I
think
he's
asking
about
the
the
offset
between
the
the
civil
judgment
and
the
child
support.
If
I'm
just
getting
bits
and
pieces
of
it.
That.
E
E
I
lost
you
there
it
it's,
it
would
be
a
yeah
even
though
whether
the
offender
paid
or
not,
he
would
still
owe
so
it's
a
with
in
and
it
would
be
impossible
to
it'll
be
like
a
like
a
school
loan.
It
was
you
know
some
people
don't
pay,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
they
still
don't
owe
it
so
it
would
be
set
in
place.
It
would
never
go
away
and
it
would
be
due
one
year
after
the
offender
was
was
released
from
incarceration.
A
Thank
you.
Senator
turner.
C
Insurance
coverage
like
kentucky,
does,
as
I
understand
it,
so
there
would
be
a
offset
for
the
funds
that
would
be
paid
from
the
insurance
everybody's
mandated
to
carry
insurance,
as
I
would
understand
what
you
just
said.
But
what,
if
there's
such
things
as
social
security
or
other
benefits
that
that
child
ends
up
receiving,
would
there
be
offsets
for
that?
Or
is
it
just
going
to
be
mandatory
that
everybody's,
in
a
case
where
there's
a
wrongful
death
action
by
child
support?
E
Thank
you
for
the
question.
You
know
it's
my
belief
that
that
this
is
the
sole
discretion
of
the
courts
it
will.
It
is
solely
left
up
to
the
judge
to
determine
that
it.
You
know
based
on
the
needs
of
the
child
and
the
ability,
the
to
pay
of
the
offender
and
the
and
the
income
flow
of
of
the
offender.
So
you
know
with
more
needs
of
of
tr.
E
If,
if
a
child
has
more
needs
or
if
there's
any
kind
of
you
know
special
circumstances
involved
there,
then
then
that
would
be
adjusted
solely
by
the
court.
You
know
this
isn't
a
one-size-fits-all,
and
so
that's
why
it's
important
that
the
bill
be
left
open-ended
to
give
the
discretion
to
the
judge.
Anything
less
than
that
would
be
would
be,
would
be
a
disservice
to
the
children.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
my
question
goes
to
what
happens
when
you
have
a
defendant
who
has
killed.
A
parent
has
been
found
guilty
has
served
his
time
gets
discharged
now.
Has
this
obligation
for
child
support
and
they
can't
meet
that
obligation?
G
E
Great
question-
and
I
hope
I
I
hope
I
I
heard
you're
right,
but
but
the
the
inability
to
pay
or
the
or
the
non-payment
doesn't
mean
that
the
offender
doesn't
owe
it.
So
you
know
it
is,
and
you
can't
bankrupt
out
of
child
support.
It
would
be
it's
it
would
the
same.
The
same
formula
would
be
in
place
for
those
that
that
are
that
are
the
offender
as
if
they
had
as
if
they
were
involved
in
a
divorce
settlement
agreement.
So
just
because
they
don't
pay
it's
like
some
people,
don't
pay
child
support.
E
It
doesn't
mean
that
they
don't
owe
it
so
it's
it
would
never
go
away,
so
they
would
still
owe
it
and
it
could
be,
it
could
be
adjusted
through
garnishments
or
lanes,
or
anything
like
that.
So
I'm
not
real
sure
how
you
know
the
great
state
of
kentucky
does
it,
but
in
tennessee
they
it
would
still
never
go
away
just
because
they
didn't
pay.
It.
A
And
senator
based
on
the
law
we
passed
a
session
ago,
if
it
if
it
went
over
5
000
and
it
was
a
contemptible
arrearage,
then
they
would
could
be
put
in
jail
if
it's
a
non-contemptible
urge,
which
means
it
accrued.
While
they
were
incarcerated
that
wouldn't
trigger
that,
but
if
they
got
out
and
then
didn't
pay,
then
foreseeably
could
wind
up
being
another
offense,
at
least
in
kentucky
any
other
questions
representative.
Thank
you
for
being
with
us
today.
A
I
would
have
loved
to
have
had
you
in
person,
but
I
understand
that
we
are
probably
in
the
busiest
month
of
the
year
for
vacations
and
families,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
we
thank
you
for
taking
out
of
your
busy
schedule
your
your
campaign
schedule
and
to
talk
with
us
today.
We
may
be
reaching
out
to
you
for
more
information
if
someone
from
this
body
would
like
to
proceed
or
or
consider
drafting
a
piece
of
this
legislation.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
With
that
we're
going
to
go
right
into
our
second
item
and
follow
the
agenda
here
on
out
and
we're
going
to
talk
about
krs
532080,
persistent
felony
offenders.
So
we're
going
to
ask
the
group
we
have
several
people
here.
We
have
commonwealth
attorney,
rob
sanders,
dpa,
scott
west
dpa
ashley,
graham
and
marcus
jackson
from
the
sou
to
come
on
forward,
and
I
believe,
judge
goodman
we're
going
to
reach
out
to
her
and
see
if
she's
she
should
be
becoming
available
in
the
next
five
to
10
minutes.
A
Come
on
up
rob,
if
you
don't
mind
and
let
while
they're
coming
up,
let
me
tell
you
why
we're
having
this
on
the
agenda.
We
started
in
a
work
group
on
this
particular
topic,
because
we
might
need
to
pull
another
chair
over
for
somebody
there's
three
there,
but
and
judge
goodman
will
be
by
zoom.
We
started
an
informal
work
group
that
basically
were
talking
about
the
effects
of
pfo.
A
This
came
out
of
a
couple
of
circumstances
we
had
heard
about
one
in
which
I
was
involved
in
where
a
pfo
had
been
assigned
to
a
particular
is
a
charge
to
a
defendant.
In
that
particular
area
or
region.
I
was
told
by
one
of
the
the
assistant
commonwealth
attorneys
that
once
a
pfo
is
charged,
it's
not
removed
unless
the
the
judge
sees
otherwise,
and
so
we
ultimately
resolved
that
case.
A
But
but
the
long
story
short
is
there
seems
to
be
some
inconsistencies
with
pfos,
how
they're
used
and
how
it
affects
different
defendants
in
over
different
ways.
So
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
that
discussion.
This
is
why
I
brought
experts
in
here
to
talk
about
it.
Is
that
pfos
obviously
can
be
levied
when
there's
been
a
prior
felony
offense
attributed
to
a
defendant?
A
It
obviously
can
give
you
mandatory
jail
time
if
you're
convicted
of
that
pfo,
which
is
why,
from
a
defense
perspective
at
least
a
lot
of
people
feel
like.
Well,
I
can't
even
risk
going
to
trial,
even
if
I
wanted
to
go
to
trial
because
of
the
impact
of
a
pfo
being
placed
upon
me.
On
the
other
hand,
you
can
have
somebody
that
has
a
long
gap
between
when
they
got
their
felony
when
they
picked
up
a
second
felony
to
get
a
pfo
and
in
some
ways
they
get
treated
differently.
So
I've
got
both
perspectives.
A
Here
today
we
have
commonwealth
attorney,
rob
sanders,
who
has
done
a
very
good
job
for
the
for
the
people
of
kentucky
in
the
com
in
commonwealth,
by
virtue
of
being
the
commonwealth
attorney
in
kenton
county
he's
been
on
a
number
of
task
forces.
Different
things.
He's
is
basically
been
very
involved
in
the
implementation
of
policy
around
things
involving
prosecution
and
defense.
We
have,
of
course,
the
dpa
with
us
here
today
that
handle
a
lot
of
these
cases,
and
then
we
have
mr
jackson
from
the
aclu.
A
So
I
don't
know
who
wants
to
begin.
I
know
that
we're
going
to
reach
out
I'm
going
to
text,
judge
goodman
to
try
to
get
her
on
here
as
soon
as
we
can
she's
going
to
give
a
judicial
perspective,
but
we
want
to
have
that
discussion
here
today.
So
with
that
I
kind
of
know
how
each
person
up
there
already
feels,
but
we're
going
to
let
you
give
up
your
overview
of
it.
A
If
you
don't
mind,
I
I
think
I
would
like
to
actually
go
out
of
a
little
bit
on
that
maybe
start
with
mr
jackson.
I
think
he'd
talk
to
us
before
at
the
meeting
and
have
him
kind
of
kind
of
lead
into
the
discussion
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
So
mr
jackson,.
H
Can
you
hear
me
we
can
hear
you
now
perfect,
chairman
massey
in
westerfield
members
of
the
interim
joint
judiciary
committee.
Good
morning
I
am
marcus
jackson.
