►
From YouTube: 3/11/2021 - 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
E
A
Here
and
assemblywoman
gonzalez
is
with
us
as
well,
so
we
do
have
everybody
present.
That
means
we
have
a
quorum.
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
Welcome
to
the
members
and
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
on
the
youtube
channel
welcome
to
day
39
of
the
81st
session.
A
Just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
rules,
members
on
the
zoom
and
guests
on
the
zoom,
if
you
could,
please
remember
to
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
will
help
with
the
audio
feedback
and
then,
if
you
can
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
you
speak
particularly
after
you're
asked
a
question.
That'll
help
our
committee
secretary
prepare
the
minutes
of
the
meeting.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
totally
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
to
each
other,
the
legislative
institution
and,
most
importantly,
our
legislative
staff.
Finally,
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
Laptops
desktops
extra
monitors,
ipads
iphones,
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect.
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
during
the
meeting
they're,
most
likely
just
trying
to
access,
exhibits
or
notes
on
the
bills
with
that
behind
us
members,
there
are
two
bills
on
the
agenda.
A
C
F
C
Yes,
that's
what
I
thought
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you,
chair,
yeager,
to
begin
when
you
are
ready.
A
A
A
It
simply
caps
the
annual
fees
that
a
qualified
organization
must
pay
to
conduct
charitable
gaming
caps,
those
fees
at
ten
dollars.
If
the
total
value
of
the
prizes
offered
by
the
organization
in
one
calendar
year
does
not
exceed
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
you
will
see
that
language
on
page
three
of
the
bill.
That
is
essentially
the
only
addition
that
we
are
making
to
the
statute
and
then
the
act
would
become
effective
upon
passage
and
approval.
A
Although,
under
that
regulation,
the
chair
of
the
gaming
control
board
has
discretion
to
waive
all
or
part
of
that
fee,
and
the
chair
did
in
fact
do
so
on
several
occasions.
Since
the
regulation
was
adopted,
I
began
to
hear
from
some
smaller
charitable
organizations
that
the
fee
structure
adopted
resulted
in
higher
fees
than
they
had
previously
had
to
pay
or
that
they
had
to
spend
more
work.
Putting
fee
waiver
requests
in
to
the
gaming
control
board
then
covet
hit,
and
most
of
these
shareable
events
simply
didn't
happen
any
longer.
A
It
also
saves
the
gaming
control
board
some
time
and
having
to
review
and
approve
fee
waivers,
so
that
is
simply
what
assembly
bill
202
does
and,
madam
vice
chair,
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and,
as
I
noted
mr
morton
could
answer
questions
if
folks
have
questions
about
how
this
really
works
on
a
day-to-day
basis
in
the
real
world.
So
thank
you
so
much.
Madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it.
C
No
problem,
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
legislation.
This
is
actually
one
of
those
things
that
come
up
all
the
time
in
questions
that
I
have
from
like
church
organizations
and
other
small
non-profits
about
lotteries
and
raffles,
and
I
believe
we
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
I
will
start
with
assemblyman
wheeler.
G
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
steve
yeager
for
the
record.
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
mr
morton
to
answer
that,
but
I
did
want
to
know
just
for
the
committee
that,
in
the
actual
digest
of
the
bill,
so
on
the
front
page
of
the
bill,
they
do
provide
the
definition
of
qualified
organization
in
the
digest
as
an
alumni,
charitable,
civic,
educational,
fraternal
patriotic
religious
or
veterans
organization,
or
a
state
or
local
bar
association.
H
Good
morning,
members
of
the
committee,
mike
morton,
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record
osama
bin
lader,
is
correct.
A
qualified
organization
is
defined
in
nrs462125
and
solomon
wheeler.
Yes,
a
qualified
organization
does
have
to
be
a
company
that
operates
not
not
for
profit,
so
they
have
to
provide
us
with
their
nonprofit
letter
or
their
501c3
status.
I'm
either
on
the
federal
or
state
level.
G
Hey,
thank
you.
That's
what
I
thought
and
I
did
read
the
digest,
but
I
was
actually
setting
you
up.
G
Because
what
I'm,
what
I'm
not
seeing
here,
is
different
types
of
organizations
like
women's
clubs,
organizations
as
you
know,
that
have
been
organized
as
pacs
things
like
that
political
clubs.
So
well,
I
guess
this
bill
doesn't
cover
it,
we're
in
luck,
because
I
have
a
bill
coming
up.
That
will
so.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you
vice
chair,
I
was
just
curious,
you're
changing
it
not
to
exceed
ten
dollars
for
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
kind
of
a
two-part
question
it
go.
Does
it
go
back
then,
to
the
regular
fee
structure
when
it
goes
above
that
amount
and
then
how
would
and
I'm
just
going
to
use
a
personal
example
a
couple
weeks
ago
I
know
the
speedway
had
a
50-50
raffle
and
it
was
as
as
more
people
joined
in
it
became
bigger
and
bigger
and
bigger.
How
would
that
fee
structure
work
out?
I
H
Not
at
all
mike
morton
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
billboard
axelrod
asks
your
first
question.
Yes,
so
obviously
the
gaming
control
board
and
the
gaming
commission
will
have
to
amend
our
regulations
if
this
bill
were
to
become
law
and
once
the
the
plan
is
once
the
hundred
thousand
dollar
threshold
is
reached
on
annual
prize
value,
it
would
revert
to
the
existing
fee
structure,
including
the
existing
fee
waiver
provisions
that
are
currently
in
regulation.
4A
of
the
nevada
gaming
commission
regulations.
H
But
they
might
not
be
quite
sure
what
that
prize
limit
is
we
work
with
them
to
you
know,
pay
what
they'd
have
to
pay?
No
matter
what
up
front
and
if
the
prize
value
reaches
the
the
requisite
amount?
More
than
that
it
happens,
or
for
events
that
host
those
50,
50
raffles
or,
for
example,
5149
raffles
at
vegas
golden
knights
games.
They
sort
of
have
a
historical
perspective
on
how
much
money
they
will
raise,
and
we
have
that
historical
perspective
too.
If
they've
applied
to
be
a
qualified
organization
before.
C
Thank
you
for
that,
mr
martin.
Do
you
have
any
follow-up
assembly
woman,
bilbray
axelrod?
C
I
think
I
I
have
a
question
here.
I
see
it
in
the
chat.
What
do
other
states
do
that?
Don't
have
gaming
control
boards
in
this
area.
H
C
Thank
you.
That
makes
sense.
I
do
have
one
other
question.
This
is
probably
for
chair
yeager
in
bringing
together
this
bill.
What
organizations?
I
know
that
in
2019,
obviously,
the
golden
knights
were
pretty
heavily
involved
in
that
legislation
that
led
to
this.
Were
there
other
organizations
throughout
the
state
that
also
took
an
interest
in
clarifying
some
of
this
language.
A
Thank
you,
steve
yeager,
from
assembly
district
9
for
the
record,
so
you
make
a
good
point
which
you
know.
One
of
the
reasons
we
enacted.
Some
of
the
changes
in
2019
was
as
a
result
of
professional
sports
teams
that
arrived,
particularly
in
southern
nevada,
the
vegas
gold
knights
and
the
raiders
who
were
doing
charitable
gaming
on
a
scale
we
hadn't
seen
before.
A
So
we
put
some
of
those
provisions
in,
and
I
think
that
was
really
the
one
of
the
focuses
of
the
bill
and
then
after
session
and
after
the
regulation
was
enacted
in
october,
I
began
to
get
some
communications
from
some
smaller
charitable
organizations
and,
to
be
honest,
most
of
them
were
up
here
in
northern
nevada,
and
I
know
assemblyman
wheeler
got
some
of
those
communications,
senator
settlemyre,
I
think
assemblywoman
krasner.
So
they
were
just.
C
B
Thank
you
vice
chairwin
from
you,
too,
sherry
yeager.
Actually
it's
to
mr
morton.
So
mr
morton,
I
just
want
to
clarify,
because
I'm
one
of
the
people
that
share
yeager
mentioned
that
have
received
several
phone
calls
and
emails
and
complaints.
B
Smaller
groups
like
a
women's
club
once
once
a
month,
they
do
a
50
50
raffle
where
they
might
make
a
hundred
dollars,
or
they
might
have
a
little
auction
for
a
vase
of
flowers.
That's
probably
worth
twenty
dollars.
What
is
how
do
I
respond
to
them
now
with
this
bill?
B
What
please
tell
me
what
I
should
say
to
them:
they're
going
to
only
pay
ten
dollars
for
the
year,
but
they
still
have
to
file
with
the
gaming
control
board
or
or
what
is
my
correct
response
for
those
groups
or
are
those
groups
even
covered?
I
think
you
said
they
were,
but
if
you
could,
please
clarify
on
the
record.
H
Short
mike
moore
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
krasner,
so
if
they
are
so
in
order
to
hold
a
charitable
lottery
or
a
charitable
game
event,
statute
now,
and
has
always
said
that
you
must
be
a
qualified
organization
and
a
qualified
organization
is,
is
a
entity
that
operates
not
for
profit
for
charitable
purpose.
So
the
for
the
first
hurdle
is
being
a
501c3,
and
so,
if
we're
talking
about
an
organization
that
is
a
501c3,
they
would
have
to
file
an
application
with
the
gaming
control
board.
H
And
so,
if
this
bill
were
to
become
law,
they
would
file
an
application
with
the
gaming
control
board.
You
know
provide
all
of
their
contact
information,
the
the
type
of
charitable
lottery
or
charitable
game
that
they
are
going
to
hold
just
confirm
the
prize
value
with
us
and
with
a
10
fee
for
the
entire
year.
If
this
bill
were
to
become
law,
I
am
happy
to
after
this
meeting
is
over.
Send
you
the
link
to
the
application
so
that
you
can
share
it
with
your
constituents
or
whoever
is
asking
you.
