►
From YouTube: 2/19/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
F
A
I
did
want
to
note
that
assemblyman
wheeler
is
having
some
issues
with
his
camera
today,
so
he
is
joining
us,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
we'll
have
him
on
video
or
not
so
anyone
who
might
be
watching
just
please
know
that
that's
what's
happening
this
morning,
dressed
up
in
everything
we'll
take
your
word
we'll
take
assembly
wheeler's
word
that
he's
dressed
up
and
everything,
but
I
don't
know
if
I'll
have
my
video
this
morning
so
want
to
say
good
morning
to
the
members
of
the
committee
good
morning
to
members
of
the
public
who
might
be
watching
this
proceeding
online
this
morning
and
welcome
to
day
19
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature
before
we
get
started
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters.
A
If
you
are
on
the
zoom,
if
you
could
please
mute
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
will
help
with
the
audio
feedback
for
presenters.
There
will
be
a
few
different
presenters
today.
Helping
me
present
the
bills.
Please
remember
to
try
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak.
If
you
forget
to
do
that,
I'm
sure
vice
chairwin
will
remind
you,
because
it's
not
really
a
normal
thing
to
do
in
conversation.
A
The
other
couple
of
things
we
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy
perfectly
fine,
but
let's
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
to
one
another
and
to
the
legislative
institution
and
then
finally,
many
of
us
are
working
with
multiple
screens
and
devices
to
participate
virtually.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
A
If
we
are
looking
away
to
try
to
look
at
exhibits
and
process,
everything
that's
going
on
so
with
that
behind
us
members,
you'll
see
that
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
today,
I'm
going
to
be
at
least
presenting
or
co-presenting
both
of
these.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
hand
the
virtual
gavel
over
to
vice
chairwin
to
conduct
the
two
bill
hearings
vice
chairwin,
I'm
going
to
now
go
to
the
witness
table,
and
it's
all
yours.
H
H
A
Good
morning
and
thank
you
so
much,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
very
hard-working
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
steve
yeager
I
represent
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas.
It
is
my
pleasure
this
morning
to
present
assembly
bill
104
to
you
joining
me
today,
for
the
presentation
are
representatives
from
the
attorney
general's
office,
including
second
assistant
attorney
general,
christine
brady,
chief
deputy
attorney
general
heather
proctor
and
deputy
attorney
general
cheryl
sores.
A
Madam
vice
chair.
With
your
permission,
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
provide
a
brief
background
on
assembly.
Bill
267
from
last
session
then
hand
it
over
to
ms
proctor
to
discuss
how
that
bill
assembly
bill
267
has
been
working
in
the
real
world.
She'll
then
take
the
committee
through
both
the
bill
and
the
conceptual
amendment
before
we
open
it
up
for
questions.
Is
that
acceptable?
Madam
vice
chair?
That
is.
A
Thank
you,
steve
yeager
again
for
the
record,
and
you
know
before
I
get
started.
I
wanted
to
let
the
committee
know
that
I've
been
in
discussions
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department,
the
attorney
general's
office
and
the
public
defender's
office
about
potential
amendments
to
the
bill.
We
haven't
reached
any
consensus
there
yet
and
I'm
not
sure
if
we
will
so
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
talk
too
much
about
what
some
of
those
proposals
might
be
at
this
time.
A
But
if
we
ultimately
agree
on
further
amendments,
I
will
certainly
explain
those
to
the
committee
and
go
over
them
before
we
would
vote
on
the
bill.
Sometimes
in
the
legislature
we
refer
to
bills
as
christmas
trees,
and
sometimes
people
want
to
hang
ornaments
all
over
those
christmas
trees.
So,
at
this
point,
we're
not
quite
there
on
deciding
whether
those
ornaments
are
going
to
be
acceptable,
but
stay
tuned.
A
So
to
really
understand
the
bill
that
you
have
in
front
of
you
assembly,
bill
104,
you
have
to
first
understand
assembly
bill
267
from
last
legislative
session
assembly.
Bill
267
from
last
session
did
something
that
I
think
is
really
important.
It
provided
compensation
for
those
who
had
been
wrongfully
convicted
and
incarcerated
in
our
state.
A
Many
many
people
helped
make
that
legislation
a
reality
and
I'm
most
thankful
for
their
work.
It
was
certainly
a
long
time
coming,
as
nevada
was
one
of
the
minority
of
states
that
did
not
provide
such
compensation
for
those
of
you
who
were
on
this
committee
last
session,
you'll
remember
the
hearing
on
that
bill
was
very,
very
emotional,
as
we
heard
from
mr
demarlo
berry,
who
had
been
wrongfully
incarcerated
in
nevada
for
nearly
22
years,
yet
when
he
testified,
he
was
full
of
grace
and
forgiveness.
A
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
now
is
to
hand
it
over
to
ms
proctor
and
any
anyone
else
at
the
attorney
general's
office.
To
just
give
you
some
additional
background
on
how
assembly
bill
267
has
actually
been
working
out
in
the
real
world
and
then
take
you
through
the
bill,
the
conceptual
amendment,
and
then
we
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
So
thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
and,
with
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
hand
it
over
to
ms
proctor.
I
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
Good
morning,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
heather
proctor
chief
deputy
of
the
attorney
general's
office
on
june
17
2019,
the
legislature
passed
assembly
bill
267
codified
in
nrs
chapter
41,
which
authorizes
a
person
who
is
not
currently
incarcerated
for
any
offense
and
who
is
wrongfully
convicted
and
imprisoned
in
this
state
to
bring
in
action
for
damages
and
other
relief
in
any
state
district
court.
I
Ab267
became
effective
october
1st
2019.
since
the
enactment
of
the
wrongful
conviction
compensation
statutes.
The
nevada
attorney
general's
office
has
worked
with
claimants
in
balancing
the
state's
obligation
to
be
fair
and
just
with
its
responsibility
to
ensure
that
it
is
not
overwhelmed
with
enormous
monetary
liability.
I
As
with
any
new
law
through
enactment,
the
attorney
general's
office
discovered
that
existing
law
required
clarification,
uniformity
and
certainty
for
the
state
and
claimants
alike.
This
led
to
the
proposed
amendments
in
ab104
to
be
clear:
the
intent
of
the
wrongful
conviction,
compensation
statutes
as
addressed
in
the
in
the
2019
legislative
history,
is
to
provide
monetary
support
for
persons
recently
released
from
cur
incarceration
to
permit
to
permit
them
to
begin
rebuilding
their
lives,
reentering
society
and
doing
what
the
state
can
to
restore
their
dignity
and
life
after
years
lost
wrongfully
incarcerated.
I
The
law
includes
an
offset
provision
requiring
a
claimant
to
reimburse
the
state
for
the
money
paid
for
the
length
of
incarceration
section.
One
of
ab104
revises
nrs
41.910
to
clarify
the
documents
to
be
sealed
following
the
issuance
of
a
certificate
of
innocence
and
the
confidential
nature
of
such
proceedings,
section
2
exempts
the
state
from
the
restrictions
of
an
offer
of
judgment,
as
well
as
pre-judgment
and
post-judgment
interest.
I
Again,
it
was
intended
only
to
permit
the
claimant
the
ability
to
return
to
a
normal
life
pending
settlement
of
a
1983
action.
To
that
end,
section
4
clarifies
the
language
of
the
offset
provision
to
bring
it
in
line
with
the
original
legislative
intent.
It
also
clarifies
for
all
parties
what
settlement
funds
are
subject
to
the
offset
assemblyman
yeager
mentioned
that
he'd
submitted
some
amendments
which
I'd
like
to
briefly
discuss
in
implementing
the
law.
The
attorney
general's
office
determined
that
caps
were
necessary
for
the
additional
benefits
a
person
could
claim
under
the
statute.
I
We
found
this
meant,
for
instance,
that
a
person
wrongfully
incarcerated
for
five
years
would
be
entitled
to
a
lesser
amount
of
damages,
but
the
same
amount
of
benefits
in
both
monetary
value
and
length
of
award
as
somebody
wrongfully
convicted
and
incarcerated
for
30
years.
A
person
should
not
receive
benefits
for
a
period
that
exceeds
their
original
incarceration.
I
I
This
led
to
the
additional
proposed
caps
in
section
three
of
the
amendment,
which
serves
one
to
clarify
the
costs.
A
claimant
can
pursue
two
to
maintain
the
assistance.
A
claimant
requires
to
return
to
normal
society
and
three
to
create
certainty
for
board
of
examiners
to
budget
for
the
additional
expenses
by
providing
a
maximum
potential
cost
for
those
additional
expenses.
I
I
A
And
madam
vice
chair,
if
I
could,
before
we
open
it
for
questions,
I
just
wanted
to
make
one
more
comment.
This
is
steve
yeager
for
the
record.
Much
like
the
last
couple
days.
I
think
you're
going
to
hear
some
opposition
testimony
that
wishes
the
bill
to
go
further
or
to
not
have
any
monetary
caps
on
damages,
and
you
know
I
think
what
I'll
say
about
that-
and
we
haven't
really
talked
about
this
in
this
committee
necessarily,
but
you
know,
sometimes
the
prosecuting
agency
in
criminal
cases
is
in
fact
the
attorney
general's
office.
A
Probably
they
probably
have
claims
against
the
local
government
in
the
form
of
a
1983,
federal
federal
rights,
civil
federal
civil
rights
action
and
those
cases
take
a
long
time
to
go
through
the
system.
So
in
setting
this
up,
what
we
wanted
to
do
is
basically
have
the
state
be
able
to
to
make
that
person
as
whole
as
they
can
up
front.
And
if
and
when
that
person
recovers
from
the
local
government,
then
the
state
would
be
reimbursed
and,
of
course,
the
state
legislators.
A
You
know
we
need
to
balance
the
need
for
justice
and
fairness
with
our
fiscal
responsibility
as
well,
and
I
think
in
coming
up
with
this
bill
and
the
amendments,
what
we
realized
is
it
was
really
hard
for
the
state
to
budget
for
what
they
would
potentially
be
on
the
hook
for
because
we
didn't
really
have
limits
and
well-defined
definitions.