The
smart
justice
organizer
coordinator
with
the
aclu
of
kentucky
and
facilitator
of
the
smart
justice
advocates
a
group
of
directly
impacted
people
working
boldly
to
inspire
change
through
policy
legislation.
A
H
H
H
H
Even
though
I
planned
to
stay
close
to
home
and
attend
murray
state
university,
I
got
recruited
to
the
best
football
team
in
the
state.
My
father's
favorite
school,
the
university
of
louisville,
where
I
was
part
of
the
1990-91
fiesta
bowl
winning
team
life,
was
good.
I
returned
paducah
a
hometown,
celebrity
and
high
on
life.
H
H
I
learned
how
to
survive
in
an
environment
that
was
meant
to
destroy
me
and
I
was
released
with
a
new
perspective
on
life
returned
home.
A
shell
of
the
person
I
was
before
I
could
not
return
to
school
and
my
dreams
of
becoming
a
professional
football
player
were
over
everything
I
knew
had
been
taken
from
me.
I
was
lost.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Please
restore
judicial
discretion
to
the
law
by
removing
the
language,
prohibiting
probation,
shock,
probation
and
conditional
discharge
for
non-violent
non-class
d
offenders
and
end
mandatory
minimums
for
non-violent
non-class
d
offenders
sentenced
as
first-degree
percentage
of
the
felony
offenders.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
sir
glad
that
you've
turned
things
around.
We
may
have
some
questions
here
specifically
about
the
matter
going
forward,
as
I
know
that
there's
many
people
on
this
this
panel
here
today,
but
not
all
of
them
practice
in
this
arena,
and
so
they
may
have
some
questions
about
that.
So
we
will
circle
back
around
once
we've
had
the
presenters
fulfill
their
testimony,
so
I
don't
care
who
goes
next,
whether
it's
dpa
or
commonwealth
attorney
sanders
doesn't
matter
got
a
preference.
I
guess
we'll
have
mr
west.
A
I'm
not
your
honor,
but
I
don't
think
rob
ever
has
trouble
speaking
out
at
any
time,
so
commonwealth
attorney
we'll.
Let
you
give
some
comments
about
pfos,
what
your
experience
has
been
and
what
your
thoughts
are
regarding
this
matter.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
actually
don't
have
anything
to
present
other
than
don't
mess
this
up.
The
pfo
law
works.
Commonwealth
attorneys,
use
prosecutory
of
discretion.
Sorry
get
feedback
from
this
computer
here.
So
it's
really
difficult
to
speak
to
you
and
hear
myself
coming
right
back
at
me
just
a
few
seconds
later.
Anyhow,
it
works.
Not
everyone
is
charged
with
the
pfo.
J
J
We
only
enforce
the
laws,
but
what
we
do
is
try
and
use
the
pfo
law
to
stop
repeat
offenders.
We
try
to
sit
people
out
long
enough
that
they
hit
what
I
like
to
call
criminal
menopause.
They
are
incarcerated
long
enough
that
they
know
they
don't
want
to
come
back
and
they
stop
their
criminal
criminal
behavior.
Sorry,
the
echo
here
is
very
difficult.
J
It's
back,
I'm
not
sure
I'll.
Try!
Thank
you.
Anyhow.
I
think
some
of
the
suggestions.
I've
thought
about
a
lot
of
them.
I've
read
most
of
the
things
that.
J
You
have
to
keep
in
mind
the
effective
reality
of
our
judicial
system
and
what
some
of
these
changes
would
make
the
confusion
they
would
cause
in
many
chants
are
many
examples
I
think,
would
cause
it
to
actually
be
harder
for
defense
attorneys
to
do
their
job
if
they
can't
reasonably
predict
their
client.
What
kind
of
time
they're
facing,
if
they're,
trying
to
tell
a
client?
Well,
we
go
to
trial.
You
could
get
one
year
in
prison,
but
you
could
get
20
years
in
prison.
We
just
don't
know.
J
J
You
have
to
be
very
careful
if
you
want
to
mandate
a
way
that
pfo
is
implemented,
so
that
there
is
no
local
control
or
local
discretion.
It
could
have
very
unintended
consequences.
You
could
end
up
with
prosecutors,
sending
far
more
people
to
prison
than
we
currently
do,
giving
less
people
probation
or
diversion
for
offenses.
It
could
end
up
in
different
outcomes
for
criminals
with
the
same
history
that
commit
the
same
crime
depending
on
who
they
are,
how
they
look.
What
you
know,
things
that
shouldn't
make
a
difference
in
what
kind
of
sentence
is
imposed.
J
I
would
just
urge
you
all
to
communicate
with
commonwealth
attorneys
anything
that
you're
considering
in
terms
of
changes.
Please
let
us
know
so
we're
willing
to
consider
anything.
But,
most
importantly,
we
don't
want
you
to
break
the
system.
I
think
that
the
public,
the
citizens
of
kentucky,
are
tired
of
criminals,
we're
seeing
that
all
across
the
nation.
J
Thank
you
appreciate,
oh
much,
better.
Thank
you.
We're
not
seeing
a
lot
of
those
problems
in
kentucky,
although
we
are
not
totally
free
of
those
problems
either
and
the
the
citizens
of
kentucky
don't
want
this,
those
problems
in
the
commonwealth.
We
don't
want
to
be
san
francisco
or
los
angeles
or
new
york
city,
we're
doing
a
very
good
job,
our
justice
system,
although
it
has
its
frustrations,
it
does
work.
J
You
know
I
was
talking
to
my
cohort
our
cohort
chris
koran,
the
commerce
attorney
from
warren
county
back
there
earlier
today,
and
he
told
me
that
you
know
rob
the
most
common
question
I
get
when
I
present
pfos
to
my
grand
jury
for
indictment
is
how
is
this
person
even
out
of
prison?
How
are
they
you
know?
I
get
it
they're
eligible
for
pfo,
but
you
do
the
numbers:
okay.
They
they
got
a
five
year
sentence
in
2018.
They
got
a
two
year
sentence
in
2020,
now
they're
back
in
2022..
J
How
is
this
possible
that
this
person
is
out
walking
the
street?
Well,
it's
because
our
sentencing
laws
in
kentucky
for
non-violent
offenses
are
a
joke.
The
truth
in
sentencing
people
are
serving
out
non-violent
offenses
and
about
50
percent
of
what
their
sentence
is
so
anytime
and
I'm
not
talking
about
violent
offenses.
That's
a
whole
other
subject
that
I
could
get
on
a
soapbox
for
about
what's
violent
in
kentucky
and
what's
not
for
parole
eligibility
purposes,
because
there's
lots
of
violent
offenses
that
are
non-violent
for
parole
purposes.
J
But
when
we
talk
about
non-violent
offenses,
which
does
include
many
violent
crimes
that
are
classified
as
non-violent,
you
got
to
remember
that
when
you
look
at
a
piece
of
paper
and
see,
class
b,
felony
is
10
to
20
years.
When
you
start
counting
up
all
the
good
time
divide
it
by
two,
because
that's
what
a
serve
out
is
on
them:
they're
serving
out
ten
year
sentences
in
five
20-year
sentences
and
ten
five-year
sentences
and
a
little
over
two.
J
You
know-
and
it's
very
frustrating
for
commonwealth
attorneys
to
try
and
explain
all
this
to
our
grand
juries
to
our
citizens
to
the
victims
of
crime.
You
know
we
are
passing
laws
like
marsy's
law,
which
does
a
lot
of
very
good
things
to
help
victims
of
crime,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
turning
around
and
telling
them
that
that
sentences
that
are
imposed
don't
mean
what
the
number
says
and
that
we
can't.
J
You
know
if
a
lot
of
these
changes
were
to
be
implemented,
that
the
punishment
for
repeat
offenders
would
not
be
increased,
that
that's
not
the
kind
of
things
the
commonwealth
kentucky
needs.
It's
not
what
our
citizens
want
to
hear
so
chairman.
I
don't
have
any
proposals
for
you
other
than
the
fact
that
we
want
to
be
heard
on
anything
that
this
body
intends
to
take
up.
Well,
I.
A
I
don't,
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
Hopefully,
senate
bill
90,
that
was
the
initiative
of
president
stivers
and
chairman
westerfield,
will
help
deal
with
some
of
those
things
going
forward,
but
that's
just
something
that
we
are
trying
to
consider
as
well.
We
do
have
with
us
now
judge
goodman,
so
judge
if
you're
there.
I
don't
know
how
much
you've
heard
we
have
had
a
presentation
for
mr
jackson,
from
the
aclu
of
kentucky
from
commonwealth
attorney
rob
sanders.
K
All
right-
and
obviously
you
can
hear
me
yes,
yes,
this
is
judge
julie,
goodman.