H
B
H
Mike
morton
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record
under
existing
state
statute,
and
if
this
bill
were
to
pass
charitable
lotteries
and
charitable
games
can
not
be
conducted.
Unless
you
are
a
501c3
organization,
wow.
C
D
Vice
chair
and
david
orton
liquor
for
the
record
assembly
district
20.
for
chair
yeager
and
commissioner.
D
I
support
the
idea
of
limiting
how
much
these
smaller
organizations
pay
I'm
a
little
nervous
about
putting
statutory
amounts,
because
that
just
means
in
a
few
years
when
they
become
outdated,
we'll
have
to
amend
this.
So
I'm
curious.
Why
the
the
commissioner
and
the
board
weren't
more
responsive
to
these
concerns,
because
they
obviously
have
authority
to
change
the
regulations
and
why
the
regulatory
process
didn't
work
to
get
us
to
the
right
point.
H
Mike
moore
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
so
back
in
2019
after
assembly
bill
117
passed
in,
we
started
the
regulatory
process
here
at
the
board
and
at
the
commission
a
little
a
little
fee
history.
So
when
chapter
462
was
implemented
in
1993,
the
fees
were
statutorily
set
at
5.25,
based
on
to
keep
it
simple,
basically
based
on
price
value,
and
so
the
fee
was
first
so
for
most
people
the
fee
was
five
dollars
and
so
that
five
dollar
fee
stayed
in
existence
from
1993
until
2019
was
never
changed.
H
When
assembly,
when
ab-117
passed
based
on
the
amounts
every
year
at
the
board
from
people
who
complain
that
they
have
somehow
been
cheated
out
of
winning
at
a
charitable
lottery
or
a
charitable
game
held
by
a
qualified
organization,
we
raised
the
fee
to
25
dollars
in
inregulation,
held
multiple
workshops,
multiple
hearings
on
these
regulations
and
then
after
they
were
passed,
the
board
and
commission
did
not
receive
many
complaints
about
the
fees
we
received
more
so
confusion
on
how
to
apply,
and
we
worked
with
every
qualified
organization
on
how
to
do
that.
H
The
way
the
fee
waiver
process
worked
for
some
organizations
that
held,
for
example,
a
knights
of
columbus
that
might
hold
a
weekly
bingo
where
it's
the
same
type
of
event.
Every
two
weeks
we,
the
fee
waiver
process,
allowed
them
to
submit
one
application
for
the
entire
year
for
half
of
a
year
and
just
pay
that
125
fee.
G
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
yeah
kind
of
looking
at
this
and
I've
seen
with
the
organizations
you
know,
are
included
and
which
tells
me
what
which
are
excluded,
and
I'm
wondering
why
we're
not,
including
in
here.
G
Why
we're
not
you
know,
like
you
know,
as
assemblywoman
krasner
said,
women's
clubs,
you
know
small
neighborhood
organizations
et
cetera,
that
would
be
violating
the
law
if
they
held
some
kind
of
small
raffle
but
by
the
same
token,
since
we've
got
a
whole
lot
of
members
of
the
bar
on
this
committee.
The
bar
association
is
on
here.
G
So
it's
escaping
me
why
we
aren't
broadening
this
out
to
let
some
of
these
small
organizations
when
we
did
this
in
2019,
everyone
agreed
that
oops
we
messed
up.
We
kind
of
included
this
huge
umbrella
and
just
didn't
think
about
it,
and
we
were
going
to
come
back
in
this
session
and
fix
it.
A
A
A
I
don't
know
the
history
of
why
the
organizations
were
chosen.
The
way
they
are.
My
guess
is
that
when
this
was
put
into
statute
there
was
a
focus
on
truly
the
non-profit
organizations
to
say
they
should
essentially
be
allowed
to
run
these
small
games.
But
so
I
guess
I
would
say
I'm
not
necessarily
opposed
to
looking
at
that.
I
just
would
prefer
not
to
do
it
in
the
context
of
assembly
bill
202,
so
I've
gotten
some
other
requests
as
well.
G
Yeah,
well,
I
believe
three
of
us
do
because
we
nate,
so
thank
you.
Yeah
we'll
talk
offline.
C
J
J
J
J
C
C
You
know
it
it's
okay,
broadcast
services,
it
looks
like
there
might
be
some
difficulty.
I
see
that
potential
caller
on
the
line.
I'm
not
sure
I
see
they're
registered
to
testify
in
support
of
this
bill,
but
if
they
are
unable
to
get
on
or
don't
understand
the
process
of
unmuting
themselves,
I
would
encourage
them
to
please
submit
any
of
their
comments
in
writing.
J
J
J
J
C
I'm
denise
quirk,
first
name
d-e-n-I-s-e
last
name:
court
q-u-I-r-k
good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
am
honored
to
be
the
elected
voice
of
the
governor's
advisory
committee
on
problem
gambling
here
with
our
message
regarding
legislation
involving
nevadans
under
the
age
of
18
participating
in
any
gambling
activity,
including
charitable
games
or
lotteries.
C
C
C
I'm
actually
going
to
re-categorize
that
as
public
comment,
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
has
a
neutral
effect
on
the
bill
that
we
are
currently
hearing.
So,
if
I
could
have
the
committee
staff
go
ahead
and
re-categorize
that
as
public
comment
and
broadcast
services,
do
we
have
anyone
else
in
neutral.
J
D
If
the
total
value
of
the
prizes
offered
by
the
qualified
organization
in
the
same
calendar
year
is
not
more
than
one
hundred
thousand
dollars
each
year
prior
to
a
legislative
session,
nevada,
department
of
veterans
services
and
the
united
veterans
legislative
council
host
veterans,
legislative
symposia
to
gather
the
veterans
together
to
obtain
concepts
for
legislation
in
nevada
during
the
symposia.
Those
concepts
are
then
prioritized
during
the
2020
veterans,
legislative
symposium,
hosted
by
uvlc
and
ndvs
an
issue
while
not
in
the
top
10
was
brought
forth
by
the
veterans,
which
stated
the
state
of
nevada
should
change.
D
Nrs
462
and
the
gaming
control
board
regulation
4a.
The
intent
of
this
non-prioritized
item
was
to
reduce
fees
for
local
groups,
including
veterans
organizations
who
raised
money
to
support
local
veteran
activities,
chairman
yeager
vice
chairwin
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
C
C
Thank
you,
broadcaster,
and
at
this
time
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
chair
yeager.
If
you
have
any
closing
statements
to
make
in
support
of
assembly
bill,
202.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Madam
vice
chair,
steve
yeager
assembly
district
9..
I
did
want
to
note
that
caller
in
support,
who,
I
think
was
having
some
technical
difficulties,
had
been
communicating
with
me
over
the
past
few
months,
and
her
name
is.
First
name
is
lin
l-y-n-n-e
and
last
name
balator.
Hopefully
I
spelled
that
right
b-a-l-l-a-t-o-r-e.
A
A
I
think
there
are
certainly
other
concepts
that
are
worthy
of
consideration
and
discussion,
but
my
preference
would
be
not
to
do
it
in
the
context
of
assembly
bill
202,
because
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
this
bill
through
and
make
sure
those
fees
are
reduced
and
not
have
this
bill
held
up
with
some
of
these
other
definitely
more
controversial
propositions
that
have
been
brought
up.
So
with
that,
madam
vice
chair
committee,
I
appreciate
your
time
and
attention
and
your
questions
and
I
hope
to
gain
your
support
on
assembly
bill
202.
C
Thank
you,
and
with
that
I
will
close
testimony
and
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
202
and
welcome
back
our
chair
to
her
back
to
the
committee.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
vice
chair
for
running
that
part
of
the
meeting,
and
that
now
brings
us
to
the
first
bill.
That's
listed
on
our
agenda.
I
will
open
up
the
bill.
Hearing
on
assembly
bill,
201
assembly,
bill,
201,
revises
provisions
relating
to
informants
and
we
have
our
own
assemblywoman
gonzalez
to
present
the
bill,
and
she
has
a
couple
of
folks
with
her
to
present
and
before
I
get
started.
I
just
want
to
find
my
notes
here,
so
I
can
let
you
know
who
those
two
are.
A
We
have
gen
c
anderson,
who
is
the
legal
director
of
the
rocky
mountain
innocence
center
and
nathaniel
erb,
who
is
state
policy
advocate
of
the
innocence
project,
so
assemblywoman
gonzalez
obviously
welcome
you
to
present
the
bill
and
welcome
to
our
guests
that
are
here
on
the
zoom
with
us.
We'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
so
assemblywoman
the
floor
is
yours.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
yeager
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
assemblywoman,
cecilia
gonzalez,
representing
assembly,
district
16
in
clark
county
and
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
201,
as
stated
with
me,
today,
is
gen
c
anderson,
the
legal
director
of
the
rocky
mountains
of
the
innocence
project
and
nathaniel
erb.
The
state
policy
advocate
of
the
innocence
project
last
session.
This
body
passed
assembly
bill
267,
which
compensated
people
who
were
wrongfully
convicted.
K
When
debarlo
berry
went
to
prison
in
1994
for
a
murder
he
did
not
commit.
It
was
a
jailhouse
informant
who
was
incriminating.
Who
was
an
incriminating
witness
based
on
the
informant's
testimony?
Mr
berry
was
convicted
and
sentenced
to
life
in
prison
in
2014.
The
informant
admitted
that
he
had
lied
and
also
received
benefits
for
his
false
testimony.
K
L
L
I
was
asked
to
come
here
today
to
speak
to
you
about
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
address
here
or
the
problems,
and
also
because
I
was
deeply
involved
in
the
exoneration
of
demarlo
berry.
L
L
He
couldn't
be
here
today,
but
I
was
asked
to
share
a
little
bit
more
about
his
story.
In
1994,
demarlo
was
convicted
of
a
murder
that
he
did
not
commit.
There
was
no
physical
evidence
that
can
be
that
connected
demarlo
to
the
scene.