But
I
wanted
to
mention
that,
because
I
I
appreciate
the
opposition
you're
going
to
hear-
and
I,
like
many
of
you-
would
probably
love
to
give
even
more
compensation.
A
But
you
know,
I
think,
as
stewards
of
the
state's
monies,
we
have
to
be
very
aware
that
we
have
to
be
fiscally
responsible
in
this
role
as
well,
and
so
I'll
just
say
that
that
you
know
we're
still
working
on
some
concepts,
but
for
now
I
think
this
is
the
most
fair
way
to
process
these
claims.
Realizing
it's
not
often
the
state
that
really
did
anything
wrong
in
these
cases
and,
that's
not
to
say
the
local
governments
did
anything
wrong.
You
know
people
are
people.
H
B
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
and
thank
you
chairman
yeager,
for
this
presentation.
If
you
could
just
elaborate
on
section
4
0.4
and
just
give
a
just
kind
of
expand
on
what
this
means.
B
A
Yes,
steve
yeager
for
the
record,
so
I
can
probably
the
best
way
to
break
that
down.
Is
there
are
two
two?
I
guess
two
buckets
of
of
awards
that
a
claimant
would
get
so.
The
first
one
is
based
on
the
amount
of
time
they
were
incarcerated,
and
that
is
not
in
section
four
you're
going
to
see
that
in
section
three
of
the
bill,
so
that's
just
how
many
years
were
you
in
times
a
monetary
value
per
year.
A
I
Thank
you
for
the
record
heather
proctor
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
Assemblyman
yeager
was
exactly
right
on
point.
There
are
essentially
three
different
areas
of
funds
coming
into
this.
The
first
as
assemblyman
yeager
mentioned,
is
the
compensation
for
the
years
incarcerated.
I
The
second
are
the
attorneys
fees
which
are
capped
at
25
000
pursuant
to
the
statute.
The
third,
as
he
mentioned,
are
these
additional
benefits:
the
medical
care,
higher
education,
financial
literacy
programs.
What
section
4.4
clarifies
is
if
there
is
a
subsequent
award
from
a
1983
action
or
another
civil
action,
challenging
the
wrongful
conviction.
I
B
That
is
a
perfect
explanation.
I
was
just
concerned
that
they
would
have
to
include
a
turning
squeeze,
which
we
all
know
can
be
quite
steep
and
that
would
have
a
serious
effect
on
on
what
they
would
be
able
to
maintain
to
to
as
part
of
their
you
know
as
reciprocity.
You
know
you
just
hate
to
see.
You
know
people
have
to
give
back
everything
after
they've
had
the
fight
you
know
just
to
survive.
So
this
is
great.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
your
clarification.
J
You
vice
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I'll
certainly
never
forget,
last
session's
hearing.
J
So
I
I
have
a
question
about
section
four
sub
three
and
the
the
notification
required
by
the
claimant
to
the
board
of
examiners
within
six
months
of
receipt
of
an
award
of
damages,
and
I
I
understand
that
this
that
we're
not
looking
to
give
two
different
awards
and
that
we're
hoping
to
get
people
started
off
on
the
right
path
while
they
get
their
federal
claim
resolved.
J
But
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
this
because
the
cl
the
claimants
have
often
been
imprisoned
for
years
and
years
and
years.
Some
of
them
were
very
young
when
they
went
into
prison
and
they're
coming
out
years
and
years
later
to
a
lot
of
hoopla.
A
lot
of
people
coming
out
of
the
woodwork,
a
lot
of
things
going
on
and
learning
to
frankly
become
part
of
society
and
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
putting
this
obligation
on
them.
J
When
they're,
I
would
imagine
their
heads
just
spinning
and
is
going
to
spin
for
months
and
months
and
months
or
even
years,
so
so
that
does
concern
me
putting
the
obligation
on
them
when
they,
even
though
we
are
offering
some
some
financial
literacy
help
they're
still,
you
know
juggling
a
lot.
So
can
you
can
you
address
that
and
if,
if
that's
really
fair
to
put
that
obligation
on
them.
A
This
is
steve
yeager
for
the
record
I'll,
try
to
answer
that
and
then
ask
ms
proctor
to
assist
if
need
be,
certainly
understand
the
concern.
I
think
the
protection
there
is
that
ms
proctor
could
verify
this.
I
think
without
fail.
These
claimants
have
attorneys
who
are
working
on
their
cases,
whether
it's
here
in
nevada
or
the
federal
case.
A
So
you
know
it
obviously
reads
as
the
claimant,
but
I
think
practically
speaking,
it's
going
to
be
counsel
for
the
claimant,
and
you
know
the
reason
that
provision
was
put
in.
As
ms
proctor
stated,
you
know
it's
hard
for
the
attorney
general's
office
to
know
about
all
these
cases
going
on
so
to
protect
the
state
and
make
sure
the
state
is
reimbursed.
If
there's
an
award
against
a
local
jurisdiction,
that's
you
know
essentially
covers
the
state's
cost
that
the
state
gets
reimbursed.
A
I
Thank
you
for
the
record
heather
proctor
attorney
general's
office.
I
would
just
echo
what
assemblyman
yeager
stated.
Unfortunately,
we
do
not
have
the
resources
to
track
all
of
these
potential
claims,
and
I
can
give
you
an
example.
One
of
the
individuals
who
was
mentioned
at
the
during
the
legislative
history
last
session
and
one
of
the
individuals
we've
already
settled
with
was
kathy
woods.
I
A
significant
event
in
her
case
occurred
in
the
state
of
louisiana,
and
so
realistically
she
could
have
initiated
a
1983
action
in
louisiana
and
we
would
never
have
known
that's
the
issue
that
comes
with
this.
In
addition,
as
I
mentioned,
these
1983
actions
can
take
many
many
years
and
we
simply
don't
have
the
resources
to
continue
checking
in
and
determining
if
these
individuals
have
received
a
subsequent
payment,
as
assemblyman
yeager
mentioned.
I
I
have
not.
We
have
not
had
in
any
cases
yet
where
the
1983
action
was
not.
The
individual
was
not
represented
by
the
same
council
as
in
the
state
action,
so
we
have
worked
closely
with
them.
But
again
we
settle
our
matter
and
the
1983
action
continues
for
several
years
thereafter.
So
this
is
simply
a
an
of
ensuring
that
the
state
can
get
some
of
that
benefit
back.
I
That
amount
for
the
incarceration
back
at
some
point
and
allow
the
state
that
recovery,
because
again,
the
purpose
of
this
is
not
a
windfall
it's
to
keep
that
individual,
healthy
and
getting
him
back
on
track
so
that
he
can
proceed
with
this
1983
action.
I
We
also
mentioned
in
our
state
orders
in
all
of
these
actions
that
that
is
a
requirement
that
the
individual
notify
when
they
receive
that
windfall.
We
just
want
to
have
that
in
the
statute,
just
as
precaution
and
I
believe
miss
brady
would
like
to
pitch
in
on
this
as
well.
I
Thank
you
christine
jones
brady,
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
I
Ch
vice
chair
of
the
of
the
committee.
B
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
the
language
is
may
language
permissive
language,
so
failure
to
do
so
may
impact
an
additional
benefit
provided
under
the
statute,
and
when
we
were
discussing
this
amendment
to
the
bill,
we
were
contemplating
that
it's
permissive,
because
the
person
would
have
an
opportunity
to
appear
before
the
boe
or
appear
before
the
court
that
presided
over
the
the
matter
in
the
in
the
first
place,
and
they
could
if
they
were
having
some
sort
of
difficulty
or
they
were
maybe
in
a
mental
health
institution.
B
For
a
while
or
whatever
was
going
on
in
their
lives.
They
could
explain
and
maybe
provide
good
cause.
So
it's
permissive
language
rather
than
shell
and
that's
why
we
went
with
permissive.
J
Thank
you
for
that,
oh
sorry,
and
and
just
a
follow-up.
Well,
I
I-
and
I
appreciate
all
that,
although
I
I
mean
I
would
point
out
that
that
miss
woods
is,
does
have
mental
health
issues,
so
that
does
that
is
a
little
concerning
to
use
her
as
an
as
an
example.
J
When
you
know,
hopefully
she
does,
she
has
counsel,
you
know
proper
counsel,
that's
doing
its
job,
so
I
I
guess
I
I
would
just
like
to
follow
up
with
so,
but
is
the
is
the
claimant
themselves,
given
something
that
says
this
is
what
you
have
to
do.
These
are
your
obligations
so
that
they
know
so
it's
so
if
there's
a
problem
with
their
attorney,
if
you
know
attorneys
die
cases,
get
passed
off
to
other
attorneys,
attorneys,
get
fired
and
and
also
with
miss
woods.
You
mentioned
the
case
in
louisiana,
we'll
just
you
know.
J
J
So
so
yeah
and
then
I'm.
B
Okay,
so
my
name
is
sheryl
sorez,
I'm
the
chief
litigator
at
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
I
can
assure
you
that,
in
every
order
that
is
entered
in
the
state
court,
litigations
that
the
attorney
general
is
responding
to
these
wrongful
conviction,
compensation
cases-
and
we
did
provide
chairman
yeager
with
a
copy
of
all
of
the
orders
that
get
entered.
We
do
specifically
include
in
the
order
granting
the
monetary
compensation.
B
F
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I
missed
this
committee
last
session
somewhere
else
and
I'm
sure
it
came
up
at
that
time,
but
how
many
people
are
we
talking
about
here?
How
many
of
these
cases
are
we
looking
at?
You
know
in
the
last
10
years,
102?
A
A
That
is
a
memorandum
from
the
attorney
general's
office
that
runs
down
the
cases
that
so
far
have
been
filed
and
negotiated,
and
then
the
I
guess,
all
the
cases
that
have
been
filed
at
this
point.