I
am
a
circuit
judge
in
fayette
county
I'll.
Give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
I
prior
to
taking
the
bench
in
circuit.
I
actually
was
a
district
judge
for
12
years,
so
I
believe
I
have
a
really
good
grasp
of
our
community,
which
is
one
of
the
larger
communities
in
in
our
state.
K
Additionally.
Prior
to
that
I
practiced
for
28
years,
but
of
those
28
years
six.
I
I
was
a
prosecutor
starting
out
as
a
special
prosecutor
at
the
attorney
general's
office
and
then
also
I
was
an
assistant
commonwealth
attorney.
So
I
I
think
I
have
a
good
grasp
for
understanding
of
our
criminal
system,
but
what
it
concerns
me
as
a
judge-
and
I
actually
just
got
off
the
bench
from
doing
my
criminal
docket-
I
do
it
every
week.
There
are
five
of
us
here
we
have
pretty.
Our
dockets
are
normal.
K
I
had
85
on
my
criminal
docket
of
those
85,
I
would
say,
70
percent
are
there
because
the
individual
is
either
a
has
a
drug
issue
and
the
charges
are
a
possession
charge
or
a
trafficking
charge
that
usually
gets
amended
down
to
a
possession
charge.
There
are
crimes
that
have
occurred
because
they're
homeless
they're
mentally
ill.
These
are
the
issues
that
we
call
have
that
cause
our
dockets
to
be
that
high
every
week
of
every
week
of
this
year
and
every
year
hereafter
our
dockets
are
becoming
larger
and
larger.
K
K
If
you
have
a
prior
felony,
you
get
the
pfo
added.
That
then,
creates
a
situation
where
individuals
are
placed
in
a
position
that
they
can't
afford
to
try
their
cases
because
for
what
are
really
drug
problems
or
their
mental
health
problems,
they
can't
even
run
the
risk
of
going
to
trial
because
they're
face
facing
the
pfo.
K
The
court
feels
very
strongly
that
we
need
stronger
parameters
on
how
long
a
pfo
can
last
on
the
books.
The
other
problem
we
see
at
fayette
county
is
so
many
of
our
flagrant
non-supports
and
for
some
reason
we
have
a
large
amount
of
flagrant
non-supports,
they're,
always
probated,
because
we
all
believe
the
goal
is
to
have
money
paid
to
the
children
and
therefore
you
don't
want
them
in
jail.
You
want
them.
K
I
think-
and
I
understand
what
the
commonwealth's
attorneys
say.
I
know
that
they
are
very
concerned
about
our
crime.
They
are
no
more
concerned
than
the
judges
and,
let's
not
forget
the
judges,
get
blamed
for
everything.
So
if
somebody
gets
out
and
they
commit
another
crime,
it's
the
judge
whose
name
is
called
out,
not
the
commonwealth,
attorney
and
understanding
that
I
still
believe
that
the
pfo
is
being
abused
across
the
state,
because
it
is
not
meant
for
every
type
of
crime.
K
But
yet
here
it
doesn't
matter
what
the
crime
is,
that
they've
committed
if
it's
a
and
unfortunately
in
this
county,
if
you
have
shoplifted
and
you
get
a
letter
from
walmart
that
says
that
you
can't
come
on
their
property
anymore.
But
then
you
go
back
two
years
later,
three
years
later
and
you
shoplift
and
you
take
more
than
under
the
I
mean
you
take
a
felony
amount.
K
And
the
majority
of
them
are
homeless
and
they're
drug
addicts,
so
the
court
is
asking
or
saying:
can
we
not
create
some
parameters
and
we're
seeing
people
that
have
to
stay
on
probation
for
longer
than
they
should
have
because
of
the
restitution
issues,
because
once
they're
a
felon,
they
can't
get
a
job
anyway,
they
can't
pay
their
their
restitution
off,
so
they
stay
on
probation
forever.
Can
we
not
change
it
to
where
the
pfo,
I
believe
now
it
stays
on
your
rare
it
stays.
K
K
It
then
protects
those
people
who,
like
are
flagrant,
non-supports
and
will
be
on
probation
until
the
day
they
die.
These
are
the
type
of
things
and,
and
you
do
the
possession
you.
You
can't
enhance
a
possession
charge
first
offense,
but
you
can
then
take
it
and
use
it
to
turn
around
and
enhance
another
charge.
K
There
seems
to
me
there
needs
to
be
some
rhyme
or
reason
or
some
parameters
so
that
at
least
all
the
commonwealth
attorneys
treat
everybody
equally,
because
there
are
commonwealth
attorneys.
I
know
in
this
state
who
would
never
think
on
a
because
I've
talked
to
some
of
them,
and
I've
talked
to
their
judges
who
say
that
they
would
never
if
it
were
truly
a
well
first
of
all,
there's
some
that
would
never
charge
a
burglary
if
it
was
truly
a
shoplifting,
but
the
person
they
chart
they
their
their
commonwealth
attorneys,
say
no.
K
You
have
to
charge
a
criminal
trespass
and
you
have
to
charge
a
theft
by
unlawful,
taking
not
a
burglary
but
work
together
with
the
commonwealth
attorneys
and
the
judges
to
to
take
some
of
these
things
out
of
the
pfo
world,
so
they're
all
the
same,
but
our
joining
county.
They
would
never
allow
a
pfo
on
a
burglary
that
is
really
nothing
other
than
a
shoplifting
charge.
K
That's
been
somehow
enhanced
because
or
made
to
sound,
like
a
burglary,
because
walmart
had
sent
him
the
letter
saying
you
can't
be
on
our
property.
Isn't
there
some
way
they
all?
We
could
all
work
together
to
narrow
the
parameters
of
the
pfo
when
it
can
be
used
when
it
can't
be
used
so
that
we
don't
face
all
of
these
cases.
K
K
So
I
have
a
great
concern
and
I
understand
the
commonwealth's
attorney's
concerns,
but
I
have
a
great
concern
that
the
pfo
is
not
doing
what
it
was
meant
to
do,
which
was
to
truly
keep
violent
criminals
in
custody,
the
the
people
that
are
threatening
us,
the
most,
the
individuals
who
are
the
gang
members
and
the
and
the
and
the
drug
dealers
and
the
people
who
are
out
there
committing
violent
crimes
and
assaults,
but
instead
it's
be
being
used
for
every
every
crime
imaginable,
no
matter
how,
in
reality
it's
how
minor
it
is.
A
Thank
you
judge
and
we
hope
you'll
stay
with
us
for
a
bit.
We
do
have
we're
going
to
take
one
thing
out
of
order,
because
I've
been
notified
shickled
that
he
has
to
leave
around
noon.
So
he
wanted
to
get
a
question
in
before
he
left
we're
going
to
come
back
to
dpa,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
senator
schickel
got
his
question
in.
G
I
appreciate
you
your
indulgence.
I
want
to
ask
the
commonwealth
attorney
rob
several
years.
We've
had
a
bill
filed,
I
filed
it.
I
think
the
year
before
last,
to
let
juries
take
a
look
at
the
pfo
penalty.
I
believe
it
was
after
conviction.
It's
been
quite
a
few
years,
I'm
not
really
sure
about
the
the
way
it
went
down,
but
I
was
wondering
if
you
ever
or
you
or
your
colleagues
ever
reviewed
that
bill
and
what
you
thought.
J
Of
it,
we
have
senator,
and
I
I
first
I
want
to
point
out
the
irony
that-
and
this
is
part
of
what
we
consider,
but
the
irony
of
what
judge
goodman
is
advocating
for
less
prosecutorial
discretion,
because
she
doesn't
like
it
in
her
circuit
when
the
prosecutor
is
not
using
prosecutorial
discretion
in
the
application
of
the
pfo
that
just
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
and
that
there's
a
reason
that
it
came
about
the
the
late
great
ray
larson,
who
is
a
hero
of
mine.
J
I
think
he
was
one
of
the
best
commonwealth
attorneys
we
ever
had,
and
you
know
ray
had
his
ways
of
doing
things
and
some
I
agreed
with
some.
I
don't,
but
the
way
that
he
came
to
that
policy
and
I
believe
it's
a
policy
that
they
still
use
even
after
ray's
retirement
in
fayette
county
these
days
he
was
accused
of
being
biased
in
the
way
that
he
was
using
his
discretion
on
persistent
felony
offender
indictments.
So
he
just
stopped
using
discretion
and
he
said
fine.