L
There
were
13
eyewitnesses
and
only
one
of
them
could
identify
or
did
identify
demarlo
in
a
photo
lineup
and
while
demarlo
was
incarcerated
in
the
clark
county
jail,
he
was
put
into
a
holding
sale
with
an
individual
named
richard
iden
and
richard
eiden
was
pulled
out
of
that
holding
cell
and
by
police
and
prosecutors,
and
he
told
them
that
demarlo
berry
had
confessed
his
involvement
in
the
murder
and,
as
a
result,
richard
iden,
who
had
been
extradited
from
ohio
to
face
multiple
charges
in
both
clark,
county
and
washoe
county,
was
given
really
remarkable
benefits.
L
L
He
was
given
room
and
board
and
compensation
for
his
trips
back
to
nevada
when,
where
he
was
preparing
for
trial
testimony
and
when
he
testified
at
trial,
and
because
there
was
so
little
other
evidence
against
marla
berry,
richard
eiden's
testimony
played
a
huge
part
in
his
conviction
and
his
sentence
to
life
in
prison
in
the
nevada
state
department
of
corrections.
L
We
took
the
case
on
in
2010,
knowing
that
it
was
going
to
be
a
difficult
case,
that
there
was
no
dna
that
could
exonerate
demarlo,
and
we
began
looking
at
the
case
and
in
2014
the
actual
perpetrator
of
the
crime.
Well,
earl
in
2011,
the
actual
perpetrator
of
the
crime
confessed
to
the
murder,
and
we
then
met
with
richard
eiden
to
tell
him
that
the
actual
perpetrator
had
confessed
to
see.
If
there
was
anything
he
had
to
add
or
anything.
L
He
had
to
say
and
asked
after
asking
me
whether
there
was
penalty
for
perjury,
which
I
told
him.
I
couldn't
advise
him
on
that.
If
he
wanted
a
lawyer
that
he
would
need
to
get
one
that,
because
I
was
representing
demarlo,
he
admitted
to
us
in
detail
that
he
had
lied
about
the
confession
that
demarlo
had
never
even
spoken
with
him
that
he
had
never
seen
demarlo
before
he
testified
against
him
in
court
and
that
he
understood
that
he
was
responsible
for
demarlo's
wrongful
conviction
and
that
he
wanted
to
make
it
right.
L
I've
always
said
we.
I
I've
always
had
a
hard
time
calling
them
informants,
because
I
find
that
very
often
they
don't
have
information.
That's
real
and,
and
that's
really,
the
first
problem
is
that
jailhouse
for
informants
are
inherently
unreliable.
You
know,
in
other
words,
they
lie.
L
You
know
they
lie
to
get
benefits,
they
lie
to
get
leniency
and,
although
some
may
be
truthful
and
and
certainly
this
legislation
doesn't
suggest,
we
should
never
use
them,
we
know
that
they
lie
and
that
they
get
benefits
and
and
richard
iden
was
exactly
that
person
and
this
legislation
would
address
that.
You
know,
and
second
because
often
the
benefits
that
they
receive
are
hidden
or
are
not
disclosed
to
defense
counsel.
The
use
of
jailhouse
informants
really
does
result
in
the
conviction
of
innocent
people
like
demarlo
berry.
L
The
national
registry
of
exoneration
shows
that
at
least
10
percent
of
the
about
10
of
the
recorded
exonerations
in
this
country
have
included
jailhouse,
informants
and
nevada
is
not
immune.
De
marlow
is
not
the
only
case,
and
at
least
15
percent
of
the
recorded
exonerations
in
nevada
also
include
jailhouse
informants,
and
I
will
tell
this
committee
that
in
the
next
six
months
the
rocky
mountain
innocent
center
will
be
bringing
two
additional
cases
of
innocence,
both
of
which
involve
jailhouse
informants.
L
M
L
But
there's
a
real
pro
a
real,
a
real
problem:
that
of
the
possibility
of
constitutional
violations,
not
only
for
the
innocent,
but
for
the
guilty,
and
you
know
that's
not
a
technicality.
That's
important
and
our
system
relies
on
being
constitutionally
correct
and
if
we
use
jailhouse
informants,
we
risk
that
not
only
that
not
only
the
innocent
will
be
convicted
but
that
the
guilty
will
have
their
convictions
overturned
because
jailhouse
informants
information
has
not
been
provided
to
defense
counsel
and
in
demarlo's
case
none
of
the
information
about
richard
lydon's
deals
were
provided.
L
L
In
another
case,
which
is
why
this
bill
addresses
that
issue,
and
so
for
all
of
these
reasons,
I
would
ask
that
and
because
ab201
really
acts
to
fix
this
part
of
our
system
that
convicts
the
innocent
and
the
and
bipartisan
lawmakers
around
the
country
have
supported
this
kind
of
legislation.
L
I
urge
you
to
support
ab201
up
to
really
talk
more
about
the
the
bill
itself.
I'm
going
to
turn
my
the
time
over
to
nathaniel
erb,
who
is
the
state
policy
director
for
the
innocence
project
and
again
I
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
now
or
after
the
presentation.
A
Thank
you,
miss
anderson
I
just
before
we
go
to
mr
erb.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you
and
the
rocky
mountain
innocent
center
did
on
behalf
of
demarlo
berry.
We
have
talked
about
his
case
a
couple
times
this
session
and
although
we
have
a
lot
of
new
members
on
this
committee,
some
of
us
were
here
last
session
and
obviously
were
very
compelled
by
by
his
situation
and,
frankly,
by
his
grace
that
he
exhibited
once
he
was
released.
A
So
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
you
for
that
work.
I
know
it
was
years
in
the
making
and
it
was
hard
work,
but
hopefully
you
and
your
team
can
can
look
back
and
feel
a
sense
of
satisfaction
and
accomplishment
that
it
took
a
while,
but
we
finally
got
there.
So
thank
you
for
for
sharing
that
and
for
your
work.
A
B
A
M
You,
I
assume
everyone
can
hear
me
all
right
great
good
morning,
mr
chairman,
madam
vice
chair
of
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
nathaniel
erb
here
on
behalf
of
the
innocence
project
in
support
of
ab-201.
The
innocence
project
represents
the
wrongfully
convicted.
We
work
with
legislators
in
courts
to
implement
policies
that
address
the
causes
of
wrongful
conviction,
which
is
why
we
are
here
today.
Jailhouse
informants
or
in
custody
witnesses
have
been
concerningly
outsized
representation
in
cases
of
wrongful
conviction.
M
Ab-201
addresses
these
kitties
at
issues
amongst
those
that
my
colleague,
jensey
and
assemblywoman
gonzales
have
pointed
out.
This
is
not
the
first
time
that
the
state
has
considered
this
issue.
In
fact,
as
early
as
2008,
the
criminal
defense
bar
recommended
these
exact
provisions
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice.
Yet
repeatedly
over
the
years,
the
district
attorney's
offices
in
good
faith,
have
rebuffed
this
effort,
saying
that
they're
going
to
take
care
of
it
internally
and
organizations
like
myself,
has
supported
them
and
waited
for
that
to
happen.
M
Most
recently,
the
secretary
association
finally
voted
to
adopt
some
of
the
provisions
of
this
bill
in
all
offices
proactively
by
2019.
However,
last
december,
our
office
submitted
nevada,
open
records,
act,
requests
to
all
offices
which
show
that
this
still
was
not
the
case.
Nearly
two
years
later
assembly
bill
201,
would
finally
remedy
this
issue.
The
language
is
based
on
these
discussions
and
mirrors
alec
model
policy
and
measures
adopted
across
the
states.
The
bill
does
four
simple
things.
First,
it
would
require
that
all
da
offices
maintain
that
list
of
informants
used
and
the
benefits
they
received.
M
This
will
ensure
that
prosecutors
have
historical
knowledge
about
the
reliability
of
witnesses
and
can
count
on
other
offices
that
have
that
knowledge
as
well.
So
if
they
are
using
an
informant,
they
can
check
with
other
officers
to
say
hey.
How
do
you
use
this
person
the
case?
How
were
they
reliable?
Were
there
any
issues?
M
Our
cases
and
discussions
with
prosecutors
prove
it
is
not
always
clear
what
information
is
necessary
if
the
state
discloses
this
evidence
late
incompletely
or
not
at
all,
the
accused
cannot
prepare
an
adequate
defense.
Establishing
prompt,
specific
disclosures
ensures
that
tools
in
our
legal
system
are
available
to
all
people.
In
all
cases,
further
the
bill
provides
a
safety
valve
of
judge's
ability
to
adjust
the
timeline,
if
required.
M
Third,
if
the
informed
testimony
is
admitted
jurors
would
be
instructed
to
consider
certain
reliability
factors
when
addressing
their
statements.
When
assessing
their
statements,
I
apologize
every
day.
People
everyday
people
do
not
necessarily
understand
the
intricacies
of
how
informants
come
to
be
involved
in
a
case
and
what
is
motivating
them
jurors
should
simply
be
brought
up
to
the
same
level.
Understanding
that
prosecutors
in
the
fences
defense
has
in
order
to
weigh
the
evidence
appropriately.
The
last
thing
the
bill
would
ensure
that
victims
of
any
informant's
crimes
who
receives
leniency
would
be
notified.
M
The
victim's
informant
should
be
notified
if
leniency
is
provided
in
any
exchange
for
testimony
if
justice
and
the
involvement
of
a
victim
under
provisions
such
as
marsy's
law
matter,
one
day,
they
should
matter
the
next
now
talking
about
implementation
and
cost
savings
ab201,
we
view
as
a
very
valuable
use
for
the
state,
as
my
colleague
mentioned
cases
like
demarco
berry,
fred,
stice
info
all
involved
in
forming
cases
across
the
country,
290
million
dollars
has
been
paid
out
in
civil
awards
alone
from
states.
In
cases
like
these.