Some
have
been
resolved
and
some
have
not
and
I'll
give
them
a
chance
to
kind
of
give
you
a
rundown
of
that.
But
I
wanted
to
note
the
original
bill
that
we
passed
has
a
provision
in
there.
A
That
basically
says
if,
at
the
time
the
bill
was
passed,
there
was
an
existing
person
with
a
wrongful
conviction
claim
that
they
only
have
until
september
30th
of
2021
to
file
that
claim.
So
we're
going
to
know
by
september
what
the
potential
liability
is
for
the
state
for
the
existing
potentially
existing
claimants.
A
Now,
of
course,
if
someone
has
a
wrongful
conviction
after
the
date
of
the
bill,
then
that
would
be
a
future
liability,
that's
as
of
yet
unknown,
but
I
I
would
like
to
I
don't
know
if
miss
proctor,
if
you
want
to
just
give
sort
of
a
quick
rundown
of
how
many
cases
have
settled
what
the
monetary
amount
was,
and
then
you
know
how
many
that
are
active
or
how
many
we
think
might
be
out
there.
That
would
come
before
the
september
30th
2021
deadline.
I
Yes,
for
the
record
heather
proctor
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
In
that
memo
we
have
had
seven
cases
filed
to
date.
Four
are
settled
or
in
the
process
of
settlement
mr
demarlo
berry
received
2.25
million
dollars
for
the
wrongful
conviction
itself
for
the
incarceration.
I
Mr
reginald
mason
received
975
000
for
his
almost
11
years.
I'm
sorry,
14
years
of
wrongful
incarceration,
miss
woods
received
2.85
million
dollars,
and
that
was
for
more
than
30
years
of
wrongful
incarceration
and
mr
sties.
His
documents
are
currently
pending
in
the
state
court
for
settlement
and
for
his
18
years
we
have
recommended
a
settlement
of
1.35
million
dollars.
I
We
do
have
three
other
cases
currently
pending
mr
diaba,
mr
lepena
and
miss
lobato,
and
the
potential
for
those
are
a
total
of
3.19
million
dollars
just
for
the
portion
of
time
that
they
were
wrongfully
convicted.
All
of
those
costs
do
not
include
other
benefits
to
which
they
may
be
entitled.
I
would
also
add
that
when
this
matter,
when
this
legis
sb
excuse
me,
ab2267
was
first
discussed
in
2019.
I
The
total
number
of
potential
recipients
at
that
time
was
13
of
that
five
of
our
seven
individuals
were
on
that
list
and
we
have
identified
a
potential
additional
two
individuals,
as
mr
yeager
stated,
they
have
until
september
to
file
those
claims,
and
that
is
for
everyone
who
could
potentially
claim
a
wrongful
conviction
prior
to
october
2019..
F
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
follow
up
madam
chair.
F
F
What
I'm
saying
is
you
know
you're
talking
10
or
12
people
and
that's
backdated
all
times,
so
we're
not
looking
at.
You
know
this
happening
weekly.
A
This
is
steve
yeager
for
the
record,
I
sure
hope,
not
assemblyman
wheeler.
I
think
you
know,
with
some
of
the
policies
we've
passed
on
this
committee,
we're
trying
very
hard
to
make
the
criminal
justice
system
more
accurate
and
better.
So
we
don't
have
these
outcomes.
A
This
bill
really
came
as
a
result
of
just
a
few,
very
egregious
cases
that
that
you
know,
I
think
everyone
look
at
those
cases
and
and
just
know
that
a
big
injustice
happened.
So
it
came
from
a
desire
to
to
compensate
them,
but
I
would
I
would
be
the
happiest
person
in
the
world
if
we
never
had
another
claimant,
bring
a
suit
under
this
bill
and
we'll
keep
trying
to
make
sure
that
our
criminal
justice
system
has
the
appropriate
safeguards.
A
F
A
F
You
assemblyman,
I
just
wasn't
worried
about
the
money,
I'm
worried
about
how
many
bad
cases
we
have
out
there
and
what
do
we
do
to
fix
that?
That's
the
true
background
here.
I
think.
H
Thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler.
Next
up
we
have
assemblyman
o'neill
and
I
believe
he
has
a
question
regarding
section
three
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
him
to
ask
this
question.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Not
being
an
attorney
help
me
understand,
please
on
section
three
we
actually
delineate,
or
it
was
delineated
back
in
2019
exact
amounts
for
x
number
of
years
incarceration.
K
If
you
go
to
section
3,
2,
subsection,
2,
subsection
4,
it
says
counseling
services
and
it
doesn't
have
an
amount.
Housing
is
15
000
a
year
section.
6
says:
if
award
and
they're
both
if
awarded
once
again,
it
doesn't
give
an
amount.
It's
I'm
confused.
One
part
we
have
a
set
amount
and
then
we're
also
going
to
provide
an
open
check
for
counseling,
an
additional
15
000
a
year
for
10
years
for
their
housing
after
release
and
an
open
check
for
the
financial
literacy.
I'm
not
against
the
program.
K
A
Oh,
thank
you
assemblyman,
steve
yeager
for
the
record
I'll
answer.
The
first
part
of
that
in
the
conceptual
amendment
in
that
subsection
you're
looking
at
section
six
indicates
that
all
the
damages
that
are
compiled
in
that
provision
sort
of
the
supplemental
damages
beyond
the
years
they're
limited
to
more
no
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
calendar
year.
So
there
is
a
cap
on
the
calendar
year
basis
and
then
they're
also
limited
to
the
length
of
time
you
spent
wrongfully
incarcerated
or
on
parole.
A
So
the
reason
we
did,
that
is
exactly
what
you're
saying
it
was
really
hard
for
the
board
of
examiners
to
try
to
budget
with
basically
lifelong
unlimited
potential
awards,
but
now
they
have
a
maximum,
so
they
can
at
least
have
that
in
reserves,
realizing
the
maximum
might
not
be
reached,
and
then,
in
terms
of
you
know,
the
court
awarding
specific
items
or
not.
A
I
would
ask
either
miss
proctor
miss
miss
sures,
to
just
explain
how
the
court
makes
that
determination
of
what
of
these
benefits
to
award
and
the
process
for
reimbursement,
because
they're
the
experts
on
that.
I
have
not
been
in
court
to
see
those
happen.
I
Thank
you
assemblyman
for
the
record,
heather
proctor
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
What
we
have
done
thus
far
is
with
all
of
the
benefits
that
are
listed
in
subsection
two
of
section.
Three
of
the
amendment
is
to
work
with
counsel
for
the
claimant
to
determine
which
benefits,
if
any
they
would
like
to
receive
and
because
the
language
of
the
bill
is
fairly
open.
It
is
essentially
up
to
the
claimant
which
of
these
they
would
like
to
pursue.
I
H
K
E
Thank
you
vice
chairwin,
so
a
couple
of
things
section
four
sub
three
of
the
bill,
so
a
person
who
received
compensation
from
this
state
and
his
other
action
brought
percentage.
E
Whether
through
an
award
of
damages
or
a
settlement,
and
then
who
receives
a
civil
settlement
for
a
war
relating
to
his
or
her
wrongful
convictions,
shall
reimburse
the
state
for
the
compensation
previously
received
not
to
exceed
the
amount
of
the
monetary
compensation
which
the
person
receives
is
subsequent
civil
action
number
one.
Currently,
the
law
allows
a
person
to
file
both
a
criminal
and
then
a
civil
action
both
and
and
keep
that
keep
the
benefits
of
vote.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record:
that's
that's
not!
That
is
not
correct.
Currently
I
mean
they're,
both
they're,
both
civil
suits
by
the
way,
it's
not
a
criminal
suit,
but
so
there'll
be
a
civil
suit
against
the
state
of
nevada
and
there'll,
be
a
civil
suit,
presumably
against
a
local
government
agency
under
section
1983,
the
federal
code,
both
of
those
are
civil,
but
the
current
law
requires
reimbursement.
There's
not
a
double
recovery
option.
What
the
section
you're
referring
to
does
it
cleans
up
some
of
that
language
because,
for
instance,
it
says
a
settlement.
A
So
if
the
1983
reaction
settles
rather
than
goes
to
trial,
then
we're
clarifying
that
you
know
you'd
have
to
reimburse
based
on
a
settlement
so
that
just
sort
of
cleans
it
up,
but
there
was
never
an
opportunity
for
someone
to
recover
twice
due
to
our
fiscal
responsibility.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
the
state
was
compensated
for
a
later
award
for
the
same
conduct.
E
So
I
I
apologize,
I
meant
in
other
matters.
For
example,
we
could
take
the
matter
of
a
famous
former
football
player
who
was
brought
in
an
action
in
a
criminal
lawsuit
and
subsequently
a
civil
lawsuit,
and
there
was
a
huge
damages
award
in
the
subsident
one,
but
people
are
allowed
in
other
matters
to
file
both
a
criminal
and
a
civil
action
and
to
receive
the
benefits
whether
they
be
the
persons
incarcerated
or
they
receive
money
in
both.
E
That's
number
one
number:
two:
why
why
would
a
person
go
through
the
hassle
of
a
civil
suit
after
they've
already
received
the
money
from
the
state?
The
way
that
this
is
written,
if
they're
going
to
have
to
pay
it
back
and
number
three?
Could
this
be
considered
like
intestinal
or
tortoises,
interference
with
private
defense
attorneys
at
the
living
to
earn
a
living.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record
I'll
try
to
take
those
questions
on
you
know
the
first
point
you
made.
I
think
it's
just
maybe
it's
not
the
best
comparison,
because
here
we're
talking
about
someone
who
is
wrongfully
incarcerated.
Certainly
someone
could
be
charged
criminally
and
held
liable,
and
then
the
victim
of
that
crime
could
sue
that
person
civilly.
That
happens
all
the
time.
A
It's
just
that
the
criminal
prosecution's
brought
on
behalf
of
a
state
or
a
government
agency,
and
the
civil
action
would
be
brought
by
the
victim
in
the
case,
so
you're
right
about
that.
But
this
is
sort
of
the
flip
side
of
this.