J
If
you
think
that
I'm
being
discriminatory
in
how
I
apply
the
pfo
law,
I'm
just
going
to
apply
it
to
everybody
across
the
board
and
everybody's
going
to
get
it,
no
matter
what
the
charge,
no
matter,
what
your
record,
if
you're
pfo
eligible
you
get
pfo
indicted,
and
then
you
get
sentenced
as
a
pfo,
and
I
don't
agree
with
that
approach.
I
respect.
J
I
understand
why
ray
did
what
he
did,
because
he
didn't
like
being
accused
of
not
being
fair,
and
I
believe
that
that
policy
is
still
in
place
today,
and
I
am
a
big
fan
of
luanna
regcorn,
who
is
current
fayette
county
commonwealth's
attorney,
but
just
know
that
that's
how
that
policy
came
to
be,
but
senator
to
your
question,
I
don't
think
that
we
are
in
favor
of
what
it
amounts
to
statutory
jury
nullification,
because
it's
in
essence,
you
know
some
defense
attorneys
trying
to
do
that
already
suggested
jurors
that
they
don't
have
to
follow
the
law.
J
But
if
it
happens
to
be
somebody
that
wanders
in
from
out
of
town-
and
maybe
they
don't
look
like
everybody
in
town
does
or
maybe
they
don't
talk
like
everybody
in
town
does,
or
maybe
they
just
ain't
from
around
here.
Well,
then
they
get
the
pfo
and
they
get
hammered,
even
though
both
defendants
committed
the
same
crime
and
have
the
same
criminal
record.
All
of
our
felony
punishments
carry
a
punishment
range.
J
Pfos
carry
a
punishment
range
juries.
Have
the
choice
to
go
high
in
that
range
or
go
low
in
that
range
or
anywhere
in
the
middle,
and
that's
what
we
believe
is
fair:
that
people,
no
matter
where
you're
from
how
you
look,
how
you
sound
whether
you're
from
around
here
or
not
that
if
you
have
the
same
criminal
history
and
you
commit
the
same
offense,
you
should
get
at
least
a
very
similar
punishment.
If
not
an
identical
punishment.
K
Yes,
what
I
would
like
to
say
in
response
to
the
question,
and
also
in
the
resp
the
comment
about
ray.
Actually,
I
was
ray
hired
me
as
an
assistant
commonwealth
attorney.
I
worked
with
ray
regularly
and
also
in
special
prosecutions.
Ray
started
that
unit
at
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
I
was
one
of
his
first
hires.
K
I
have
all
the
respect
in
the
world
for
ray
when
I
ran
for
this
position
as
circuit
ray
actually
supported
me
and
did
my
tv
ads
with
me,
but
that
was
not
how
ray
and
I
talked
about
things
or
what
rey's
belief
was,
or
my
belief
has
been
so
I
just
wanted
that
clear.
That
ray
did
look
at
every
case
individually,
but
how
ray
would
handle
it?
Is
it
wouldn't
come
out
of
the
grand
jury
if
it
shouldn't
it
would
be
amended
down
and
it
would
go
back.
K
K
I
literally
had
a
juror
who
it
was
not
a
case
in
front
of
me,
but
after
the
juror
finished
serving
the
juror
actually
called
me,
because
I
knew
the
individual
to
tell
me
how
appalled
they
were
that
they
had
not
been
aware
of
a
pfo
issue
because
they
believed
the
person
was
a
drug
addict.
It
was
a
burglary.
K
They
absolutely
felt
they
had
been
lied
to
by
the
commonwealth.
They
believed
that
and
they
and
they
went
rogue
and
they
literally
did
not
apply
the
pfo
to
some
degree.
K
Therefore
you
are
a
persistent
felony
offender
if
they
think
that
they're
not
really
persistent,
they're,
just
a
drug
addict,
they
felt
like
well
that
isn't
what
we
have
here.
We
don't
have
a
persistent
felon.
We
have
a
drug
addict,
so
I
mean
maybe
the
language
of
the
pfo
needs
to
be
changed
to
that
degree
that
they
do
have
a
right
to
say.
Yes,
factually
we
see
this,
we
see
that
previously
they
were
charged
with
this.
This
crime
has
nothing
to
do
with
it.
K
Therefore,
we
don't
have
to
find
them
guilty,
and
so
I
do
think
that
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
and
I
will
tell
you
jurors,
in
fayette
county
see
what's
going
on
in
the
world,
I
had
a
young
man.
I
tried
a
truck
case
this
week.
It
wasn't
a
pfo
issue,
but
it
was
a
convicted
felon
in
possession
of
a
handgun,
a
young
23-year-old
black
gentleman
had
gotten
in
a
fight.
K
Somebody
dropped
the
gun,
he
picked
it
up
and
ran,
ran
and
begged
for
help
asks
called
the
police,
so
he
could
turn
the
gun
in
and
the
gun.
Then
the
police
arrested
him,
even
though
that
was
clearly
what
had
happened
charged
him
with
convicted
felon
in
possession
a
handgun.
The
jury
was
out,
seven
minutes
not
guilty.
K
A
All
right,
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
yield
to
the
dpa
and
let
them
weigh
in
on
this-
and
this
has
been
a
very
good
discussion
we'll
and
we'll
we'll
have
questions
after
I
only
went
off
the
script,
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
senator
shikle
got
his
question
in
so
thank
you
both
for
answering.
You
may
proceed.
I
L
L
L
L
L
Jurors
do
have
an
issue
with
the
enhancements.
They
don't
know
about
that.
Whenever
they're
first
called
to
jury
service,
they
don't
know
about
it
in
guilt
in
innocence,
I
have
seen
jurors
whenever
they
hear
the
commerce
opening
statement,
as
part
of
sentencing
say
that
this
person's
eligible
for
pfo
and
what
that
penalty
range
will
be,
they
throw
their
heads
back
in
surprise.
L
We
had
a
case
in
kenton
county
a
couple
of
years
ago,
an
individual
who
had
a
low
iq.
He
had
several
fake
twenty
dollar
bills,
which
is
a
classy
felony.
He
was
pfo
one
that
kicked
in
a
hard
ten
sentence.
The
only
question
to
my
understanding
that
the
jury
came
back
during
sentencing
was
if
they
had
to
convict
a
pfo
and
they
did
they
recommended
10
years
and
those
jurors
came
back
into
the
courtroom,
some
of
them
with
tears
in
their
eyes.
L
It's
something
that
could
go
to
the
jury
to
give
them
more
discretion
in
what
they
want
to
decide.
We
still
have
truth
in
sentencing
as
part
of
the
penalty
phase.
They
still
hear
an
individual's
background.
The
number
of
crimes
that
they've
committed
what
their
sentences
were,
they
would
have
the
option
to
go
with
the
minimum
or
to
the
maximum,
and
then
the
jury
makes
a
recommendation
as
to
sentencing.
It
is
still
up
to
that
circuit
court
judge
as
to
whether
or
not
to
follow
that
jury's
recommendation.
L
They
need
treatment,
and
I
will
say
to
mr
sanders.
We
I
believe
kenton
county
has
done
a
phenomenal
job
of
trying
to
get
people
out
of
custody
within
the
first
week
that
they're
arrested.
If
it
is
a
low-level
drug
charge
that
they
go,
they
have
a
substance,
abuse
assessment
they
get
out
a
tree
or
the
preliminary
hearing
to
either
go
to
an
intensive
outpatient
program
or
to
inpatient
treatment.
L
I
do
not
want
to
diminish
our
appreciation
and
those
efforts
and
great
strides
for
our
community
in
kenton
county,
but
more
often
than
not
your
first
shot
at
treatment
is
not
going
to
be
your
last.
Our
clients
suffer
from
chronic
problems
of
just
substance:
abuse
of
mental
health,
of
poverty,
homelessness.
L
It
is
very
easy
for
them
to
get
charged
with
low-level
felonies,
just
by
virtue
of
their
status
in
our
society,
and
I
think
that,
in
order
to
with
the
pfo,
our
sentences
keep
getting
longer,
we
spend
more
money.
Incarcerating
people,
probation
and
parole
could
take
some
of
that
money
to
hire
more
officers
to
supervise
people
in
the
community
to
connect
them
with
services
to
help
them
find
employment
to
help
them
find
housing.
L
And
it's
just
it's
just
very
unfair
to
the
people
who
they
get
so
many
charges,
because
they
are
more
often
than
not
a
lot
of
low-level
crimes
that
they
just
keep
getting
churned
in
and
out
of
the
jails
and
they
violate
probation,
there's
a
lot
of
lack
of
services.
But
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
west
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I
Thank
you,
ashley.
I
want
to
tell
you
two
stories
from
my
tenure
as
being
a
public
defender.
One
of
them
was,
I
had
a
person
who
had
a
really
good
defense.
He
was
charged
second
degree
assault.