M
Just
last
week
it
was
announced
that
fred
sties
would
be
awarded
1.4
million
dollars
in
compensation
tomorrow,
barry
who
was
previously
an
exoneree
who
received
compensation.
He
breached
the
settlement
for
1.5
million
with
clark
county.
This
does
not
account
for
the
cost
of
court
cases
the
damages
to
communities
for
incarcerating
innocent
and
overlooking
the
actual
those
that
actually
committed
the
crimes.
These
regulations
would
approve
judicial
efficiency
by
reducing
appeals
for
unconstitutionally
withheld
evidence.
M
Additionally,
by
clarifying
when
and
what
types
of
incentivized
witnesses
witness
information
must
be
disclosed,
there
will
be
fewer
court
delays
and
resources
spent
litigating
these
cases
in
our
testimony.
This
morning,
we
also
provided
information
from
connecticut
and
texas,
who
haven't
adopted
these
very
same
policies
and
showed
how
this
could
be
done
simply
through
word
systems
excel
sheets
or
in-house
technology
products
at
little
to
no
cost.
M
In
fact,
connecticut
and
texas,
both
reported
both
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
legislation
and
after
the
fact
that
all
the
workflow
that
was
needed
was
adopted
into
the
regular
budgets
that
they
had
already
established
in
conclusion
assembly
bill
201
will
improve
the
reliability
of
evidence
and
prevent
wrongful
convictions,
enhance
community
safety
and
protect
nevada
is
for
these
reasons
that
the
innocence
project
supports
ab201.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
This
morning,.
A
Great,
so
thanks,
I
I
want
to
start
out
with
kind
of
one
overarching
question.
We've
obviously
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
about
jailhouse
informants
and
how
that
how
they
can
be
problematic,
but
nothing
in
this
bill
would
prevent
the
use
of
a
jailhouse
informant.
The
way
I
read
it
is
it's.
The
issue
is
that
that
information,
that
there
was
a
jailhouse
informant
and
the
incentives
that
were
offered
that
needs
to
be
disclosed
to
the
defense
counsel,
so
they
can
prepare
an
adequate
defense.
A
K
I
can
for
the
record
assemblywoman
gonzales
district
16.
Yes,
that
is
correct.
This
does
not
prevent
or
stop
or
restrict
the
use
of
any
jailhouse
informant.
B
Thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
some
questions
and
I'm
grateful
for
the
innocence
project
and
the
work
they
do
and
perhaps
one
of
the
one
of
the
most
fulfilling
votes
I
made
last
session
was
on
the
demarlo
berry
bill.
So
I
appreciate
having
had
that
opportunity,
so
I'm
the
I'm
a
layperson.
So
if
you
can
have
some
patience
with
me,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
B
Section
five
section
six
is
section
five,
where
you're
asking
the
bill
to
require
prosecuting
an
attorney
to
maintain
complete
and
systematic
records
of
cases
prosecuted
by
the
office
in
which
testimony
of
an
informant
was
used.
I'm
a
little
surprised
that
you
have
to
ask
for
that.
Isn't
that
already
done.
M
For
the
record,
nathaniel
herb
from
the
innocence
project,
thank
you
assembly
one
for
that
good
question.
I
think
a
lot
of
this
bill
has
to
do
with
things
that
we
hope
would
be
done
proactively,
but
the
cases
that
we
have
before
us
and
colleagues
like
miss
anderson,
had
unfortunately
it's
not
the
case-
the
district
attorney's
offices
in
good
faith.
This
is
the
provision
that
in
29
2018
they
had
adopted
to
require
all
offices
to
have
an
internal
system
for
tracking.
They
are
open
records
act.
M
Requests
submitted
last
year
in
december
showed
that
there's
still
some
lagging
behind,
so
the
provision
of
this
bill
would
just
ensure
that
other
offices
would
continue
to
meet
that
bar
and
that
would
go
forward
in
perpetuity,
regardless
of
who
was
in
charge
that
that
internal
system
for
tracking
this
is
in
place.
It's
just
there's,
so
much
has
to
be
done
in
these
cases.
This
is
a
piece
that
seems
to
be
missed
along
the
way,
but
at
what
we've
seen
across
the
country
is
as
soon
as
this
is
something
prosecuting
officers.
M
Do
they
love
it
because
they
they
know
they
can
rely
on
other
offices
that
have
information
to
know
exactly
what
happened
in
that
case
and
was
that
informant
reliable
who
to
go
to
all
those
details?
The
bar
is
really
low
for
what
information
needs
to
be
tracked
by
statute,
but
I
would
imagine
that
the
individual
offices
themselves
may
go
beyond
the
requirements
of
legislation
to
add
more
information
that
they
find
necessary.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
Thank
you
for
it.
B
Yes,
thank
you
for
that
and
chair.
If
I
could
just
my
second
question
in
section
six,
the
bill
provides
that
if
a
prosecuting
attorney
intends
to
use
testimony
of
an
informant
that
the
following
information
materials
be
provided
to,
the
defense
would
include
the
criminal
history
of
the
informant
a
copy
of
any
you
know,
cooperating
agreement
and
so
on.
B
M
Thank
you,
assembly,
woman,
nathaniel,
herb
again
on
behalf
of
the
innocence
project
and
I'm
sure
miss
anderson
may
have
something
to
add
us
as
well.
I
agree
again.
This
goes
to
this.
Information
should
already
be
covered
under
giglio
and
brady
and
their
progeny,
but
it's
just
offices
like
mine
and
miss
anderson
has
just
found
that
that's
not
it's
not
clear.
M
While
the
supreme
courts,
the
courts
have
shown,
and
rules
of
the
court
have
demonstrated
that
information
that
goes
to
the
impeachability
of
a
witness
of
the
state
should
be
handed
over
they're,
not
spelling
out
what
that
information
always
is
and
always
k
in
all
those
cases.
So
we
definitely
have
cases
across
the
country
that
we
can
provide
data
on
on
prosecutorial
misconduct
in
cases
like
issues
that
miss
anderson
brought
up,
but
there's
also
plenty
of
times
that
prosecutors
are
acting
in
good
faith.
M
They
just
aren't
thinking
about
these
details
that
needs
to
be
handed
over
so
by
putting
this
in
statute
we're
just
spelling
out
that
process.
I
think
everyone
agrees
over
the
course
of
the
years
that
this
should
be
handed
over,
but
we
just
want
to
make
sure
it
actually
is
done,
because
we're
not
seeing
that's
uniformly
the
case,
but
it
wouldn't
go
beyond
anything
that
they
should
already
be
proactively.
Handing
on.
I
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
the
assembly
woman
for
bringing
the
bill
so
so
I
I
have
a
couple
questions
if
that's
okay,
chair
so
in
the
list
of
benefits
when
when
professor
anderson
was
was
telling
the
the
history
with
richard
eiden,
what
if
mr
eiden
didn't
get
any
type
of
benefit
as
far
as
the
reduction
in
his
charges,
that
type
of
thing,
but
it
was
just
trips
to
go,
see
his
father,
so
he
remained
in
jail
or
prison.
I
He
he
didn't
get
any
benefits
as
far
as
his
criminal
case,
but
he
just
got
to
go,
see
his
father
before
he
died.
Looking
under
the
list
of
benefits
in
section
three,
I
don't
see
that
that
would
necessarily
be
included.
I
L
Thank
you
so
much
assemblywoman
cohen,
my
my
understanding
of
the
definition
of
benefit
was
that,
as
you
point
out
in
section
four,
that
that
would
be
considered
either
a
financial
payment
or
a
reward,
and
that
perhaps
putting
a
comma
after
reward
would
then
be
the
amelioration
of
any
current
or
future
conditions
of
term
of
sentence.
And
that
way
it
would
be
more
clear
that
financial,
payment
or
reward
would
be
separate
from
any
leniency
that
was
awarded
in
any
other
kinds
of
cases.
I
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
then
I
also
want
to
make
sure
I
was
understanding
this
when
there's
the
information
that
the
prosecuting
attorney
maintains
and
provides.
Regarding
testimony.
I'm
sorry
not
just
testimony
provided
regarding
benefits.
That
type
of
thing
are.
We
are.
We
also
capturing
any
offers
that
were
made
to
the
police,
so
not
just
deals
that
were
made
with
the
prosecuting
attorney,
but
if
a
a
and
said
to
the
police,
hey
I've
got
this
information
on
this
guy
is.
Is
that
included
as
well.
M
That
information
should
be
handed
over
and
included,
if
apologies,
the
phantom
again
on
behalf
of
the
innocence
project.
Every
every
commit
every
state
has
their
own
system.
That
information
should
be
captured
if
it's
in
the
knowledge
of
the
prosecutors
that
we
don't
entertain
in
this
bill,
that
extra
step
of
of
the
prosecutor
having
to
go
out
of
their
way
and
how
they
go
either
way
to
make
sure
they
have
everything
from
law
enforcement.
M
It
would
be
all
what's
in
the
hands
of
the
district
attorney's
offices
at
the
time
and
what
they
know
of
hopefully,
and
I
think
routinely
they
are
in
regular
communication
with
law
enforcement
about
all
that
type
of
aspects,
and
so,
if
it
would
be
captured,
it
would
be
considered
under
a
benefit
in
going
to
that
information
and
that
testimony
it
would
be
covered
within
whatever
records
they
were
covering.
They
are
recording
and
placing
within
the
system.
A
And
I'll
just
note
for
the
record
as
well,
just
as
a
point
of
clarification.
A
Section
four
of
the
bill
defines
informant
in
this
particular
bill.
As
someone
who
was
with
a
defendant
while
they
were
in
jail
or
prison
together,
so
there
are
other
informants
out
there
in
the
community
confidential
informants
who
are
not
incarcerated,
who
sometimes
work
with
law
enforcement
to
provide
information.