This
is
the
person
getting
out
and
they
can't
file
a
criminal
action,
for
instance
against
the
state.
It's
only
a
civil
action
number
two:
why
would
somebody
file
a
subsequent
suit?
I
mean
the
truth
is
sometimes
sometimes
not
all
the
time.
A
Sometimes
these
cases
are
very
egregious
and
the
civil
rights
violations
from
the
local
government
entities
are
are
just
shocking
to
the
conscience.
In
those
cases,
their
case
is
going
to
be
worth
more
than
what
the
state
is
providing
in
this
bill.
I
mean
some
of
these
cases
you'd
be
talking,
you
know
multi-million,
if
not
tens
of
millions
of
dollars,
so
you
know
they
might
want
to
bring
a
second
suit
because
they
think
they're
going
to
recover
significantly
more
money
and
then,
even
after
reimbursing
the
state
they're
going
to
come
out
way
way
ahead.
A
So
that
would
be
the
reason
why
someone
might
file
a
second
suit,
and
you
know
they'll
talk
to
council
about
that
and
come
up
with
what
the
appropriate
strategy
is.
E
A
State,
thank
you
assemblywoman
krasner,
steve
yeager,
for
the
record.
I
I
would
not.
I
would
not
characterize
it
that
way
at
all.
I
think
we've
heard
of
the
the
ones
that
have
been
settled
and
we're
talking.
You
know
multi-million
dollar
settlements.
That
again,
the
state
did
nothing
wrong
in
these
cases.
A
So
you
know
the
state
is
not
legally
probably
not
legally
responsible
for
the
compensation,
but
I
think,
as
you
referenced
last
session,
the
testimony
was
so
compelling
that
we
felt
obligated
for
the
state
to
step
in
and
help
out,
and
hopefully
those
people
can
actually
hold
the
actual
folks
who
should
be
accountable,
accountable
and
then
you
know
the
state
would
be
made
whole.
So
I
don't
want
to
give
the
impression
that
it's
nickel
and
diming-
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it
is.
H
B
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,.
B
A
These
convictions-
I,
if
I
understand
correctly
most
of
this-
is
happening
at
the
county
level.
So
are
they
or
how
do
they
participate
in
the
sharing
of
the
cost
of
these
awards?
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record,
it's
a
great
question,
assemblyman
miller
and
one
that
we
debated
at
length
last
session
and
perhaps
are
still
debating,
but
you
know
right
now.
There
is
no
direct
provision
in
this
bill
or
in
this
area
of
the
nrs.
That
would
require
any
sort
of
sharing
of
the
burden
by
the
local
government,
whether
it
be
a
police
department
or
a
prosecutor's
office.
A
Then
that
local
government
is
going
to
have
to
pay
the
claimant
and
under
this
statute
the
claimant
will
have
to
pay
the
state
of
nevada
back.
So
we
put
that
in
there
to
make
sure
that
we're
protected
and
and
again
so
the
record's
clear.
I
don't
want
to
suggest
that
in
every
case
that
there
was
some
kind
of
intentional
wrongdoing,
I
mean
we're
we're
human
beings
and
we
all
know
our
criminal
justice
system
has
been
woefully
inadequate
in
the
past
decades
of
protecting
people
in
the
way
that
it
should.
A
But
if
a
jury
decides
that
there
was
intentional
wrongdoing,
you're
going
to
have
a
huge
amount
of
damages
and
the
state
will
be
able
to
recoup
in
that
way-
and
you
know
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
down
this
rabbit
hole.
But
some
of
those
discussions
are
ongoing
about
you
know:
should
local
government
entities
be
able
to
participate
in
these
lawsuits
in
some
fashion
and,
if
so,
how
and
if
they
do,
is
there
a
cost,
sharing
or
some
kind
of
method
to
determine
fault?
A
And
so
I
think
we're
really
far
away
from
figuring
that
out,
because
it
substantially
complicates
these
claims.
We
don't
want
them
to
be
like
the
1983
claims
where
they
take
five
years.
The
whole
point
of
this
was
supposed
to
be
quick
and
credit
to
the
attorney
general's
office.
I
mean
this
law's
only
been
on
the
books
like
a
year
and
a
half
and
they've
done
tremendous
work
in
getting
these
cases
processed
and
getting
compensation.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question
and
I
wasn't
too
wordy
in
a
lawyer
fashion
in
that
answer.
H
And
you
know
what
I
saw
one
other
question:
I
have
multiple
chats
going
on
here.
If
we
could
go
to
assemblywoman
hardy
and
then
I
will
close
the
questions
at
that
time.
G
Thank
you,
madam
mice,
chair.
I
was
just
curious
in
section
three,
a
the
different
amounts,
the
fifty
thousand
seventy
five
hundred.
How
would
those
determine
is
that,
like
an
average
of
income
of
you,
know,
just
wanted
to
know
how
those
figures
were
determined.
A
Steve
yeager
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
That's
an
excellent
question.
As
well
and
I'll
fall
back
on
the
you
know,
there
were
a
lot
of
people
who
helped
in
this
on
this
bill
and
one
of
them
who
helped
was
a
young
lady,
named
caitlin
herndon,
who
was
interning
for
one
of
our
nevada
supreme
court
justices.
A
So
she
did
a
50-state
survey
and
she
didn't
have
data
on
all
50
states,
because
not
all
50
states
have
a
law
like
this,
but
I
want
to
say
about
30
did
so
they
were
sort
of
all
over
the
map
in
terms
of
how
they
approached
it
and
what
the
amounts
were.
Some
gave
a
lump
sum.
Some
gave
an
amount
per
year,
so
I
think
we
put
our
heads
together
and
we
kind
of
said
what
what
would
be
right
for
nevada
and
what's
a
number
that
we
can
settle
on.
A
But
it
was
also
important
to
me
that
I
wanted
nevada
statute
to
be
among
the
best
in
the
country,
because
often
we're
criticized
for
not
doing
things
well
and
I
wanted
us
to
be
a
model.
So
we
we
settled
on
these
numbers
are
really
just
sort
of
doing
the
best
we
can
and
looking
at
what
was
out
there
and-
and
I
am
proud
to
say
that
I
think
the
states
that
remain
to
pass
legislation
like
this
have
been
looking
at
nevada's
legislation
as
a
model.
It
is.
A
It
is
seen
as
best
in
the
country
in
terms
of
how
we
structured
it.
So
not
a
scientific
answer,
but
we
just
kind
of
said
hey.
We
think
you
should
get
more
money
if
you're
incarcerated
for
more
years
and
came
up
with
something
that
I
think
wasn't
going
to
bankrupt
the
state,
which
was
a
concern
as
well.
H
Well,
thank
you
for
your
presentation
on
assembly
bill
104,
having
sat
through
the
presentation
and
being
able
to
pass
that
bill
last
session
was
one
of
the
most
memorable
things
that
we
did
last
session,
at
least
in
my
opinion.
So
at
this
time
I
will
we'll
start
testimony
and
support
opposition
in
neutral
of
assembly
bill
104.
H
Please
remember
to
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
We
will
be
timing
each
speaker
to
ensure
everyone
is
given
a
fair
opportunity
to
speak
and
we
will
limit
the
testimony
likely
to
20
minutes
in
support
opposition
and
neutral
on
this
bill
and
saffron
broadcast
services.
Can
we
see
the
callers
in
the
queue
and
we'll
start
with
support
testimony.
L
L
L
D
I
want
to
thank
chairman
yeager
and
the
members
of
the
attorney
general's
office
for
speaking
with
us.
We
are
in
opposition
today
per
the
rules
of
the
committee,
because
we
believe
the
bill
leaves
out
an
important
section
of
when
a
person
is
incarcerated.
Currently,
as
the
bill
is
drafted
says,
you
would
receive
compensation
only
after
the
time
you
were
wrongfully
convicted.
D
If
the
person
can
prove
that
they
had
spent
the
years
in
detention,
pre-trial
detention
incarcerated
in
a
county
jail
waiting
for
trial
not
being
held
on
another
case,
so
you
wouldn't
get
compensation
if
you
were
going
to
be
held
anyways
on
another
case,
but
on
the
particular
case
that
you
are
wrongfully
convicted
for,
and
so
that
is
where
our
opposition
lies.
Otherwise
we
absolutely
supported
ab267
last
session
and
we
are
grateful
for
all
the
work
the
chairman
and
the
ag's
office
has
done
taking
on
this
issue,
and
that
concludes
my
testimony.
L
L
M
Tanya
brown
spelled
t-o-n-j-a-b-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent
we
are
in
opposition
of
this
bill.
I
have
provided
you
with
a
proposed
amendment
to
this
bill
that
we
would
that
would
we
support.
M
We
would
like
to
see
in
section
three
one
subsections,
one
two
and
three
to
include
additional
subsections,
starting
with
subsection
a1,
to
remove
the
word
imprisoned
and
replace
it
with
arrested
so
from
the
date
of
the
person
was
arrested
after
his
or
her
wrongful
conviction.
M
If
the
person
was
given
us
life
sentence
without
the
possibility
of
parole
and
died
prior
to
the
21st,
24
21
or
more
years
calculated
the
bill,
the
estate
will
receive
the
maximum
allowed
awarded
by
the
state
of
100
000
for
each
year
they
have
served,
and
I've
included
that
to
go
into
sections
two
and
three
as
well.
Thank
you.
L
N
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
g-r-a-n-t
opposed
to
the
bill.
The
wrongfully
convicted
have
already
suffered
the
ultimate
injustice.
The
stigma
stigma
attached
to
the
conviction
will
plague
them
long
after
exoneration.
Their
nightmare
begins
day,
one
at
the
false
arrest.
Thus,
compensation
should
begin
then,
as
well.
Not
a
time
of
conviction.
Look
at
how
long
people
are
waiting
for
trial
now,
due
to
covert
19
one
day
in
jail
wrongfully
convicted
is
wrong,
let
alone
years.