The
issue
was
the
extent
of
the
injury.
If
it
was
a
serious
physical
injury,
it
was
five
to
ten.
If
it
was
a
non,
it
was
not
a
serious
physical
injury.
Then
it
was
a
misdemeanor,
and
I
thought
we
had
a
great
case.
I
I
do
need
to
correct
something
in
in
the
paper
that
I
supplied
you
all,
and
I
have
rob
to
thank
for
that.
I
put
in
on
page
3
that
it
was
10
calendar
years.
It's
not
it's
10
state
years,
so
you
do
get
good
time
meritorious
good
time
and
you
can
reduce
the
10
calendar
years
to
a
lesser
period
of
time.
So
I
apologize
for
that.
I
It
should
say
10
state
years,
not
calendar
years,
but
he
couldn't
take
the
chance,
and
so
we
didn't
get
to
go
to
a
jury
with
our
story
of
what
happened
in
this
fist
fight.
He
took
the
five
or
six
years
and
left
what
I
thought
was
a
good
defense
on
the
table,
but
I
go
at
home
at
night,
I'm
not
the
one
that
has
to
do
the
time.
I
Another
story,
I'll
tell
you
is
after
I'd
lost
a
case.
A
juror
came
up
to
me
afterwards
in
tears.
She
said,
I'm
not
sorry
that
we
convicted
your
client,
but
I
am
sorry
we
had
to
give
him
that
much
time
we
didn't
want
to,
but
we
felt
like
we
had
no
choice,
and
I
said
the
only
thing
I
could
say
is
you
don't
need
to
apologize?
You
did
what
you
were
instructed
to
do
under
the
law.
I
Given
you
proposals,
I
know
it's
five
pages
worth:
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
them.
The
whole
reason
I
wrote
them
down
was
so
that
you
all
could
have
them
and
look
look
at
them
on
your
own
time,
but
I
do
want
to
talk
about
the
first
page,
the
crown
jewel
I'll
call
it
of
our
proposals
is
the
jury,
empowerment
proposal
just
by
chain
proposal,
just
by
changing
the
word
shout
to
may
the
jury
can
decide
what
this
case
under
this
fax
is
is
worth.
I
The
legislature
sets
the
range
of
penalty,
but
it
is
the
jury
that
applies
those
facts
to
the
law
and
says
we
think
this
person
should
be
sentenced
at
the
lower
end
or
the
higher
end
or
somewhere
in
the
middle,
and
what
this
would
do
would
give
the
jury
options
if
they
are
angry
at
the
person
they
hear
his
record,
they
see
how
many
felonies
he's
had
in
the
past
or
she's
had
in
the
past.
They
can
hammer
that
defendant
as
hard
as
they
ever
could
that's
not
taken
away
from
them
at
all.
I
They
can
max
the
person
and
and
run
it
consecutively.
We
call
that
max
and
stack
and
and
and
I've
had
juries
mad-
they
couldn't
max
and
stack
more,
but
if
they
find
a
measure
of
mercy,
if
they
think
that
this
person
is
going
to
be
penalized
too
heavily,
then
they
can
sentence
at
the
lower
range
of
the
penalty
before
pfo
and
it's
the
jury's
choice
and
that's
how
you
know
what
a
case
is
worth
wherever
you
are,
it
may
not.
I
You
have
people
who
really
want
to
go
to
trial
and
they
want
to
exercise
their
day
in
court,
but
they're
afraid
to
because
the
penalty
has
just
doubled
or
in
some
instances
tripled,
and
so
what
this
would
do.
If,
if
the
jury
empowerment
was
passed,
then
there's
going
to
be
a
real
conversation
about
what
the
case
is
worth.
I
I
I
I
I
You
know
some
one,
multiple,
you
know
that
would
be
up
to
whatever
consensus
can
be
gathered
at
the
general
assembly.
I
will
say
this
that
when
senator
schickel
talked
about
the
jury,
empowerment
bill,
that
that
was
the
first
proposal
he
was
referring.
We
asked
him
right
before
covert
struck
to
carry
that
bill
for
us
and
he
was
agreeable
because
he
agrees
that
juries
should
have
a
bigger
say
in
their
community
about
what
a
crime
is
worth,
and
you
know
they
say
be
careful
what
you
ask
for
you
might
get
it.
I
I
get
that
there
may
be
somebody
and
they
say
well,
we
know
this
guy
we're
not
going
to
hammer
him,
whereas
a
stranger
in
town,
they
hammer
them
more,
but
I
don't
think
you
fix
that
by
making
the
law
so
that
you
have
to
hammer
everybody,
that's
how
we'll
make
it
equal.
Nobody
gets
mercy,
we'll
hammer
everybody
as
hard
as
we
can.
I
This
at
least
gives
both
sides
the
ability
to
make
their
case
in
front
of
a
jury,
and
that's
what
we
went
to
law
school
to
do
is
to
have
a
even
playing
field
and
talking
to
the
jury
about
what
the
case
is
worth.
I
thank
you
all
for
your
time.
Listening
to
me,
and
that
concludes
what
I
have
to
say
as.
A
C
Been
here
first,
I
got
to
make
a
little
of
statement
with
your
permission,
sir,
as
42
years
of
practicing
lawyer
and
watched,
a
commonwealth
attorney
grow
from
a
one
person
to
a
secretary
to
I
think,
they've
got
probably
eight
working
in
our
office.
Now
we've
got
three
or
four
people.
That's
watching
people
that
are
criminals.
C
We
pass
statutes.
It
says
if
you
give
a
false
id
you're
going
to
be
charged
with
a
felony.
Just
like
you've
said
I've
seen
it
and
now
about
five
out
of
20
people
get
charged
they've
given
the
wrong
id,
they
say
and
they
say
no,
I
didn't
it's
always
a
question,
but
they've
got
a
prior
fail
in
their
simple
felony.
C
So
and
I
don't
think
any
legislative
laws
we
pass
are
jokes,
but
I
think
there's
a
problem
with
the
legislative
laws.
We
pass
because
we're
not
treating
everybody
equal
in
this
state
when
you
give
commonwealth
attorneys
discretion
in
each
county,
you're
getting
treated
differently
in
each
county,
so
we
as
a
legislator
should
undertake
now
to
take
some
of
the
things
you
just
said
turn
it
over
to
the
hands
of
the
jurors
they're,
treating
everybody.
C
The
same
in
this
state
so-
and
I
think
the
judge
good
honorable
judge
should
have
when
she
heard
those
facts
just
granted
a
judgment
saying:
there's
no
intent
to
possess
a
gun
and
that
never
went
to
a
jury,
but
that's
just
my
opinion,
so
I
guess
a
question
I
have
for
the
dpa
side
of
it
from
both
of
you
all
other
than
these
things
that
you've
passed
on
to
us
to
look
at.
Is
there
any
other
thoughts?
I've
heard
this
young
man's
statement.
C
I
I
think
that
there
is,
I
mean
the
pfo
area
of
the
law
is
one
area,
but
I
can
think
of
others
where
uniformity
could
be
brought
across
the
state
and
in
a
lot
of
places.
I
always
am
worried
that
I'm
saying
get
rid
of
someone's
discretion,
but
I
think
that
the
the
more
you
get
up
in
a
higher
penalty,
the
the
you
know,
the
more
liberty
you're
taking
from
someone.
I
Mr
sanders
said
that
he
didn't
want
to
get
on
his
soapbox
about
violent
crime.
I
have
a
soapbox
too,
and
and
that's
something
that
we
could
talk
about-
probably
disagree
on
80
percent
of
it,
but
we
can
usually
find
it
20
percent
where
we
agree,
but
I
would
think
violent
crimes
and
how
we
approach
violent
crimes
and
the
effect
on
violent
crimes
is
another
area
other
than
pfo,
where
we
could
do
something
across
the
state.
I
Once
they're
drafted,
yes,
I
every
everything
that
I
would
draft
in
the
way
of
a
legislative
proposal,
I
would
present
to
the
entire
bodies.
C
And
one
other
statement,
mr
chairman,
I
would
hope
everybody
would
look
at
that
case
where
it's
in
the
supreme
courts.
It's
not
too
long
ago.
Opinions
if
you
get
the
law
summary
that
talks
about
a
person,
I
think
they
were
charged
with
a
little
drug
charge.
There
was
a
pfo
went
to
trial
and
they,
the
supreme
court
sites,
were
the
commonwealth
attorney,
was
overheard
on
tape,
telling
a
detective
to
lie.
C
D
D
You
can
boil
it
down
in
some
sense,
as
though
the
general
assembly
should
be
looking
at
a
matter
of
justice,
not
giving
or
taking
away
distraction
or
protecting
a
defendant
or
protecting
the
prosecution
or
protecting
a
judge.