A
There's
often,
you
know
litigation
about
what
exactly
has
to
be
turned
over
and
especially
if
you
have
confidential
informants
who
are
working
with
the
police,
but
I
wanted
to
make
clear
that
this
bill
contemplates
the
situation
where
two
or
more
individuals
share
a
jail
or
prison
cell,
and
that
is
usually
allegedly
where
a
confession
of
some
kind
was
made
and
also
didn't
want
to
leave
the
committee
with
the
impression
that
other
informants
information
wouldn't
be
turned
over.
It's
just
not
expressly
contemplated
by
the
bill
in
front
of
us.
A
D
D
As
you
talk
about
the
problems
with
jailhouse
informants,
it
makes
me
think
of
similar
problems
with
other
kinds
of
witnesses
like
co-defendants,
who
might
be
promised
a
more
lenient
sentence.
If
they
implicate
another
defendant.
Do
we
have
to
address
that
as
well?
Do
we
have
the
same
kinds
of
problems,
maybe
not
as
serious
but
still
significant
enough,
that
we
should
be
spelling
out
that
kind
of
adopting
state,
similar
kinds
of
safeguards.
H
M
For
the
record
nathaniel
erb
on
the
afghanistan's
project,
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
will
ask
miss
anderson
to
weigh
in
on
that
as
well.
We
want
to
stay
specific
to
jailhouse
performance
within
the
confines
of
this
bill.
M
My
office
would
be
happy
to
discuss
with
yours
of
other
concerns
around
other
types
of
witnesses,
where
there's
a
whole
range
of
issues
that
we
lobby
on
and
support.
But
I
wonder
if
it's
anderson
might
have
thought
to
that
specific
aspect
which
is
outside
the
confines
of
this
bill.
L
Quite
frankly,
we
don't
see
as
many
issues
with
other
kinds
of
witnesses
co-defendants
other
types
of
witnesses.
Certainly
there
is
sometimes
police
pressure
or
or
just
the
need
to
lie
on
the
part
of
co-defendants
or
other
kinds
of
witnesses,
but
we
don't
see
as
many
problems
with
those
kinds
of
witnesses
as
we
do
with
the
jailhouse
informant,
and
so
I
think
that's
why
we
wanted
to
attack
the
problem.
L
First,
with
jailhouse
informants,
we
don't
see
the
problems
as
often
with
the
hiding
of
evidence
in
those
cases
very
often,
if
a
co-defendant
decides
to
testify
that
that
that
deal
becomes
absolutely
clear
and
so
again
it's
certainly
an
issue
that
can
be
a
problem,
but
we
did
want
to
focus
as
as
nathaniel
erb
said
on
this
particular
issue
in
this
particular
bill.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
trying
to
figure
where
I
want
to
start,
and
I
guess
I
will
say
what
happened
to
mr
berry
is
a
great
example
to
me
of
a
horrible
police
investigation.
N
Poor
prosecution
on
the
da's
part
and
I've
got
to
give
some
horrible
and
horrible
defense
work
too.
Because
answer
how
many
times
have
we
had
repeat
jailhouse
offenders
that
you
know
of
you
said
you
keep
stats.
15
of
the
cases
are
jailed.
How
many
times
is
it
the
same?
Jailhouse
informant
in
nevada
that
you
want
to
keep
records
on.
L
Jensey
anderson
for
the
with
the
rocky
mountain
innocence
center
for
the
record,
assemblyman
o'neill,
that's
an
excellent
question
because
there
certainly
is
a
problem
with
what
we
call
cereal,
snitches
or
serial
informants
in
nevada.
I
can
honestly
say
I
haven't
seen
a
problem
with
serial
informants
to
date.
L
All
of
the
informants
that
we've
dealt
with
and
are
dealing
with
are
in
have
we
only
know
individually
that
they've
done
that
my
understanding
is
that
richard
eiden
has
tried
to
to
to
give
information
in
other
cases
and
whether
he's
been
able
to
do
that
or
not
I'm
not
sure.
N
Let's
just
talk
about
nevada,
because
that's
where
we
are
and
that's
this
law
please,
and
I
really
take
offense
in
some
of
your
language
and
you
can
generally
call
them
snitches
their
informants
just
like
anybody
else,
but
once
they
come
forward,
isn't
policy
that
I
know
of-
and
I
was
in
investigation
for
30
to
40
years
on
any
informant,
whether
it
was
from
a
citizen,
john
q
citizen
that
was
not
under
arrest
or
had
any
involvement
directly.
N
I
had
to
build
collaborating
evidence.
Additional
information
before
case
could
be
brought
forward,
and
I,
and
over
the
years
the
legal
system
has
matured
where
particularly
on
homicides,
they
require
that
both
the
prosecutor
and
the
defense
attorney
need
certain
qualifications
correct.
So
some
of
this
cannot
be
repeated.
N
L
N
N
L
L
It
absolutely
should
be
that
defense
attorneys
ask
for
discovery
that
the
prosecution
provides
all
relevant
discovery,
including
any
information
about
any
witnesses
who
are
testifying,
including
jail
house
informants,
that
that's
then
investigated
that
when
they
go
to
trial
that
the
jailhouse
informant
is
honest
on
the
stand
that
the
prosecution,
if
the
jailhouse
is
not
on
us,
that
the
prosecution
collects
corrects
that
information
that
the
judge
then
gives
an
instruction
that
deals
with
all
witnesses
and
then,
in
particular
with
regards
to
incarcerated
witnesses.
N
L
As
you
as
you
point
out
very
often,
I
mean
I,
I
very
seldom
see
seen
a
case
where
the
defense
did
not
ask
for
discovery.
In
fact,
I've
never
seen
a
case
where
the
defense
did
not
ask
for
discovery.
L
I
have
seen
cases
where
that,
when
that
discovery
is
provided
by
the
prosecution
that
information
about
the
testifying
witnesses,
including
informants,
is
not
provided-
and
that
is
the
case
of
demarlo,
berry
and
and
others
that
I
have
seen
in
nevada
and,
as
I
said,
two
that
I
will
be
filing
or
the
rocky
mountain
innocent
center
will
be
filing
soon
and
and
that's
an
unfortunate,
I
mean
without
an
open
discovery,
open
records,
discovery
process.
L
That
happens,
and
that
may
be
happen
in
on
purpose
or
it
may
happen
negligently
it
may
happen
on
accident
and
I'm
certainly
not
trying
to
demonize
prosecutors
in
any
way.
Unfortunately,
in
the
in
the
barn
liberty
case
it
was,
there
was
some
prosecutorial
misconduct.
L
I
also
agree
with
you
that
defense
attorneys
do
not
always
do
their
jobs,
but
usually
I
have
seen
that
when
there
is
a
jailhouse
informant
on
the
stand,
they
do
ask
the
jailhouse
informant
about
benefit
and
the
jailhouse
informant
lies
about
whether
they've
received
that
benefit,
or
they
only
give
partial
answer
to
the
benefit
to
the
benefit
or
the
benefit
hasn't
yet
been
given.
L
So,
for
example,
they're
told
if
their
testimony
is
useful,
they
will
get
the
benefit,
so
they
can
testify
that
they
haven't
gotten
the
benefit
yet
so
there's
a
whole
lot
of
ways
that
the
system
goes
wrong
and
what
we
hope
to
do
with
this
bill
is
to
to
try
to
fix
that.
And,
yes,
you
are
absolutely
correct
that
the
justice
system
has
matured,
but
what
has
also
happened
is
within
the
innocence
movement.
L
We
have
discovered
these
fissures
and
trends
within
the
criminal
justice
system,
including
in
nevada
that
we
think
we
can
fix
or
begin
to
fix
with
legislation
like
this
that
can
provide
the
the
mechanism
so
that
these
kinds
of
problems
don't
continue.
A
That
is
okay.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neill,
and
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
we'll
thank
with
mr
erb
and
we
have
a
number
of
folks
who
are
going
to
testify
on
the
bill
as
well,
and
I
think
we
have
some
district
attorneys
in
in
opposition.
A
I
think
to
specific
portions
of
the
legislation,
but
mr
erb,
I
wanted
to
just
confirm
something
you
said,
and
that
was
that
the
district
attorney's
association
agreed
at
some
point
that
they
that
each
office
in
the
state
would
adopt
a
policy
around
this
topic,
and
I
think
your
testimony
was
some
have
and
some
have
not
as
of
a
few
months
ago.
Could
you
just
confirm
that
to
make
sure
we
have
it
right.
M
Yes,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record
nathaniel
erv
here
on
behalf
of
the
innocence
project
members,
we
submitted
information
that
we
have
historically
forever
working
with
the
various
offices
on
the
history
of
this
issue.
M
I
believe,
and
I'd
only
speak
out
a
term
for
the
secretary's
offices,
so
this
is
just
what
we've
discussed
in
public
with
them
over
the
years
in
2008,
when
the
defense
bar
originally
brought
provisions
of
this
build
for
discussion
to
one
of
the
interim
committees,
they
had
agreed
like
clark,
county's
office,
suggested
they
were
developing
internal
policy,
both
the
tracking
and
around
how
discovery
disclosure
should
be
handled.
M
The
information
I
have
on
the
2018
vote
by
the
association
went
specifically
to
section
5
around
the
capturing
of
information
about
the
use
of
informants
and
testimony
and
benefits
they
provided
to,
and
so
that
was
the
information
that
we
had
requested.
Information
on
through
the
open
records
act
and
found
that
there
were
still
some
offices
outstanding
after
the
two-year
window,
but
we
had
information
that
they
had
voted
to
do
it
by
2019,
and
so
we
pulled
in
2021
and
in
2020
at
the
end
on
the
lead.
M
Up
to
this,
I
have
we
haven't
talked
with
the
district
attorney's
office,
so
I
believe
that
they
are
working
proactively
to
adopt
this.
It
goes
to
show
that
for
that
portion,
it's
not
a
heavy
burden
and
there's
plenty
of
states
that
have
done
this.
So
by
legislating
that
here
in
the
spill,
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
goods
practice
continues
in
perpetuity.