I
would
support
tony
brown's
amendment
that
she
did
just
mention
and
also
I
understand
the
state's
need
to
financially
protect
itself.
N
L
O
Good
morning
vice
chair
nguyen
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
b-e-r-t-s-e-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
First,
I
want
to
thank
chairman
yeager
for
his
hard
work
on
assembly
bill
267,
as
well
as
his
work
on
this
bill
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
We
appreciate
all
that
the
attorney
general's
office,
assemblyman
yeager,
as
well
as
the
members
of
this
committee,
have
done
to
assist
those
who
have
been
wrongfully
convicted
to
ensure
that
they
are
able
to
have
the
means
to
have
a
successful
life
ahead
of
them.
O
I
would
just
echo
the
statements
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
and
that
our
hope
is
to
ensure
that
we
are
able
to
provide
a
calculation
that
is
fair
and
that
is
clarified
in
order
to
ensure
that
it
makes
it
easier
for
everyone
to
understand
what
compensation
could
be
due.
Thank
you
so
much
for
allowing
me
to
testify,
and
I
appreciate
that
the
attorney
general's
office
and
chairman
yager
have
been
so
open
and
willing
to
discuss
this
bill
with
us
and
hope
to
continue
those
conversations.
Thank
you.
L
H
A
A
You
know
I
hope
the
optics
don't
look
bad
that
I
only
had
I
had
five
or
six
people
in
opposition
and
nobody
had
support,
but
I
think
the
opposition
comes,
you
know
they
come
from
a
good
place
and,
and
that
place
is
looking,
justices
have
been
done
and
we
ought
to
compensate
people
for
that,
and
I
agree
with
that.
100.
A
Let
me
just
tell
you
why
I'm
not
quite
there
on
that
proposal,
you
know
number
one
we
didn't.
We
didn't
compensate
anybody
until
we
passed
the
bill
last
session,
so
this
this
is
a
new
statute,
we're
certainly
better
than
we
were
before,
and
the
request
really
is
to
compensate
folks
for
pre-conviction
incarceration
and,
as
many
of
you
know,
people
are
incarcerated
right
or
wrong.
A
They're
incarcerated
all
the
time
before
they
get
to
trial
and
right
now,
if
you're
incarcerated
before
you
get
to
trial
and
you
go
to
trial
and
a
jury
acquits
you,
the
state
doesn't
compensate
you
for
that
time.
Maybe
the
state
should
but
right
now
we
don't
so.
I
think
adding
that
provision
would
be
somewhat
inconsistent
with
how
our
criminal
justice
system
works
and
then,
in
addition,
as
you
all
know,
we've
talked
about
how
it's
not
really
the
state,
who
probably
is
legally
responsible
for
these
damages.
A
So
I
think,
as
as
all
of
us
being
fiscal
stewards
of
the
state's
money,
we
have
to
try
to
narrowly
craft
something
that
balances
the
interests
at
play.
I
think
we've
done
that
here
and
then
finally
keep
in
mind
that
many
of
these
cases
they're
going
to
file
a
federal,
1983
action
and
so
in
the
most
egregious
cases
in
a
sense,
they're
going
to
get
compensated
for
that
pre-trial
incarceration
if
they're
successful
in
that
subsequent
litigation.
A
H
H
assembly
bill
107
revises
the
procedure
for
determining
whether
a
person
may
prosecute
or
defend
a
civil
action
without
paying
costs.
I
know
that
chair
yeager,
also
emailed
out
his
conceptual
amendments
this
morning
on
assembly,
bill
107
and
will
be
pre
will
be
presenting
off
of
those
proposed
amendments.
I
think
similar
to
assembly
bill
104.
H
A
Good
morning,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
steve
yeager
I
represent
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas,
and
it
is
a
pleasure
this
morning
to
present
assembly
bill
107
to
you,
madam
vice
chair.
With
your
permission.
How
I
would
like
to
proceed
this
morning
is
to
make
some
brief
introductory
remarks.
A
Then
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
bailey
bordelin,
who
is
joining
us
this
morning
on
the
zoom
and
she's,
going
to
explain
what
assembly
bill
107
does
as
well
as
the
conceptual
amendment
that
I
hope
you
all
have,
or
if
you
don't
have
it,
it
should
be
up
on
nellis.
Thankfully
it's
not
terribly
long
and
then
after
that
we
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
if
that's
acceptable,
madam
chair
I'll,
make
those
remarks
and
then
hand
it
over
to
mrs
bortland
perfect,
and
I
I
do
want
to
much
like
the
last
bill.
A
I
want
to
thank
miss
bortalin,
who
really
helped
me
on
this
bill.
She
did
most
of
the
work
talked
to
most
of
the
interested
parties,
so
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
able
to
bring
the
bill.
So
this
bill
is
about
access
to
justice,
and
access
to
justice
is
obviously
important
and
the
inability
to
afford
court
filing
costs
should
not
serve
as
an
impediment
to
having
your
day
in
court
assembly.
A
Bill
107
is
a
bill
that
will
improve
access
to
justice
because
it
gives
the
court
more
guidance
on
how
to
determine
whether
a
person
should
be
relieved
from
having
to
pay
costs
to
get
into
court,
and,
as
I
mentioned,
madam
vice
chair,
I've
provided
a
conceptual
amendment
and,
with
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
hand
it
over
now
to
miss
bortolin.
Who
will
take
you
through
the
bill,
as
well
as
the
amendment.
P
Great
thank
you
good
morning
and
thank
you
for
having
me
on
the
zoom.
As
our
chair
is
calling
it.
My
name
is
bailey
bordelin
and
I
represent
the
legal
aid
providers
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
since
this
is
my
first
time
this
session,
I
will
run
through
those
real
quick
legal
aid,
center
of
southern
nevada,
washoe
legal
services,
southern
nevada
senior
law
program
and
volunteer
attorneys
of
rural
nevada.
So
statewide
we
provide
free
legal
services
to
folks
in
that
can't
financially
afford
attorneys
for
the
legal
help
that
they
need.
P
The
courts
have
been
a
great
ally
and
partner
in
our
mission
for
access
to
justice
and
in
promoting
that
throughout
our
legal
system.
So
I
did
just
real
quick.
I
want
to
read
you.
The
access
to
justice
mission
statement
for
the
state
of
nevada-
and
it
is
access
to
justice
and
equal
justice
under
the
law,
is
not
merely
a
caption
on
the
facade
of
the
united
states
supreme
court
building.
It
is
perhaps
the
most
inspiring
ideal
of
our
society.
It
is
one
of
the
ends
for
which
our
entire
legal
system
exists.
P
The
courts
have
kind
of
been
left
with
that
policy
decision
of
who
should
we
find
to
be
an
indigent
person
and
who
shouldn't
we
and
what
qualifies
them,
and
so
we
think
it's
appropriate
as
a
policy
decision
for
this
committee
and
this
body
to
put
in
the
definitions
of
who
that
should
really
apply
to.
I
want
to
note
that
that's
particularly
important
right
now
with
everything
going
on,
we
have
more
legal
need
than
ever,
and
this
applies
to
all
civil
filings.
Whether
you
need
to
change
your
name,
you
need
to
get
a
divorce.
P
You
need
have
a
child's
custody
issue,
but
the
big
one
for
me
that
you
all
continue
to
hear
about
is
that
for
an
opportunity
to
defend
yourself
from
an
eviction
notice.
You
have
to
affirmatively
file
with
the
courts
and
answer
and
if
you
don't
file
that
answer
your
case
can
be
summarily
granted
without
ever
receiving
a
hearing
under
nevada
law,
so
that
cost
77.
P
If
the
reason
that
you're
there
is
because
you
didn't
have
enough
money
to
pay
to
pay
your
rent
in
the
first
place,
and
so
as
we
move
forward
in
this
evictions
crisis
and
as
we
see
those
turn
back
on,
we
want
to
really
make
sure
that
we
have
clearly
defined
and
allowed,
and
I
will
say
in
some
cases
this
is
slightly
expanding
access
to
who
doesn't
have
that
financial
barrier
for
an
opportunity
to
defend
themselves
from
losing
their
homes
in
a
pandemic.
P
We
had
an
elderly
gentleman
who
came
into
the
court
with
a
walker
by
himself.
Him
and
his
wife
were
in
their
70s,
and
he
didn't
want
her
to
come
to
the
court
with
him
because
he
thought
it
was
putting
her
at
risk
of
covid.
So
he
was
trying
to
navigate
this
by
himself.
She
had
lost
her
job
that
helped
supplement
their
fixed
income
that
they
used
to
pay
their
rent
and
had
received
an
eviction
notice.
P
They
were
denied
for
being
a
couple
dollars
over
what
they
had
said
as
a
monthly
limit,
but
again
they
clearly
didn't
have
that
monthly
income
and
he
actually,
as
he
was
trying
to
figure
out
what
to
do
next
and
panicking
in
that
moment,
fell
from
his
walker
and
was
left
the
courthouse
in
an
ambulance.
And
so
this
is
really.
We
call
those
moments,
our
legal
emergency
rooms
when
we're
helping
people
figure
out
how
to
file
because
they're,
quick
timelines
and
people
need
that
help
right
then,
and
there.
P
So,
I
think
that's
a
good
example
of
the
need
that
we're
going
forward
and
the
other
one.
I
want
to
give
you
a
family
court
context.
Is
we
had
a
single
mother
of
four
who
applied
for
a
divorce
from
her
abusive
husband?
She
earned
eighteen
hundred
dollars
a
month,
but
because
of
the
four
children
that
she
was
attempting
to
take
care
of
by
herself,
her
expenses
were
2500
a
month.
P
Her
fee
waiver
was
denied
and
she
actually
ended
up
waiting
a
few
months
until
she
could
save
up
the
299
dollars
that
it
cost
to
file
a
divorce.
So
we
think
that
these
expansions
that
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
really
quick,
will
cover
those
situations
and
they
are
an
outlier
most
people
are
qualifying,
but
we
think
it's
important
to
close
the
loop
and
make
sure
that
those
people
are
able
to
access
justice.