Each
of
those
three
parties
are
going
to
have
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
discretion
in
every
single
case
that
comes
through
the
criminal
justice
system.
D
D
Somebody
can
tell
me
that
you
can
look
at
the
scope
of
applicability
of
the
statutes
to
whom
is
deploying
to
what
cases
to
what
charges
to
what
level
of
offenses,
what
time
frame
it's
and
you
can
work
on
those
type
things.
You
can
also
look
at
the
discretion
of
a
judge
in
the
sentencing
on
a
pfo
conviction,
whether
there
be
probation
or
some
other
way
to
dispense
or
dispose
of
that
sentencing
option
and
then
there's
another
one
which
you've
mentioned
and
senator
sheckles
mentioned.
D
I
think
I
may
have
filed
a
bill
also
on
this
at
one
point
in
time
where
you
change
and
give
the
jury
discretion
to
say,
no,
we're
not
going
to
apply
the
pfo
just
to
make
sure
everybody's
clear.
If
there
is
an
underlying
applicable
charge
in
the
past
and
a
set
of
court
records
are
pulled
up
and
it's
proven
yep
that
happened
and
yep.
This
fits
within
the
statutory
framework.
D
D
I
think
that
the
instructions
ought
to
be
given,
but
the
jury
ought
to
have
discretion
at
a
minimum.
When
you
go
to
look
at
the
applicability
and
tinkering
with
the
mechanics,
it's
going
to
be
a
dog
fight
in
this
general
assembly
and
outside
of
this
general
assembly
and
everybody
involved
and
there's
ground
to
work
there.
Discretion
for
the
judge
may
be
a
little
easier
to
deal
with.
D
D
In
fact,
even
though
it
may
fit
in
law,
there's
an
ultimate
pressure
valve
to
be
released,
and
the
judge
may
need
more
on
that,
but
I
think
at
a
bare
minimum,
when
you
look
at
the
pfo
and
I'm
not
really
concerned
about
how
many
people
are
incarcerated,
I'm
not
really
concerned
from
a
policy
standpoint
of
how
much
money
we
spend
on
that
I'm
concerned,
because
we
watch
it
all
the
time
and
it
grows
all
the
time.
But
if
somebody's
committed
a
crime,
especially
a
predatory
crime,
they
need
to
be
in
jail
for
multiple
purposes.
D
Multiple
ends.
However,
when
that
system
gets
out
of
whack
when
it
gets
out
of
kilter,
we
have
to
do
something.
There
is
nothing
wrong
with
giving
a
jury
that
finds
guilt
on
the
facts,
given
the
same
discretion
in
each
jury.
That's
called
in
every
part
of
this
commonwealth,
the
same
discretion
to
say
no
to
a
pfo
that
they
think
in
that
community
doesn't
fit,
and
I've
said
this
and
I'm
glad
to
hear
it
repeated
today.
D
I
would
submit
then,
given
that
discretion
to
a
judge,
because
it
is
the
community
that
has
to
fill
the
before
and
after
effects
of
each
criminal
offense
is
the
one
that
I'll
be
making
that
determination
I'll
be
glad
to
support
that
portion
of
any
bill
that
comes
through
as
long
as
we've
got
good
language
on
it.
I
think
the
bill
that
I
had
changed
one
word
from
shall
to
may
I
still
stand
fully
behind
that
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
G
Sorry,
just
because
I
really
not
a
lawyer,
don't
know
this
possession
of
marijuana
to
get
a
d
felony
conviction.
How
much
does
it
take.
G
J
That
was
the
very
first
thing
I
brought
up
and
that
I
know
the
judges
that
were
involved
in
the
panel
agreed
with
is
that
kentucky
is
horrible
at
data
collection
and
it's
it's
not
as
easy,
as
you
might
think,
to
collect
the
data
on
pfo
because
you
not
only
have
to
collect
the
data
on
who
gets
a
pfo,
but
you
have
to
collect
data
on
who
was
eligible
for
pfo
but
did
not
get
a
pfo.
So
I
know
that
it
is
more
complicated
than
just
saying:
no,
we
don't
collect
the
data,
it
costs
money.
J
I
If
someone
says-
and
they
have
said,
if
you
touch,
if
you
don't
take
the
offer-
and
you
take
this
to
trial,
we
will
pfo
you
and
then
you
have
the
option
and
you
have
to
the
duty
to
look
and
see
if
it's
an
idle
threat
or
a
real
threat.
But
once
you
determine
it's
a
real
threat,
you've
got
to
go
back
to
your
client
and
say
they
said
they
will
pfo
you.
They
do
have
the
ability
to
do
it.
Do
you
want
to
take
this
offer
or
not?
I
And
if
they
do,
there's
no
data
there
that
ever
shows
that
pfo
entered
the
system,
but
it
was
just
as
real
and
and
just
one
other
anecdote.
Someone
said
if
you
can
work
this
in
try
to
work
it
in.
There
was
a
person
charged
with
kidnapping,
first-degree,
burglary
and
strangulation.
I
They
took
it
to
trial,
it
was
pfo,
they
won.
They
got
an
acquittal
on
everything;
they
simply
did
not
believe
the
story,
but
while
they
were
in
jail,
they
picked
up
a
contraband
charge.
The
offer
was
one
year
after
the
acquittal.
The
offer
was
pfo'd
and
went
up
tremendously
because
they
were
wanting
to
get
back
what
they
had
lost
at
the
acquittal,
and
those
are
some
of
the
ways
that,
in
the
discretion,
it
wasn't
a
pfoble
charge,
but
after
this
win,
okay,
well,
we'll
get
it
this
way.
I
A
A
Certainly
if
any
members
of
this
panel
want
to
be
involved
in
that
that's
fine,
I
knew
representative
decker
had
a
question
she
might
want
to
be
in
part
of
that.
We'll
certainly
take
that
judge
goodman.
Thank
you
for
being
here
today
and
all
of
you
for
presenting
it
was
a
very
good
discussion
and
we'll
continue
to
to
work
this
and
we'll
see
where
it
turns
out.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
J
J
I
would
encourage
you
to
reach
out
to
me
or
another
commonwealth
attorney
and
ask
them
why
those
things
are
because
we
just
don't
have
enough
time
to
explain
all
the
nuances
of
what
we're
talking
about,
but
there
is
a
rhyme
and
a
reason
to
the
way
we
do
things,
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
reach
out
and
get
an
explanation
if
you
do
have
a
question.
Thank.
A
All
right
we're
going
to
move
right
on
to
exoneration
compensation.
We
have
suzanne
hoff,
laurie
roberts,
janetta,
carr
and
mike
von
allman,
and
I
don't
want
to
shortchange
anyone
so
we're
going
to
keep
moving
quickly
to
get
you
up
here,
and
I
know
that
you
have
your
presentation
ready
to
go.
So
we
are
going
to
turn
it
over
to
you
and
you
can
proceed
when
you
are
ready.
M
We
should
have
laurie
rob
rebecca
brown
should
be
joining
us
from
new
york
with
the
national
innocence
project.
Okay,.
M
Members
of
the
joint
judiciary
committee
and
chair
massey
chairwesterfield.
Thank
you
very
much
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
come
and
talk
to
you
today
about
something
that
kentucky
has
not
considered
and
has
not
brought
forward
for
legislation,
and
that
would
be
wrongful
conviction,
compensation
and
a
bill
that
would
allow
kentucky
to
start
compensating
some
of
the
past
exonerees
in
kentucky
and
what
we
hope
to
be
some
of
the
kentucky's
future
exonerees.
M
I
have
with
me
one
of
kentucky's,
most
recent
exonerees
and
that's
jenneta
carr
sitting
with
me,
and
also
one
of
kentucky's
longest
standing
exhausteries
mike
von
allman
and
they'll
be
talking
to
you
shortly
about
their
not
only
their
experience
and
their
wrongful
conviction,
but
also
the
experience
and
the
difficulties
they
have
reintegrating
into
the
community
after
they
were
exonerated,
and
so
we're
not
here
today
to
talk
about
actually
the
reasons
for
wrongful
convictions,
although
I
think
it
helps
create
a
context
for
what's
occurring
in
kentucky,
but
actually
to
address,
what's
happening
when
people
are
exonerated
and
have
been
found
to
be
factually
innocent
of
the
crimes
that
they
spent
many
years
in
prison
serving
on
so
very
quickly.
M
The
innocence
project
in
new
york
handles
many.