A
Thank
you,
mr
urban,
certainly
not
asking
you
to
speak
for
the
association,
but
I
mean,
and
they
can
confirm
this.
It
sounds
to
me
like
the
need
for
such
a
system,
a
tracking
system
and
to
facilitate
discovery
and
sharing
of
information.
That's
constitution
required.
The
need
seems
to
be
clear,
and
I
think
folks
seem
to
agree
on
that.
A
I
don't
see
additional
questions
and
you
know
before
I
go
to
supportive
testimony.
Mr
herb,
I
wanted
to
thank
you
and
the
innocence
project
as
well
for
the
work
that
you
did
on
demar
lobery's
case
and
the
help
for
the
legislation.
Many
of
you
remember
miss
michelle
feldman
with
the
innocence
project
was
really
instrumental
in
helping
to
present
last
session's
exoneration
compensation
bill.
A
She
has
moved
on
from
the
innocence
project,
so
she
is
no
longer
there,
but
mr
herb,
if
you
are
still
in
contact
with
her,
if
you
could
thank
her
for
her
work
and
just
thank
you
and
your
staff
for
the
really
hard
work
that
you
do
every
day
I
for
one
will
say
I
wish
there
was
not
a
need
to
have
an
innocence
project
or
a
rocky
mountain
innocence
center
and
maybe
someday
we'll
get
there,
but
until
then
we'll
keep
working
to
improve
our
justice
system.
A
So
that's
enough
commentary
for
me
I'll
ask
our
presenters
to
just
hold
tight
for
a
moment,
we'll
take
testimony
and
then
we'll
come
back
for
concluding
remarks.
So,
let's
start
with
the
zoom
call.
Is
there
anybody
in
support?
We
are
now
on
supportive
testimony.
I
don't
see
anyone
else
on
the
zoom
with
us,
so
bps,
let's
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who'd
like
to
offer
supportive
testimony
for
assembly
bill
201.
J
F
A
F
You
please
state
your
name
for
the
record.
Oh
I'm
sorry!
I
guess
they
didn't
catch
them
all
right.
Tanya
brown
spelled
t-o-n-j-a-b-r-o-w-n
advocates
for
the
inmates
and
the
innocent.
Good
morning
I
have
submitted
some
documents
supporting
my
conceptual
amendment
to
ab201
and
after
submitting
my
exhibits,
I
had
forgotten
to
put
in
my
conceptual
amendment
together
until
moments
before
the
deadline.
F
The
reason
I'm
putting
this
in
together
together
is
because,
in
the
original
bill
in
subsection,
3
subsection
4
the
words
financial
payment,
I
find
it
somewhat
big
and
I
want
to
clarify
what
I
believe
it
should
be
should
be
defined
to
include
the
word
secret.
Witness
a
secret
witness
is
confidential,
informant
that
does
not
have
to
expose
themselves
to
anyone,
including
the
police
and
the
district
attorney.
Yet
the
secret
witness
does
have
a
financial
payment
interest.
F
The
intent
of
the
secret
witness
program
is
to
provide
anonymity
to
the
persons
providing
the
information
so
that
the
law
enforcement
agencies
can
acquire
valuable
information
and
evidence
that
will
lead
to
the
arrest
of
a
suspect
and
the
district
attorney's
office
and
obtaining
a
conviction.
However,
that
may
not
always
be
the
case.
There
are
some
times
when
there
is
just
a
motive
other
than
justice
for
victim
of
a
crime
to
contact
secret.
Witness
these
motives
can
be
a
means
of
getting
a
financial
payment
and
without
a
conviction
there
is
no
financial
payment.
F
A
Okay,
so
let
me
ask
you
this
because
we're
in
supportive
testimony
it
doesn't
sound
like
the
sponsor,
has
agreed
to
your
amendment
at
this
point.
So
my
question
is:
even
if
your
amendments
are
not
adopted,
are
you
in
support
of
ab201
as
it's
written
now,
or
would
you
be
in
opposition
if
it
doesn't
include
your
amendments.
F
I
am
in
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill
whether
or
not
my
conceptual
amendment
passes
is
accepted
and
passes.
Definitely
in
favor
of
this
I'm
only
putting
this
in
because
I
want
it
in
the
back
of
your
mind
that
there's
other
things
involved-
that's
not
even
mentioned
in
the
bill,
and
some
of
the
testimony
that
is
coming
forward
in
this
amendment
actually
can
help
what
is
being
discussed.
A
F
Okay,
thank
you
with
the
passing
of
the
public
records
request.
It
is
also
possible
that
newly
discovered
evidence
can
be
found
in
those
public
records
evidence
that
can
point
to
a
state's
witness
as
being
a
secret
witness
in
the
conceptual
amendments
like
I
said,
I
just
put
this
together
at
the
last
minute
yesterday,
just
before
the
deadline,
so
it
doesn't.
You
know
anyway.
F
I
just
want
to
put
in
here
what
I've,
what
I
have
in
there
that
kind
of
answers.
Some
of
the
questions
that
are
being
asked
in
it
under
section
five
number
two
and
the
records
described
in
section.
One
are
confidential
and
I've
added,
unless
deemed
by
a
court
order
to
be
released
or
turned
over
to
the
defense
and
must
remain
a
public
record,
are
not
public
books
or
records,
meaning
the
meeting
of
nrs
239.01,
and
then
I
added
a
subsection.
F
If
the
defense
has
already
appeared
before
the
court
is
working
on
an
appeal,
post-conviction
petition,
rid
of
habeas
corpus
or
the
defendant
is
in
pro
se
or
has
no
petition
or
appeal
pending,
they
must
be
notified
and
section
four
subsection
four
had
added
the
district
attorney's
office
must
keep
records
of
these
allegations
for
possible
comparisons
to
other
trial
and
hearing
testimonies
that
may
have
been
given
in
court.
All
these
records
must
be
provided
to
the
defense
and
or
the
defendant
that
I
have
to
say,
but
yes,
I'm
definitely
in
favor
of
and
support
this.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
brown
and
for
members
of
the
committee
members
of
the
public,
the
proposed
amendment
that
miss
brown
referenced
is
available
on
nellis
as
an
exhibit,
so
that
has
been
uploaded
but
again.
At
this
point,
the
sponsor
has
not
agreed
to
that
amendment,
so
it
is
not
viewed
as
a
friendly
amendment
but,
as
ms
brown
stated,
I
think
she's
in
support
of
the
bill,
regardless
of
whether
that
amendment
is
ultimately
accepted.
So
we'll
categorize
her
testimony
as
supportive
bps.
Let's
go
to
the
next
caller
in
support.
Please.
J
C
Good
morning,
terry
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
the
rocky
mountain
innocence
project,
the
innocence
project
for
all
of
their
work,
to
ensure
that
justice
is
served
in
nevada.
This
is
a
crucial
bill
to
ensuring
that
nevada
has
a
policy
of
making
making
changes
to
ensure
justice
for
those
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system.
That
nevada
is
actively
engaging
in
steps
to
do
our
best
to
not
convict
innocent
community
members.
C
C
We
are
continuing
to
work
with
the
sponsor
to
ensure
that
defense
attorneys
are
able
to
adhere
to
our
responsibilities
of
ethical
duties
and
other
duties
to
our
clients.
The
innocence
project
has
been
diligently
working
on
this
issue
for
several
years.
We
appreciate
their
hard
work
and
now
is
the
time
to
protect
our
community
members.
Thank
you.
J
J
F
Goldstein
g
o
g-o-l-d-s-t-e-I-n
distinguished
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
testimony
in
support
of
ab201
after
retiring
as
a
lieutenant
for
my
policing
career.
I
now
serve
as
the
executive
director
of
the
law
enforcement
action.
Partnership
leap
is
a
non-profit
group
of
police
prosecutors
and
other
criminal
justice
professionals
who
work
to
make
communities
safer
by
focusing
law
enforcement
resources
on
the
greatest
threats
to
public
safety
and
healing
police
community
relations
leading
the
crisis
negotiations
team
for
my
police
department.
F
I
saw
firsthand
the
importance
to
public
safety
of
our
communities
having
trust
and
confidence
in
the
justice
system.
Crisis
negotiation
is
all
about
winning
the
trusted.
People
in
crisis.
Research
underscores
that
policing
in
general
depends
on
community
trust
because
without
it,
people
do
not
report
crime
or
cooperate
with
that
with
law
enforcement.
F
One
reason
police,
don't
trust.
The
criminal
justice
system
is
that
they
have
witnessed
or
experienced
unfair
trials
and
investigations
resulting
in
wrongful
convictions.
An
important
source
of
wrongful
convictions
is
testimony
from
jail.
Health
informants,
multiple
people
convicted
due
to
the
false
testimony
of
jailhouse
and
performance,
have
been
exonerated
in
nevada.
Where
I
live.
F
F
In
short,
I
support
ab201,
as
does
my
organization,
because
I
know
firsthand
how
important
it
is
to
improve
trust
in
the
justice
system.
When
we
take
commonsense
steps
to
improve
public
trust,
we
get
more
more
cooperation
and
we
keep
communities
safer.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
my
experience
in
support
of
this
bill.
J
O
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero,
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsors
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
for
the
and
also
think
the
innocence
project
for
all
the
time
they
have
spent
staying
on
top
of
this
issue.
This
is
a
problem
in
nevada,
not
just
around
the
united
states.
That
needs
to
be
corrected,
and
this
is
a
common
sense
step
in
trying
to
prevent
wrongful
convictions.
O
This
bill
lays
out
a
framework
to
do
that,
and
we
do
have
this
issue
in
nevada.
I'd
like
to
echo
the
comments
of
the
people
that
came
before
me
and
asked
this
committee
to.
J
O
O
O
One
thing
that
was
uniform
was
the
fear
that
you
could
see
in
the
eyes
of
these
defendants
when
they
received
their
plea
deals.