P
So,
if
you'll
look
at
the
bill,
the
real
substance
of
it
is
in
section
1,
subsection,
2
and
there's
an
a
through
f
listed
there
and
those
are
what
we're
putting
in
as
the
parameters
for
who
qualifies
for
those
fee
waivers.
The
first
one
is
an
existing
qualifier.
If
you
are
a
client
of
legal
aid,
you
can
have
your
fees
waived,
because
we
believe
that
the
legal
aid
providers
are
doing
that
financial
assessment
before
they
have
you
become
a
legal
aid.
P
Client
you've
already
proven
that
you
have
a
financial
need,
so
we
don't
want
to
reinvent
the
wheel
there.
The
rest
of
the
categories
are
new
and
we
did
do
a
50-state
survey
and
look
at
what's
common
and
what
other
states
are
doing
to
allow
access
to
justice.
So
b
has
the
same
idea
as
a
if
you
are
receiving
public
assistance.
We
believe
that
you've
already
proven
that
you
have
a
financial
need
and
we
don't
need
to
require
further
burden
to
get.
There
c
is
a
household
income.
P
We
put
150
percent
of
the
federal
poverty
line
and
we've
provided
you
as
an
exhibit
what
that
means
and
what
those
numbers
are
based
on,
how
many
people
are
in
your
household
and
that's
where
we
will
have
a
slight
expansion
in
some
courthouses,
because
again,
every
courthouse
had
set
their
own
limit.
So
for
an
example
where
the
bulk
of
the
work
is
in
nevada,
the
las
vegas
justice
court
had
set
that
at
138
percent,
so
we
are
seeing
a
slight
increase.
P
150
is
what
legal
aid
uses
to
determine
qualifications
for
clients,
so
it
would
put
some
consistency
in
with
the
legal
services
that
indigent
people
have
access
to,
and
then
d
is
a
safeguard.
If
you
have
a
lamborghini
in
a
garage
somewhere,
you
shouldn't
have
access
and
I'll
say
that's
a
divorce
case
that
I
saw
as
a
law
clerk.
P
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
can't
just
say
I
don't
have
this
money
in
my
bank
account
and
really
you
do
have
the
means
to
to
pay
the
filing
fee
and
then
e
and
f
are
to
allow
for
a
reasonable
and
human
review
of
the
unique
sp,
unique
facts
of
each
situation.
If
a
mom
has
medical
bills
for
children
that
are
having
an
outsized
impact
on
her
monthly
income,
that's
something
that
we
should
take
into
consideration
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
P
P
Some
of
those
language
changes
that
you
see
are
to
allow
for
further
automation
and
streamlining
of
legal
services.
Something
we've
been
working
really
hard
on
during
the
pandemic
is
to
allow
people
to
file
online
from
home
so
that
they
don't
physically
have
to
come
in,
and
so
as
we're
able
to
continue
to
build
off
of
that.
P
If
there
are
ways
to
streamline
this
and
allow
this
to
proceed,
perhaps
a
little
less
formally
so
that
we
can
do
some
of
that
automating
and
streamlining,
so
people
don't
have
to
wait
as
long
and
it's
not
as
much
of
a
burden
on
court
resources.
We
support
that
progress
as
a
side.
Note
I'll,
say
we're
having
a
lot
of
conversations
about
the
great
work
that
we've
made
to
automate
and
make
access
to
the
courts
easier
because
of
the
pandemic.
P
So
we
think
the
next
frontier
is
trying
to
meet
folks
in
the
community
where
they're
at
with
their
legal
needs.
Before
the
pandemic.
A
lot
of
people
had
to
take
the
day
off.
Work,
get
two
buses
get
down
to
the
courthouse
and
figure
out
how
to
file,
and
so,
if
we
can
bring
the
legal
assistance
to
them
where
they
are
in
their
communities
and
help
them
figure
out
how
to
do
it
without
all
of
that
burden.
P
I
have
stephanie
mcdonald
on
with
me,
who
is
the
director
of
the
family
law
self-help
center
in
clark
county,
because
she
sees
a
lot
of
these
cases
in
and
out
every
day.
So
to
the
extent
you
have
questions
on
the
logistics,
I
wanted
her
on
to
help
me
answer
any
of
those
questions.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present.
A
That
and
madame
madame
vice
chair,
this
is
steve
yeager
for
the
record.
I'm
not
sure
if
you
wanted
to
go
to
miss
mcdonald
or
if
not,
we
are
open
for
questions.
Any
committee
members
may
have.
H
Q
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
yeager,
and
thank
you
committee
members
for
considering
the
proposed
legislation
before
you.
My
name
is
stephanie
mcdonald.
I
am
with
the
legal
aid
center
of
southern
nevada
and
I
am
the
directing
attorney
for
the
family
law
self-help
center
in
clark,
county
nevada,
the
8th
judicial
district
court.
Q
Q
Q
Information
forms
instructions,
explanations
of
the
process
to
all
of
those
who
are
navigating
the
system
on
their
own,
and
we
are
very
very
grateful
to
have
this
consideration
because,
as
ms
borderland
mentioned
there,
there
is
a
bit
of
a
lack
of
uniformity
in
how
those
applications
are
processed.
It
is
sort
of
left
to
judicial
discretion
as
to
who
qualifies
and
who
does
not
an
application
before
one
court
could
be
approved.
The
same
application
before
a
different
court
could
be
denied
simply
because
there
are
varying
measures
of
how
how
the
standards
get
applied.
H
B
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
and
certainly
I
agree
that
access
to
justice,
which
we
should
not
it,
should
not
be
deterred
because
a
person
cannot
afford.
So
I
have
several
questions.
Well,
let's
just
start
with
two
currently:
what
happens
when
you,
when
the
court
or
the
the
decision
is
made
that
the
person
doesn't
qualify
if
you're
working
with
them?
What
what
recourse
is
there.
P
Yeah
I'll,
let
stephanie
answer
that
I
will
say
the
filing
is
not
accepted
until
you
are
able
to
pay.
So
that
is
a
real
impediment
to
access
to
justice.
But
stephanie,
do
you
want
to
walk
through
that.
Q
Yeah,
thank
you
that
stephanie
mcdonald
again
for
the
record
it
it
varies.
Quite
frankly
there
there
are
some
courts
where
the
fee
waiver
is
denied.
It
then
becomes
a
matter
for
the
clerk
of
court
to
continue
sending
invoices
daily
to
the
litigant,
asking
them
to
pay
that
fee.
Some
cases
get
dismissed
by
the
court.
Q
There
are
some
courts
that
are
putting
time
limits
on
the
amount
of
time
a
person
has
to
pay
oftentimes
that
might
be
30
days
from
the
date
of
the
denial
to
pay
the
filing
fee,
or
their
case
is
dismissed
and
in
those
cases,
cases
are
ending
up
getting
dismissed.
You
know
when,
when
a
case
is
filed,
somebody
normally
has
120
days
to
get
the
defendant
served
to
move
on
in
the
process.
Q
The
30-day
window
of
denial
is
resulting
in
cases
being
dismissed
prior
to
their
normal
120
days
to
prosecute
a
case.
So
again,
the
results
of
a
denial
are
all
over
the
place
and
there
is
no
recourse
for
somebody.
Who's
been
denied
the
the
statute
previously
and
in
its
proposed
form,
now
does
not
provide
an
appeal
or
any
kind
of
review
for
a
denial
of
the
fee
waiver,
so
it
ultimately
becomes
up
to
the
court,
the
individual
court,
how
to
process
that,
and
some
continue
on
waiting
for
the
clerk
to
collect
some
get
dismissed.
Q
It's
it's
kind
of
a
mixed
bag.
Right
now,.
P
And
this
is
bailey
bortland
for
the
record,
if
I
could
add
in
the
evictions
context
that
I
was
mentioning
earlier.
Typically,
if
you're
late
on
rent,
you
get
a
seven
day,
non-payment
of
rent
notice,
which
is
an
extension
that
was
put
in
last
session
and
that
seven
days
that
you
have
to
respond
before
the
case
can
just
be
granted,
continues
to
toll
pending
a
decision
on
your
fee
waiver
and,
if
denied
so
in
that
situation,
you
have
a
very
limited
amount
of
time
to
find
the
money
to
file
an
answer.
B
And
then
I'm
going
to
ask
the
question
that
I
know
is
a
no-no.
I
know
it's
a
policy
committee
and
not
a
money
committee,
but
of
course
this
is
about
money,
so
more
a
general
jurisdiction
issue.
So
if
this
bill
were
to
pass
and
go
into
law,
then
it's
going
to
the
will.
The
burden
of
the
financial
side
of
it
be
borne
by
the
counties
or
the
municipal
say,
a
city,
a
portion
of
the
state.
B
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
structure,
not
so
much
how
much
money
but
where
the
fiscal
responsibility
is
going
to
lie.
P
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
question
bailey
bortlin
for
the
record,
so
I
will
say
that
the
courts
did
not
feel
that
this
was
a
drastic
change
in
policy
for
any
of
them,
so
they
I
we
did
not
get
any
feedback
on
how
this
would
impact
their
budget.
They
did
very
politely
point
out
to
me
and
we
had
a
conversation
that
most
of
the
fees
in
these
filings
actually
go
to
the
legal
aid
providers
in
the
state.
B
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
hanson
be
safe.
I
think
we
have
a
question
next
from
assemblywoman
cohen.
J
Thank
you
vice
chair,
and
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation.
I
I
have
a
question
about
the
existing
language
that
we're
not
trying
to
change,
but
it
just
struck
me
as
as
kind
of
odd
being
in
practice.
It's
in
section
one,
the
new
sub
five
there's
prevailing
party
language,
and
I
just
don't
know.
If
that's
I
wasn't
even
aware
of
that,
and
I'm
not
even
really
sure
if
that's
complied
with
by
the
course.
J
So
I
just
wanted
to
know
if,
if
that
was
something
that
you
saw
in
your
practice
with
legal
aid
or
if
I'm
just
wrong
that
that
does
get
complied
with.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question
be
like
borderland
for
the
record.