Many
dna
claims
across
the
country
and
their
statistics
show
that
the
average
dna
claimant
is
in
prison
for
nine
years
before
they're
exonerated
and
the
national
registry
of
exonerations
is
a
a
database
that
searches
all
media
and
all
court
files
to
understand
the
reasons
and
the
factual
situations
and
the
procedural
issues
in
wrongful
convictions
and
their
data
shows
that
the
average
person
who
is
not
on
a
dna
claim
who
has
been
imprisoned
because
of
a
non-dna
claim
serves
about
14
years
in
prison.
M
So
what
we'd
like
to
do
is
tell
you
the
stories
behind
genetic
carr
and
their
and
mike
von
allman
and
their
experiences,
and
then
we'd
also
like
to
discuss
what
are
the
components
of
successful
a
successful
wrongful
compensation
bill
and
what
should
kentucky
be
looking
at.
So
with
that
I'd
like
to
turn
to
mr
von
allman
and
have
him
talk
to
you
about
his
experience
and
what
it
was
like
to
try
to
return
to
the
community
with
a
felony
conviction.
N
First
off,
I
would
like
to
start
off
with
a
couple
pieces
of
identification.
One
is
my
kentucky
driver's
license
born
in
louisville
raised
in
louisville.
I
hope
to
take
my
last
breath
in
louisville.
Other
piece
of
identification
I
have
is
a
plumbing
kentucky
state
plumbing
license.
This
is
how
I've
earned
an
income
in
kentucky.
N
Another
document
I
have
here
is
a
social
security
earnings
statement
and
it's
recorded
every
dollar
I've
made
my
entire
life
it'll
show
you
one
that
the
plumber's
wages
are
pretty
decent,
that
I've
been
successful,
that
I've
maintained
a
mortgage
payment
and
two
car
payments
married
the
same
woman,
sorry
married
the
same
woman.
I
was
with
beforehand
successful
by
most
measures.
N
The
other
thing
I
will
show
you
with
this
document
is
that
your
social
security
benefit
is
based
on
the
numbers
that
you
put
here.
The
11
consecutive
zeros
on
my
statement
clearly
shows
that
the
harm
from
a
wrongful
conviction
lasts
my
entire
life,
the
span
of
everyone's
life,
who
was
wrongfully
convicted.
N
N
N
N
N
The
victim
knew.
This
guy
was
checking
her
out
and
was
able
to
make
a
very
good
composite
drawing
of
the
guy.
If
you
don't
mind
that
drawing
was
certain
the
assault
occurred
on
friday
night
saturday
night,
that
picture
was
circulated
and
then
on
sunday
night,
if
you
don't
mind
going
back
to
the
other
one.
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
On
that
day,
my
dreams
of
becoming
a
paralegal
quickly
turned
into
a
nightmare
from
the
interrogation
room
I
was
booked
in
jcyc,
where
I
sat
innocently
awaiting
trial,
with
laid
over
court
dates
until
the
age
of
18.,
at
which
point
I
was
transferred
to
the
adult
jail
at
19
years
old.
I
was
approached
with
an
effort
plea
or
the
possibility
of
the
death
penalty
due
to
pressure
of
facing
death
innocently
and
with
the
understanding
that,
by
accepting
this
plea,
I
would
still
be
maintaining
my
innocence.
O
I
signed
the
plea
in
december
2009,
I
was
released
on
parole
thinking.
The
nightmare
was
over
trying
to
navigate
my
my
new
life
as
an
innocent
person.
Release
became
a
battle
of
its
own,
finding
a
livable
pay
and
wage
job,
with
felonies
on
my
record,
being
forced
to
report
and
pay
supervision
fees
for
nine
more
years
of
my
life,
knowing
my
freedom
could
again
be
innocently
taken
away
at
any
moment.
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
So
what
we'd
like
to
propose
is
model
legislation
that
we've
provided
in
your
packets.
It's
also
available
at
the
lrc
website,
and
the
important
issue
here
is
not
just
to
pass
a
bill
but
to
pass
the
right
bill
that
the
bill
has
to
have
certain
key
components.
Otherwise,
it's
not
going
to
allow
the
exonerees
to
actually
access
the
funds
that
they
need
to
rebuild
their
lives
when
they're
released
from
prison.
M
So
there's
four
key
aspects.
Those
four
key
elements
that
are
critical
is
to
provide
at
least
fifty
thousand
dollars
of
compensation
per
year
when
an
individual
is
wrongly
convicted.
In
addition
to
that,
there's
several
other
provisions
that
are
helpful,
such
as
additional
monies
when
an
individual
is
sentenced
and
spends
time
on
death
row
or
a
lot
of
other
skit
states
also
provide
an
additional
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
for
people
like
janetta
or
like
mike,
who
were
on
parole
for
a
period
of
time
because
of
the
difficulties
that
they
encounter
while
they're
on
parole.
M
So
that's
provision
number
one
is
a
minimum
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
per
year.
There
also
needs
to
be
a
reasonable
standard
of
proof
for
eligibility.
Most
states
find
that
the
most
reasonable
and
what
makes
the
compensation
funds
accessible
for
exonerees
is
a
standard
of
proof
of
preponderance
of
evidence.
Those
states
that
have
had
a
higher
standard,
such
as
clear
and
convincing,
have
had
to
rewrite
their
statutes
so
that
the
funds
are
actually
accessible
by
the
exonerees,
so
the
suggested
standard
of
proof
is
preponderance
of
evidence.
M
M
The
problem
with
having
a
commission
or
an
additional
committee
is
that
those
individuals
are
not
necessarily
trained
and
have
everyday
dealings
with
a
due
process:
type
of
a
system
or
standards
of
proof
or
developing
factual
evidence.
The
majority
of
states
have
courts.
I
think
it's
22
states
in
the
united
states
have
courts
that
are
making
this
determination
and
the
remaining
states
have
some
sort
of
a
committee
or
commission
or
another
adjudicating
body.
M
But
the
recommendation
from
the
innocence
project
and
from
the
kentucky
innocence
project
is
that
the
courts
adjudicate
the
claims,
because
they're
they're
trained
on
adjudication
and
developing
factual
evidence
and
the
fourth
provision
helps
to
assure
that
the
citizens
taxpayers
are
protected,
and
that
is
that
there
is
some
sort
of
an
offset
provision
in
case
there
is
a
future
civil
judgment
because
of
malfeasance
or
malpractice
or
unreasonableness,
but
on
the
part
of
the
local
law
enforcement
or
the
prosecutors,
and
that
offset
then
allows
that
any
kind
of
compensation
that
was
received
by
the
individual
through
a
wrongful
conviction,
compensation
law
that
compensation
then
is
paid
back
to
the
state.
M
If
there's
a
civil
civil
judgment
against
a
specific
entity,
we
do
want
to
say
that
many
states
and
we've
in
in
your
handouts,
we've
broken
down.
What
states
have
what
kinds
of
provisions
many
states
have
additional
supplemental
awards
for
individuals
who
spend
time
on
death
row
and
the
majority
of
states
award
twenty
five
thousand
dollars
for
those
individuals
that
are
either
on
parole
on
the
sex
offender
registry
or
are
placed
on
probation.
M
We
also
want
to
point
out
that
many
of
these
exonerees
spend
in
excess
of
20
years
in
prison
and
what
comes
to
mind
are
several
recent
exonerees
jeff
clark
and
gar
harden
spent
22
years
in
prison
before
they
were
released.
Another
very
tragic
story,
that's
on
slide.
Two
of
the
presentation
is
the
case
of
william
virgil.
He
spent
28
years
in
prison.
He
was
released.
He
was
exonerated.
M
He
fought
to
and
filed
civil
suits
in
federal
courts
for
compensation
and
sadly
his
life
was
lost.
He
passed
away
after
28
years
in
prison
almost
five
years
to
the
day
after
being
exonerated,
without
getting
a
single
penny
of
compensation,
and
that's
because
he
had
to
fight
in
federal
court
in
a
long,
drawn-out
process.
It's
still
ongoing.
The
money
will
go
to
his
his
estate,
but
william
virgil
never
saw
a
penny
of
it.
M
You
don't
have
job
skills,
you
don't
have
a
track
history
of
employment,
you
don't
have
housing
set
up
and
I
want
to
drive
home
the
reality
of
what
happens
to
exonerees
jeff
clark,
gar
hardened.
They
were
in
their
20s
when
they
were
convicted
and
they
were
released
in
their
40s,
but
we
have
another
exoneree
an
example,
william
virgil,
as
well
as
norman.
Graham,
these
were
older
individuals,
they're
released
in
their
60s
and
their
70s.
Their
health
is
very
fragile.