I
often
spent
hours
with
these
individuals
helping
them
deal
with
the
situation
and
their
mental
health
as
they
would
in
the
aftermath
of
receiving
these
deals
that
were
often
for
a
decade
or
more
in
state
prison.
I
can
only
describe
this
fear
as
true
fight
or
flight.
I
imagine
it
is
the
same
fear
that
is
felt
when
one's
life
is
an
imminent
danger.
O
O
J
E
Good
morning
my
name
is
jim
sullivan
j-I-m-s-u-l-l
and
I
represent
the
culinary
workers
union
local
226..
The
culinary
union
supports
ab201,
because
we
believe
that
it
will
protect
nevadans
against
false
jail,
health
and
form
and
testimony
which
has
led
the
wrongful
convictions
and
cost
the
state
millions
of
dollars.
E
Last
session,
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
did
the
right
thing
by
ensuring
that
exonerees
nevadans
were
compensated
for
the
time
they
served
due
to
wrongful
convictions.
Now
we
must
make
sure
that
no
other
nevadans
have
decades
of
their
lives
taken
from
them
because
of
false
testimony
from
jailhouse
informants.
E
J
J
R
R
I
think
the
suggestion
is
good
that
secretness
witness
possibly
included
in
the
language,
as
I
will
give
you
an
example
of
a
case.
That
is
a
problem
case
that
is
not
a
jail
house
informant.
I
believe
the
nolan
klein
case
is
one
that
applies
to
the
question.
Some
of
the
members
were
asking
about
and
urge
you
to
read
the
sworn
affidavit
submitted
by
miss
brown,
as
it
applies
to
several
of
your
questions
that
have
been
asked
today
and
should
affect
future
law
changes.
R
O
R
Gritter
was
an
informant
and
she
was
the
person
who
identified
mr
kline's
voice
on
the
911.
Mr
klein
had
received
information
from
witnesses
that
miss
gritter
was
the
secret
witness
and
was
paid
two
thousand
dollars.
None
of
this
was
revealed
during
trial
to
mr
klein
or
his
defense.
Attorneys
1991.
Ms
grid
of
contact
was
contacted
by
an
investigator
in
a
post-conviction
appeal
for
klein
who
tried
to
subpoena
her.
He
was
never
able
to
as
she
didn't
go
to
work.
R
Until
after
the
hearing,
miss
gritter
wrote
a
letter
to
dda
washa
county
ron,
ray
chow,
asking
him
what
she
should
do.
Miss
critter
hid
from
the
investigator.
She
was
never
served
and
never
had
to
testify
or
answer.
Was
she
the
secret
witness
on
page
70
of
miss
brown's
affidavit?
It
says
that
in
october
and
november
of
2019
18,
this
information
had
been
discussed
and
provided
to
ms
jennifer,
noble
at
washoe,
da's
conviction,
integrity
committee.
R
In
the
exhibits
there
is
correspondence
between
mr
plato,
who
is
the
defendant's
attorney
for
the
post-conviction
plater
sent
the
investigator.
Who
was
never
able
to
contact
her
opposed
that
post
conviction.
It
was
raised
that
the
defendant
had
received
two
separate
letters
from
two
separate
people
saying
greater
was
the
secret
witness?
Miss
gritter
herself
wrote
a
letter
to
the
defendant,
discussing
the
secret
witness.
R
These
letters
were
to
be
brought
forward
to
the
court
at
the
post-conviction
hearing,
but
when
the
defendant
received
his
property
at
the
jail
waiting
for
the
hearing,
the
letters
were
missing,
including
secret
witness
could
possibly
prevent
secret
witnesses
who
are
unknown
to
prosecutors
or
to
the
defense
and
avoid
injustices.
I
fully
support
the
bill
either
way.
Thank
you.
J
O
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
We
support
this
bill
for
the
reason
that
many
of
the
previous
people
have
mentioned,
but
I
would
just
like
to
make
the
further
point
that
the
point
of
the
court
system
is
to
find
the
truth
right.
O
O
A
O
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps,
I'm
going
to
close
testimony
in
support.
I
will
now
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
opposition.
We
don't
have
anyone
with
us
on
the
zoom
in
opposition,
but
I
believe
we
have
a
few
folks
on
the
phone
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
and
take
the
first
caller
for
opposition
testimony?
Please.
J
J
Q
Thank
you
good
morning,
mr
chair,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jennifer
noble.
I
am
a
chief
deputy
district
attorney
in
the
washoe
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I
am
here
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association,
opposition
to
assembly
bill
201,
I'd
like
to
begin
by
thanking
the
assemblywoman
and
the
innocence
project
for
meeting
with
us.
Q
When
an
incarcerated
witness
or
any
witness
testifies
at
trial,
the
defense
is
entitled
to
know
what
benefit
they
receive
under
brady
and
giglio,
so
that
they
can
conduct
an
adequate
cross-examination
and
that's
what
didn't
happen
in
the
de
marlo
berry
case.
We
are
always
mindful
of
our
discovery
obligations.
Our
constitutional
disclosure
obligations,
they're
part
of
our
special
ethical
duties
as
prosecutors,
jail
house
informed
testimony
is
used.
Rarely
and
prosecutors
are
always
bound
by
the
constitution.
However,
in
recognition
of
the
innocence
project
concerns,
we
developed
a
model
jailhouse
informant
policy
in
early
2019..
Q
That
policy
requires
the
tracking
and
disclosure
of
cooperation
agreements
with
jail,
house
informants
and
disclosure
about
that
agreement
and
the
information
underlying
it
in
any
subsequent
case.
Just
yesterday
afternoon,
I
was
able
to
verify
that
the
district
attorney's
offices
of
washoe
clark,
carson
city,
churchill,
douglas
humboldt,
lincoln,
elko,
pershing
mineral
story
and
nye
counties
have
policies
regarding
the
disclosure
of
such
information
and
the
tracking
of
that
information.
Q
So
the
d.a
of
eureka
county
informed
me
that
they
didn't
adopt
a
written
policy
because
they
don't
use
jail
house
informant
testimony
period,
I'm
still
trying
to
connect
with
our
smaller
counties,
white,
pine,
esmeralda
and
lander
to
verify
their
status.
But
it's
important
to
remember
that
some
offices
have
had
changes
in
leadership
since
2019,
and
so
policies
may
be
have
may
have
been
lost
in
that
transition,
but
even
without
policies,
prosecutors
have
these
constitutionally
derived
obligations
of
discovery
and
disclosure.
Q
The
assemblywoman
stated
that
the
object
of
this
bill
is
to
guard
against
false
information
from
jail
house
informants,
but
its
sweeping
provisions
cover
instances
in
which
there
is
no
testimony
at
all
section.
4
sub
1
defines
an
informant
who
provides
quote
testimony
or
information,
and
indeed
that
phrase
is
used
throughout
the
bill
and
is
the
cause
of
many
of
our
concerns.
The
repeated
use
of
quote
or
information
throughout
the
bill
requires
law
enforcement
to
burn
informants,
even
when
we
are
able
to
independently
verify
the
information
they
provide
and
they
never
testify
against
the
defendant.
Q
Q
Although
section
6
sub
3
allows
the
court
to
find
that
disclosing
the
informant's
identity
could
result
in
substantial
bodily
harm,
his
or
her
identity
is
still
revealed
to
the
defense
counsel
and
there's
no
mechanism
or
consequence
to
any
attorney
who
provides
that
information
to
their
client.
This
discourages
inmates
from
speaking
up
regarding
incidents
of
prison
violence
because
their
identities
are
going
to
be
revealed,
even
if
they
never
testify.
In
a
proceeding.
Q
This
impedes
the
abilities
of
us
our
ability
rather
to
address
organized
crime
in
prison
and
the
rising
violence
of
those
who
provide
information
in
prisons
by
prison
violence
cases.
Additionally,
informants
may
offer
information
that
they
hope
will
benefit
them
at
sentencing
with
no
inducement
or
offer
earring
contact
from
law
enforcement.
Their
information
is
not
solicited
and
it's
never
used,
but
their
defense
counsel
may
still
argue
that
they
assisted
law
enforcement
at
sentencing
even
when
they
didn't.
Q
We
can't
stop
those
arguments
from
being
made,
but
section
4
imposes
disclosure
obligations
on
prosecutors,
even
when
no
information
is
requested
or
used
and
no
inducement
or
benefit
is
conferred.
This
does
nothing
to
protect
against
wrongful
convictions
and
instances
like
the
tragic
demarlo
berry
case.
To
be
clear,
we
recognize
that
the
benefits
offered
to
jail
house
informants
must
be
disclosed
to
the
defense
and
the
information
they
provide
needs
to
be
disclosed
so
that
a
testifying
informant
can
be
adequately
cross-examined.
Q
Their
attorney
and
the
defendant
are
entitled
to
do
this
under
the
united
states
constitution,
but
as
written
assembly
bill
201
reaches
far
beyond
what
the
constitution
requires
far
beyond
what
is
necessary
to
avoid
wrongful
convictions.
It
does
this
by
endangering
prisoners
who
dare
to
speak
out
about
prison
violence,
even
if
their
testimony
is
never
used
and
their
information
is
independently
verified.
Q
Ms
anderson
used
the
word
snitch
during
her
testimony
and
she
apologized
for
it,
and
we've
all
heard
the
phrase
snitches
get
stitches,
and
sometimes
it's
used
colloquially
between
folks
who
have
never
seen
the
inside
of
a
jail
cell,
but
there's
nothing
funny
about
that
phrase
to
people
who
are
in
prison
who
are
faced
every
day
with
the
prospect
of
violence
against
them.
This
bill
requires
them
to
be
identified,
even
if
their
information
is
independently
verified
and
their
testimony
is
never
used.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
miss
noble
and
certainly
would
invite
future
collaboration
on
parts
of
the
bill
that
you
believe
to
be
problematic.
Obviously
we're
moving
through
session
at
a
pretty
rapid
pace,
but
there's
still
some
time
for
that.