So
thank
you
for
that
follow-up
question
because
I
should
have
mentioned
that
section.
Five
in
my
answer
to
assemblywomanhansen
there
is
a
statutory
provision
that
allows
the
courts.
If
the
person
who
filed
the
fee
waiver
prevails
in
the
action
which
of
course
is
not
every
case,
but
if
they
prevail,
the
court
shall
order
the
other
party
to
pay
that
fee
waiver
that
was
previously
waived.
P
So
should
this
cause
a
budget
offset,
you
would
be
able
to
point
to
that
as
a
way
in
some
of
these
cases
to
recoup
those
costs.
But,
like
you,
I
I
personally
do
not
see
that
used
very
often.
I
don't
think
we
see
it
used
very
often
there
are
some
contexts
because
the
fee
waiver
is
across
all
types
of
filing
cases
where
it
might
be
used
more
than
others,
but
I'll
say
having
focused
on
evictions
for
the
last
11
months.
P
H
H
K
P
Thank
you
for
the
question.
That
is
the
check
and
balance
currently
in
place.
If
you'll
see
in
the
draft,
we
were
using
an
affidavit
and
the
word
affidavit
throughout
the
bill
is
struck
and
replaced
with
the
word
application
to
try
to
move
forward
with
a
more
informal
process
when
possible,
if
easier
for
all
involved.
But
there
was
a
concern
raised
by
the
judiciary
that
an
application
doesn't
necessarily
require
that
penalty
of
perjury
that
the
affidavit
did.
K
K
P
Bailey
bortling
for
the
record.
I
not
sure
if
stephanie
knows
the
ins
and
outs
of
that.
I
just
know
that
the
unsworn
declaration,
with
the
penalty
of
perjury
was
the
existing
practice
and
complies
with
the
related
court
rules.
But
stephanie
do
you
have
anything
to
add.
Q
Q
Sure
stephanie
mcdonald,
for
the
record
I'll
just
follow
up
real,
quick.
The
prior
traditional
practice
within
the
courts
was
just
about
everything
required
an
affidavit
attached
to
it,
which
requires
a
notary.
All
the
bells
and
whistles
of
of
what
legal
documentation
traditionally
includes.
Q
Nrs
53.045
has
been
in
place
for
quite
some
time
now,
which
has
largely
replaced
the
use
of
those
affidavits
that
require
notary.
It
is
another
mechanism
of
providing
greater
access
to
justice
for
people
who
don't
have
the
ability.
Time
means
to
get
documents
notarized
and
so
pretty
much
all
of
the
self-help
legal
documents
right
now
that
people
are
using
employ
that
unsworn
declaration
in
lieu
of
the
affidavit
and
the
language
that
actually
gets
attached
to
it
is
quote.
Q
H
I
will
concur
with
stephanie's
life
statement.
I
know
in
practice
that
we
almost
all
exclusively
use
declarations
instead
of
affidavits
any
longer.
I
do
see
I
have
another
question
from
assemblywoman
hardy,
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
her.
G
Thank
you.
Madame
vice
chair,
I
actually
worked
in
the
civil
division,
and
so
I
had
a
lot
of
experience
with
these
fee
waivers
and
the
frustrations
of
people
coming
in,
and
you
know
under
a
time
limit
and
not
knowing
how
to
fill
the
form
out,
and
you
know
we
couldn't
answer
their
questions.
G
So
I
appreciate
clarifying
some
of
this
and
having
a
new
form.
So
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
few
things
about
the
form
like
the
previous
form
was
just
one
page,
and
you
know
they
just
pretty
much
filled
in
amounts
and
stuff.
So
is
this
new
application?
Is
it
you
know
more
detailed?
Is
it
just
like?
Yes,
no
questions.
Do
they
have
to
put
amounts,
or
you
know
say
someone
doesn't
have
legal
aid
or
someone
helping
them.
P
Absolutely
thank
you
for
the
question.
Bailey
bortlin
for
the
record.
We
work
very
hard
as
a
state
judicial
system
on
forms
forms
are
a
big
thing
that
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
revamping
and
reworking.
So
we
do
have
fee
waiver
forms
that
we
have
developed.
P
P
I
don't
foresee
that
our
self-help
forms
would
need
to
be
drastically
changed,
but
should
this
bill
pass
into
law,
we
would
take
a
look
at
how
to
amend
that
to
be
acceptable
and
we
really
like
the
proposed
language
in
this
bill.
That
says
on
a
form
provided
by
the
court,
because
that
will
help
us
with
that
form
process
in
working
with
the
courts,
to
have
an
easy
to
use
easy
to
understand
uniform
process
for
anyone,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they're
a
client
of
legally
to
be
able
to
navigate
how
to
access
the
fee
waiver.
G
Thank
you,
that's
good
to
hear,
because
you
know
so
many
times
these
folks
would
run
upstairs
at
five
minutes
to
four
and
we're
like
you
know,
we
can't
help
you
with
it
and
then
you
know
they're
just
frantic,
and
so
I
think
that's
good,
and
especially
if
they're
going
to
be
doing
these
e-filings
from
home
and
such
you
know,
the
ease
of
the
form
would
probably
be
very
beneficial.
So
thank
you.
H
And
do
we
have
any
other
questions
here?
I
don't
have
any
that
have
been
messaged
to
me,
but
if
you
can
raise
your
hand
or
wave
your
hand,
if
you
have
any
questions,
I
see
one
from
assemblyman
or
liquor,
so
turner.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
when
section
2
d,
the
sufficient
legal
liquid
assets
provision
and
the
way
you
explained
it.
The
example
you
gave
made
me
made
it
sound
like
you
were
talking
about
somebody
who
might
qualify
under
some
other
provision
but
say
c
the
household
income,
but
actually
has
ample
assets
that
they
could
draw
on,
and
so
it
sounded
like
you
were
saying
we
wouldn't
want
that
person
to
qualify
if
I,
but
so,
if
I'm
understanding
that
example,
I'm
not
sure
d
does
works.
B
P
Haley
bordelin,
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
understand
what
you
were
saying.
My
example
may
have
been
a
little
rushed
based
on
how
we
previously
have
or
currently
are
handling
these.
In
my
experience,
we
are
asking
people
if
they
have
these
liquid
assets,
but
the
way
that
we
are
moving
forward
with
these,
if
you
are
able
to
prove
need
under
any
of
these,
you
would
be
able
to
move
forward
stephanie.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
on
that.
Q
Yeah
stephanie
mcdonald,
for
the
record,
you
know
I
I
don't
think
that
circumstance
presents
itself
terribly
often
under
the
current
version
of
the
application
litigants
are
asked
for
their
household
income.
Alongside
a
listing
of
generally,
you
know
whatever
assets
they
have,
which
typically
includes
a
house
or
a
car
or
a
bank
account,
and
so
the
court
is
sort
of
looking
at
that
as
a
whole.
Q
It
is
the
very
rare
circumstance
where
somebody
would
show
income
below
the
threshold
amount,
but
have
assets
in
great
amounts
that
would
allow
them
to
pay
for
for
the
filing
fee.
Should
you
know
within
the
family
court
context,
there
are
generally
additional
financial
disclosures
that
get
submitted,
and
should
it
come
to
the
court's
attention
that
maybe
somebody
got
through
on
on
a
waiver
that
they
shouldn't
have
received.
H
Thank
you
and
do
we
have
any
other
questions
here
from
the
committee.
H
Seeing
none,
I
think
we
will
start
our
testimony
and
support
opposition
in
neutral
of
assembly
bill
107.
I'm
going
to
remind
the
public
to
please
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
In
with
that,
we
will
begin
with
support
testimony
of
assembly
bill
107
broadcast
services.
Can
you
add
our
first
caller.
L
L
O
O
O
Existing
law
does
not
provide
nevada's
courts
as
a
clear
and
objective
standard
for
granting
fee
waivers
and
further
does
not
provide
an
applicant
with
clear
guidance.
Ab107
makes
these
positive
changes
in
providing
court
to
the
clear,
consistent
method
and
also
provides
applicants
with
clear
guidelines
into
eligibility
for
a
fee
waiver.
O
H
For
your
time,
thank
you
and
I
know
that
that
was
miss
davenport's
first
time
testifying
on
a
bill
in
committee,
and
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
point
out
that
she
is
a
boy
student
and
I
am
a
boy
graduate
a
proud
boy
graduate.
So
I
know
that
we
will
see
some
of
the
same
people
testifying
over
and
over
again.
So
welcome
to
the
assembly,
judiciary,
committee
and
with
that,
can
we
go
to
the
next
caller.
L
L
G
D
M
I
would
just
would
like
to
make
a
comment
dealing
with
the
assets.
Now
there
has
been
a
time
or
two
where
dealing
with
in
the
matter
of
an
estate
and
the
estate
has
no
money
and
there's
an
administrator
appointed
they're
required
to
pay
the
filing
fee.
M
There
may
be
very
little
asset
that
in
the
estate
or
maybe
future
assets,
say
a
car
accident
and
somebody
was
killed,
but
they
had
no
assets
at
the
time,
but
will
in
the
future,
so
they
kind
of
look
at
that
and
they'll
get
hit
with
the
with
the
filing
fees
so
but
but
other
than
that.
Yes,
we
are
strongly
in
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you.
L
D
Good
morning,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
stand
with
our
colleagues
from
legal
aid
in
supporting
this
bill
brought
by
chairman
yeager.
This
is
an
access
to
justice
issue
and
it
does
affect
our
clients
in
that
filing
fees
can
sometimes
present
prevent
them
from
moving
forward
with
sealing
their
records.
So
this
would
open
up
the
doors
to
more
record
sealing
and
helping
our
clients
move
forward
in
their
life.
Thank
you
and
that
concludes
my
testimony.