M
On
the
other
hand,
the
younger
individuals,
the
sons,
the
cousins
over
the
nephews,
they
may
have
been
so
young
when
they
went
off
to
prison
that
they
didn't
have
a
connection.
They
didn't
have
a
relationship
with
those
relatives,
so
it's
very,
very
critical
to
put
some
sort
of
a
safety
net
in
place.
M
In
addition
to
that
tuition,
assistance-
and
I
think
janet's
story
really
drives
that
home.
This
was
a
young
lady
who
was
going
to
paralegal
school.
She
was
enrolled
at
sullivan
university.
She
was
going
to
go
and
work
for
the
prosecutor's
office.
She
wanted
to
fly
on
the
white
wings
of
justice
and
by
the
time
she
came
out,
she
understood
she
was
not.
M
She
was
no
longer
aligned
with
the
prosecutorial
side
of
the
criminal
justice
system
and
instead
she
had
completely
derailed
her
ability
to
gain
that
foothold
in
her
late,
teens
early
20s
and
get
her
education
and
become
employed.
She
doesn't
have
a
driver's
license
because
she
lost
those
years
16
years
old.
She
should
have
been
learning
how
to
drive.
She
should
have
been
spending
time
with
her
friends.
She
should
have
been
doing
internships
externships
going
into
the
field
of
employment,
developing
a
career
and
instead
she
was
waiting
in
prison.
M
Fortunately,
janetta
was
released
and
she
had
family
members
that
she
could
rely
upon.
That's
why
she's
here
today,
but
we
have
other
exonerees
who
are
released
in
their
early
and
late
60s,
who
have
tremendous
health
problems,
so
they
so
they
need
medical
support.
They
need
tuition
support,
they
need
support
with
housing,
they
need
assistance,
job
assistance,
finding
employment
so
that
they
can
become
tax,
contributing
citizens
to
kentucky
so
actually
right
now.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
yield
over
to
rebecca
brown
she's
the
policy
analyst
for
the
innocence
project
she's
based
out
of
new
york.
M
She
has
helped
other
states
develop
legislation
that
puts
those
parameters
in
place,
those
four
key
elements
and
allows
for
accessible
compensation
bills
for
our
exonerees.
P
Thank
you,
suzanne
and
good
afternoon
to
the
committee.
It's
an
honor
to
be
with
you
today
and
I'll
just
speak
very
very
briefly,
because
I
know
that
you
have
other
business
to
get
to.
I
am
the
rebecca
brown
director
of
policy
with
the
innocence
project,
we're
a
national
organization
and
we
work
in
partnership
with
innocent
organizations
like
the
kentucky
innocence
project
around
the
country
to
try
to
pass.
P
You
know
robust
compensation
laws
that
will
benefit
the
wrongfully
convicted
and
the
only
points
that
I
really
wanted
to
make
today
were
just
you
know.
I
think
the
there
is
nothing
that
compares
to
the
unique
horror
of
a
wrongful
conviction
and
when
people
come
out
so
often
they
have
nothing
they've
had
years
stolen
from
them,
they've
lost
the
opportunity
to
you
know,
build
relationships.
P
Family
members
have
died,
you
know
and
they
just
haven't
been
able
to
develop
professionally,
and
so
I
mean
we
heard
from
both
mike
and
janetta,
who
are
exceptional
people
and
we're
really
able
to
get
their
lives
moving
again,
but
not
without
a
lot
of
help
and
support,
and
certainly
there
are
many
people
who
don't
even
have
that,
and
so
you
know
this
is
just
a
profound
need
that
the
wrongfully
convicted
deserve.
I
do
want
to
address
one
issue,
which
is
that
folks
oftentimes
believe
that
civil
settlements
are
common
for
the
wrongfully
convicted.
P
They
are
not
it's
very
difficult
to
prove.
You
know
to
really
receive
compensation
under
a
civil
settlement,
because
you
have
to
prove
first
that
official
misconduct
took
place
and
then
that
it
led
to
a
constitutional
violation,
they're
very
hard
bars
to
reach.
P
But
I
did
just
want
to
note
that
the
civil
settlement
is
not
available
to
the
lion's
share
of
exonerated
people,
so
it's
that
much
more
important
that
a
global
compensation
framework
be
in
place
so
that
you
know
all
actually
innocent
people
can
be
compensated
for
their
wrongful
convictions
and
the
only
other
thing
I
would
add
is
we
worked
most
recently
in
indiana,
idaho
and
oregon
to
pass
compensation
laws.
P
P
We
are
very
aware
of
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
people
have
and
have
been
able
to
work
through
those
concerns
in
various
states
and
just
want
to
offer
myself
to
the
committee
and
and
the
legislature
in
general,
just
for
you
know
as
a
resource
as
you
pursue
this,
and
we're
very,
very
grateful
that
you're
considering
this.
So
thank
you
so
much.
A
A
He's
listening
to
us
he's
actually
in
the
bullitt
county
circuit
court
waiting
to
be
called,
so
I
don't
know
as
a
as
an
attorney
not
as
a
defendant
as
far
as
I
know,
but
in
that
regard
he,
I
think,
he's
very
interested
in
pursuing
something
along
the
lines
of
that
in
the
coming
session.
So
obviously
this
is
something
that
we
met
in
my
office
before
and
talked
about
this
and
I'd
heard
the
stories
of
these.
A
These
wonderful
people-
and
you
know
I
can't
imagine
of
losing
not
only
the
time
but
losing
that
time
away
from
your
families,
your
children,
you
know
those
that
you
love
and-
and
you
know,
obviously
it's
not
a
perfect
system.
We
still
believe
it's
the
best
in
the
world,
just
not
a
perfect
system,
and
so,
but
but
for
those
people
that
have
undergone
that.
Unfortunately,
you
know
they
do
need
the
wherewithal.
Once
they
are
released,
I
mean
we're
making
strides
right
now.
A
I
think,
through
some
legislation
to
help
people
like
representative
mosher's
bill
that
will
allow
them
to
get
an
id
and
allow
them
to
try
to
get
some
work,
assistance
and
things
when
they're
released,
but
that's
in
cases
where
the
person
is
has
been
convicted,
not
necessarily
we're
a
case
where
there's
been
an
exoneration.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
that.
I
do
want
to
open
this
up
for
questions
quickly,
but-
and
we
do
have
a
couple
so
representative,
bratcher.
M
According
to
the
innocence
project,
our
own
statistics,
as
well
as
the
national
registry
of
exonerations,
there's
approximately
1.25
exonerations
in
kentucky
per
year.
Those
are
what
I
would
call
official
exonerations.
They
are
vetted
by
us
they're,
something
that
we've
followed
and
initiated
as
well
as
the
national
registry
of
exonerations.
They
go
through
the
court
documents,
the
news
reports.
They
do
investigative
journalism
to
develop.
So
our
statistics
show
about
1.25
exonerations
per
year.
M
We
would
make
it
retroactive
moving
forward
you
there
would
be
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations
for
filing
the
model
bill
that
we
proposed
anticipates
filing
something
in
a
circuit
court.
So
you
once
you
were
exonerated
you
would
have
two
years
to
file
something
and
then
that
court
makes
a
finding
as
to
whether
you
are
factual,
innocent
or
not,
and
that
controls
whether
you
access
the
compensation
funds.
M
I
think
we've
got
four
exonerees
that
have
received
compensation,
so
that
would
leave
about
19
exoneries
that
have
not,
although
some
of
them,
I
think
five
of
those
ago's
honorees
have
ongoing
civil
suits
through
the
exoneration
project.
Currently.
M
And
then,
of
course,
if
those
individuals-
and
these
are
these,
take
a
tremendous
amount
of
time-
I
know
that
the
civil
suits
that
have
been
filed
have
been
in
litigation
for
at
least
three,
if
not
four
years,
so
that
you
know
the
concept
here
would
be.
If
it's,
it
has
potential
that
these
individuals,
who
have
current
civil
suits
that
they
could
access
this
funding.
Even
if
it
took
a
year
to
pass
it
and
another
six
months
to
implement
the
bill,
they
could,
they
could
potentially
access
this
funding
before
their
civil
suits
are
settled.
F
A
Thank
you
all
very
much
for
your
presentation
today.
I
know
it's
difficult,
especially
for
those
exonerees
to
come
here
and
and
I'm
sure
they're
they're
glad
to
tell
their
story,
but
I'm
sure
it's
difficult
as
well
as
you
indicated.
So,
thank
you
for
being
here
today
for
the
benefit
of
the
ijc.
The
next
meeting
will
be
thursday
july
7th,
where
the
honorable
guru
of
justice,
chairman
westerfield,
will
will
preside
and-
and
then
I
will
be
here
as
well.