L
C
C
C-H-A-L-L-I-N-O-R,
I
am
the
policy
director
for
faith
in
action,
nevada,
a
statewide,
nonpartisan,
multi-faith
organization
that
organizes
and
advocates
for
racial,
social
and
economic
justice,
as
well
as
an
inclusive
democracy.
We
are
here
in
support
of
av
107
with
the
proposed
amendment.
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
C
I
would
like
to
echo
the
previous
speakers.
Poverty
should
not
prevent
access
to
justice.
Those
who
are
already
suffering
should
not
be
put
through
even
more
especially
when
it
comes
to
housing.
Nevada
already
has
an
imbalance
of
power
between
tenants
and
landlords,
and
this
is
one
step
towards
settling
that,
especially
for
those
who
are
on
fixed
incomes
and
receiving
public
assistance.
In
addition
to
eviction
defense,
this
would
also
apply
to
security
deposit
disputes,
which
we
have
seen
some
landlords
hold
against
their
tenants
many
times,
especially
for
those
who
could
receive
these
fee
waivers.
C
L
O
Good
morning
again,
vice
chairman
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y.
I
want
to
thank
chairman
yeager
and
legal
aid
for
bringing
forward
this
important
legislation.
As
the
other
callers
have
indicated,
this
is
extremely
vital
to
ensuring
equal
access
to
justice
for
all
nevadans.
O
I
would
just
note
that,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
presentation
about
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office,
oftentimes,
our
clients
have
collateral
issues
involving
the
legal
system,
which
this
bill
would
allow
them
to
ensure
that
they
are
also
able
to
take
care
of
those
matters
that
may
have
brought
them
into
the
criminal
realm,
but
also
to
ensure
that
they
are
able
to
become
productive
members
of
our
society.
So
I
really
appreciate
this
as
well
as
having
volunteered
with
a
lawyer
in
the
library
and
having
processed
fee
waivers
as
a
law
clerk.
O
L
C
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
tess
opferman,
that's
spelled
t-e-s-f-o-p-f-e-r-m-a-n
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
women's
lobby,
one
of
our
top
priorities
of
the
nevada
women's
lobby
is
housing
security,
especially
now,
through
the
current
pandemic,
we
want
to
ensure
women
and
families
are
able
to
maintain
affordable
and
stable
housing,
which
has
been
made
even
more
difficult
by
the
high
rates
of
unemployment,
something
that
has
disproportionately
affected
women.
We
support
this
bill
as
it
removes
the
financial
barrier
and
access
to
justice
and
ultimately
can
provide
housing
security.
L
N
N
L
L
L
D
D
How
do
we
reconcile
access
to
justice
with
statutes
of
limitations
because
picking
up
where
madame
presenter
left
off
with
her
example,
especially
now
it's
it's
conceivable
that
somebody
could
never
have
those
disposable
assets
for
want
of
a
better
phrase
to
actually
pay
the
fees.
D
So
that's
that's
number
two
and
then
number
three
is
we'd,
also
like
to
see
for
complex
litigation
as
mine
is
a
because
the
problem
I'm
having
is
because
of
who
the
defendant
is
finding
a
lawyer
that
doesn't
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
D
L
H
L
L
H
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
that
and
with
that
I
will
turn
this
back
over
to
chair
yeager,
to
see
if
you
have
any
closing
remarks
on
this.
A
We
have
such
a
need
in
the
state
and
our
legal
aid
providers
step
in
as
best
as
they
can
and
fulfill
that
need
to
help
real
people
with
real
problems
every
day
of
the
year
in
helping
them
solve
those
problems.
So
I
want
to
thank
them
for
the
work
that
they've
chosen
to
do.
I
don't
think
we
we
thank
them
enough.
It's
really
hard
work
and
sometimes
not
very
rewarding.
So
I
would
like
to
thank
them
again
and
madam
chair
would
hand
it
over
to
mrs
bortle
and
if
she
wants
to
make
any
concluding
remarks.
P
Sure
thank
you,
bailey
bortolin,
for
the
record.
I
would
like
to
similarly
thank
jerry
jaeger
for
agreeing
to
work
on
this
legislation
with
us,
and
I
appreciate
the
time
and
opportunity
we've
had
to
discuss
this
and
and
work
through
this
and
the
judiciary
for
working
with
us
on
this
and
always
being
a
great
partner
in
the
pursuit
of
access
to
justice.
P
So
I
look
forward
to
getting
this
legislation
through
and
if
anyone
has
concerns
or
questions
that
come
up
after
the
fact,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
and
thank
you
all
for
all
of
the
policy
work
that
you
guys
are
doing.
I
appreciate
the
time
and
effort
that
you
all
put
into
this.
H
A
Thank
you
so
much
committee.
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
for
running
those
hearings.
It's
nice
to
be
out
of
that
hot
seat,
just
for
a
little,
while,
I'm
sure
I'll
be
back
in
it
sometime
soon,
but
want
to
thank
you
for
listening
to
those
bills,
and
so
before
we
get
to
the
very
end
of
our
meeting
and
announcements.
I'd
like
to
go
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
the
public
comment
line
as
a
reminder
we'll
have
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
A
L
L
N
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e-g-r-a-n-t
sister
thomas
purdy,
who
was
murdered
by
reno
police
and
washable
county
deputies
during
a
mental
health
crisis.
Today
I
wanted
to
tell
you
about
micah
abby,
who
was
killed
by
reno
police
micah.
Abbey
was
33
years
old
when
he
lost
his
life
to
reno
police
12,
25
2011..
N
He
was
in
a
group
home
for
mentally
disabled
folks.
He
got
into
a
verbal
argument
at
dinnertime
with
one
of
his
peers
staff
called
rpd
by
the
time.
Reno
police
officers,
keith
pike,
daniel
born
scott
rasmussen
and
brad
d
metropolis
arrived
michael,
was
resting,
peaceful
and
calmly
in
his
bedroom
by
himself
sitting
on
his
bed,
micah
did
attempt
to
resist
arrest
on
christmas
day.
Of
course,
he
didn't
want
to
go
to
jail.
N
The
police
tasered
him
22
times
of
which
12
of
those
he
was
handcuffed
and
faced
down
with
officers
on
his
head
neck
and
back
they
also
hog-tied
micah.
Like
rp
did
he
did
to
my
brother,
thomas
purdy.
They
used
a
baton
on
him
as
well.
He
never
made
it
out
of
his
room
alive.
I
personally
know
micah's
family
and
so
many
other
washoe
county
families
living
the
nightmare
of
police,
killing
your
loved
one.
Without
consequence,
christmas
is
a
dreaded
day
for
denise
micah's
mom.
N
She
worked
in
a
mental
hospital
for
years
and
they
didn't
kill
anybody.
Truth
be
told.
The
only
community
member
to
die
at
a
mental
facility
in
washoe
county
was
ronald
leach,
who
was
a
patient
and
was
shot
by
reno
police
in
the
parking
lot.
Please
do
not.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
further
protect
bad
cops,
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability
from
police.
Thank
you.
A
L
M
Tanya
brown
t-o-n-j-a
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent
good
morning.
Mr
chairman
and
members,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
hard
work
you
have
put
into
these
bills.
We
truly
appreciate
that
when
I
I
have
provided
the
committee
with
my
proposed
amendments
to
assembly
bill
104
along
with
two
exhibits,
these
exhibits
are
sworn
affidavits
under
penalty
of
perjury.
M
I
do
not
see
them
up
on
nellis,
so
I'd
like
to
see
them
up
on
nellis,
if
that's
possible.
Also
in
that
proposed
amendment,
I
stated
under
section
three
subsection.
One
excuse
me,
with
the
exception
of
those
who
have
become
deceased
while
his
or
her
appeal
was
pending,
and
the
court
prior
to
receiving
a
death
notification
had
a
deemed
he
or
she
factually
innocent
that
should
be
instead
of
has
should
be,
would
have
deemed
them,
and
I
kind
of
touch
on
it
because
of
the
covet
situation.
M
We
have
inmates
who
are
appealing
their
conviction
and
some
have
for
many
years,
and
should
they
die
because
of
colville
or
other
health
issues,
they
should
not
lose
trying
to
exonerate
their
names
and
also
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
it's
also
in
part
because
of
mr
fred
stice.
M
I
recall
that
mr
steis
was
had
was
in
tied
up
in
court
and
the
judge
was
about
to
render
their
decision.
When
mr
cease
was
approached
for
a
deal.
Oh,
maybe
an
alpha
plate
anyway.
He
took
it
prior
to
the
judge,
deeming
him
innocent.
M
So
that
in
part
is
why
I
have
that
in
there,
because
once
a
person
dies
and
within
30
days
the
courts
are
notified
and
if
it's
even
pending
in
federal
court
or
even
state
court,
and
that
court
was
going
to
determine
that
they
were
innocent,
it
should
be
in
here
and
I
believe
it
should
belong
in
this
bill.
L
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
committee.
It
has.
I
don't
know
about
you,
but
I
feel
like
it's
been
a
very
long
week,
I'm
happy
it's
friday.
I'm
looking
forward
to
trying
to
get
some
rest
this
weekend
and
just
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
your
participation.
Your
questions
this
week
as
we
started
to
ramp
up
on
the
number
of
bills,
we're
going
to
hear
in
terms
of
what
next
week
looks
like.
A
We
will
not
have
a
meeting
on
monday,
so
we're
going
to
get
monday
morning
off
from
judiciary,
so
please
take
advantage
of
that
in
whatever
way
you
feel
is
appropriate
and
then
so
far,
I
believe
we
have
agendas
out
for
tuesday
and
wednesday.
Those
will
be.
Eight
o'clock
starts
wednesday,
we're
going
to
try
to
get
through
three
bills,
we'll
see
if
we
can
actually
do
that
in
this
virtual
world
and
then
sort
of
stay
tuned
for
the
next.
A
The
rest
of
the
week
for
thursday
and
friday
as
we're
still
trying
to
build
those
agendas
so
with
all
that
behind
us.
Thank
you
again
committee,
and
we
will
see
you
all
on
monday
morning
have
a
great
weekend.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.