So
would
invite
further
discussion
from
you
on
behalf
of
the
district
attorney's
association
on
some
of
those
concerns.
Thank
you
for
being
here
this
morning,
providing
testimony
bps,
let's
go
to
the
next
caller
in
opposition.
Please.
J
O
Good
morning,
honorable
chairman
jaeger
and
honourable
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
ron
drear,
I'm
an
honorable
retired,
reno
police,
major
crimes,
detective
I've
lobbied
on
behalf
of
our
state
and
local
law
enforcement,
peace
officers,
our
families
and
victims
of
crimes.
For
many
years,
based
on
the
language
of
ab201,
I
am
requesting
your
opposition.
O
This
bill
appears
to
codify
the
discovery
process,
as
you've
heard.
Brady
is
about
discovery.
Discovery
should
be
given
to
the
defense
as
required.
If
discovery
is
not
provided,
then
there's
an
obvious
problem
with
both
the
prosecution
and
the
defense
side.
For
the
last
several
years
of
my
career,
I
was
assigned
to
the
reno
police
major
crimes
unit.
Our
major
crimes
function
was
investigating
child
abduction,
murders
many
times.
Information
regarding
and
unsolved
cases
come
forward
when
incarcerated
individuals,
confess
or
brag
to
other
inmates,
their
past
criminal
wrongdoings.
O
When
that
information
is
shared,
usually
in
the
form
of
a
kite
with
correctional
officers,
they
in
turn
notify
us,
and
we
then
begin
the
lengthy
investigation
process.
Importantly
of
corroborating
their
information
to
determine
whether
the
information
is
credible
times.
This
process
results
in
solving
old
murder
cases.
O
The
bill
in
its
present
form
exposes
own
inmates
bringing
that
information
forward
to
potential
harm
and
death,
and,
as
you
heard
ms
noble
say,
their
identifiers
are
known
as
snitches
are
are
known
and
they
are
labeled
snitches.
We
we
must
protect
informants
from
harm,
they
will
come
forward
and
offer
their.
They
will
not
come
forward
and
offer
their
assistance
in
camera
hearings
before
a
judge
such
as
listed
in
section
six.
Keeping
the
informant's
identity
confidential
is
necessary.
O
The
use
of
informants
in
solving
crimes
such
as
the
ones
that
I
still
investigate
are
crucial
to
us.
Solving
these
horrific
crimes
to
state
that
the
defense
attorney
will
keep.
The
confidential
information
committed
to
defendant
is
ludicrous,
perhaps
amending
the
bill
by
placing
criminal
and
civil
sanctions
on
those
defense
attorneys
who
divorced
the
confident
information
to
their
clients
and
that
release
of
that
information
leads
to
the
harm
or
death
of
an
informant.
They
provide
the
protection
needed.
In
my
opinion,
this
is
an
anti-victim
bill.
O
In
conclusion,
the
implementation
of
this
bill
will
lead,
in
my
opinion,
to
criminals
not
being
held
accountable
for
their
acts
and
for
the
crimes
they
have
committed.
If
potential
informants
know
what
their
ended
know
that
their
identity
will
be
refueled,
they
will
not
come
forward
with
vital
information,
so
critical
to
helping
victims
find
closure
and
to
aiding
law
enforcement
saw
of
crimes.
On
behalf
of
the
professional
peace
officers
of
our
state,
our
families,
our
victims
of
crime,
I'm
asking
you
to
oppose
this
bill
in
its
present
form.
O
A
J
S
Hello,
everybody,
my
name
is
steve
gramis
s-t-e-v-e-g-r-a-m-m-a-s,
I
am
the
president
of
the
las
vegas
police,
protective
association,
which
represents
over
3
500,
commissioned
officers
in
the
state
of
nevada.
I'm
also
a
proud
member
of
the
public
safety
alliance
of
nevada.
I'm
calling
in
opposition
of
this
bill
as
it
could
negatively
impact
several
avenues
as
it
relates
to
informants
this
bill
will
substantially
limit
the
effectiveness
that
law
enforcement
can
use
informants
in
the
prosecution
of
criminals.
S
I
fear
in
law
enforcement.
This
is
a
slippery
slope
into
working
its
way
into
the
use
of
confidential
informants
out
in
the
regular
world
for
police
officers.
I
myself,
who
has
used
confidential
informants
for
approximately
nine
years
of
my
career
in
law
enforcement,
know
how
valuable
of
a
tool
that
informant
is.
I
also
know
how
scared
the
informants
themselves
are
of
getting
involved
with
law
enforcement,
even
with
the
protections
currently
in
place.
S
S
There's
been
talk
of
the
cases
that
were
bad
and
how
prosecutors
or
potentially
officers
have
mishandled
information.
Yet
nobody
has
spoken
of
good
cases
where
that
testimony
from
in
in
custody
subject
gave
us
the
ability
to
hold
a
heinous
criminal
accountable
and
be
prosecuted
for
the
acts
that
they've
committed.
S
J
E
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
aj
dilap
at
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
My
last
name
is
phonetically,
spelled
david,
easy,
lincoln,
adam
paul.
The
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
is
opposed
to
ab201
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
would
like
to
echo
the
opposition
testimony
provided
in
ab201
by
jenny,
noble
of
the
nevada
district
attorneys
association.
E
A
A
Thank
you
bps.
It
didn't
seem
like
a
bill
that
would
have
any
neutral
testimony.
So
at
least
my
instinct
is
right
there.
Thank
you,
bps
for
helping
us
through
the
phone
testimony
today.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
and
at
this
time
I'll
invite
our
three
presenters
back
to
provide
any
concluding
remarks.
Assemblywoman
gonzalez,
why
don't
we
start
with
you
and
then
we'll
go
to
professor
anderson
and
then
mr
erb,
so
please
go
ahead.
Assemblywoman.
K
Thank
you
so
much
chair
again,
assemblywoman
gonzales
for
the
record
district
16..
I
just
wanted
to
correct
some
of
the
information
that
was
shared
in
testimony.
This
bill
doesn't
really
change
or
or
harm
the
use
of
of
incarcerated
informants.
K
Rather,
it
protects
both
offices,
both
the
district
attorney's
office
and
the
defendant
when
using
or
when
there
is
a
situation
where
a
jailhouse
informant
is
used.
You
are
still
able
to
use
jailhouse
informants
you're
still
able
to
vet
the
jailhouse
informant
and
all
those
procedures
addressed
in
this
bill
is
what
the
district
attorney's
office
should
be
already
doing
and
has
agreed
to
do
as
you've
heard
in
in
this
hearing.
K
So
I
just
wanted
to
address
and
correct
the
record
on
some
of
those
things,
and
so,
in
closing,
I
would
very
much
like
to
thank
both
of
my
co-presenters
in
helping
me
present
this
bill
and
bring
this
important
legislation
forward.
Again.
It's
it's
to
really
just
clean
up
some
of
the
the
issues
that
we
have
had
when
it
comes
to
using
jailhouse
or
incarcerated
informants.
K
L
L
I
heard
the
concerns
expressed
by
those
in
opposition,
but
I
wanted
to
address
just
a
couple
of
things.
First
of
all,
it
doesn't
affect
the
police
and
their
ability
to
use
confidential
informants.
This
is
simply
a
tracking
system
really
for
prosecutors
and
information
that
prosecutors
need
to
turn
over
to
defense
attorneys.
L
L
I
mean
we
understand
that
if
someone
decides
to
become
an
informant
while
they're
in
jail
or
prison
and
if
they
end
up
spending
longer
time
that
they
may
be
in
danger
because
of
their
choice,
to
give
information
on
another
case,
however,
it
doesn't
endanger
them
any
more
than
what
does
now,
because,
as
pointed
out
by
those
in
opposition
prosecutors
are
constitutionally
obligated
now
to
give
that
information
to
defense
attorneys.
So
all
this
does
is
codify
that
constitutional
obligation
in
statute.
L
And
finally,
it's
really
important
to
me
that
you
understand
that
this
would
have
made
all
of
the
difference
in
demarlo
berry's
case,
and
I
think
demarlo
would
want
you
to
know
that
too.
When
I
told
demarlo
that
richard
iden
had
recanted
his
testimony,
it
was
the
only
time
I
saw
demarlo
get
emotional
during
the
entire
time.
L
I
think
that
that
would
have
brought
reasonable
doubt
to
his
testimony
and
likely
resulted
in
demarlo
berry's
acquittal.
I
think
it's
important
to
see
that
this.
The
effect
of
this
is
to
protect
the
innocent,
to
protect
the
prosecutors,
to
protect
defendants
and
to
protect
the
victims.
So
thank
you
again
so
much
for
your
time
and
ask
you
to
support
ab201.
A
M
Mr
chairman,
for
the
record
nathaniel
herb
here
on
behalf
of
the
innocence
project,
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
all
its
wonderful
questions
today,
the
assembly
one
for
bringing
this
forward
and
all
the
advocates
and
opponents
who
have
talked
about
this
over
the
years
with
us
and
other
partners.
It's
been
at
least
13
years
of
discussion
around
this
issue
in
which
the
the
bill
and
the
the
key
provisions
of
it
have
changed
and
evolved,
but
are
still
that
core
conversation.
M
So
we've
had
many
many
years
of
conversation
about
this.
Many
more
discussions.
You
heard
from
the
opponents
this
morning
that
in
large
part
they're
not
really
opponents.
They
agree
about
the
key
provisions
and
what
we're
trying
to
attain-
and
I
don't
view
them
as
our
opponents
either.
I
think
we're
all
in
the
same
boat.
If
there's
questions
around
key
word
changes
and
language
changes,
I'm
sure
we
will
continue
to
have
time
available
to
talk
about
that
with
them.
M
M
M
This
is
something
that
I
think
it
should
be
a
low
bar
for
us
and
we
are
excited
to
work
with
the
committee
on
this
final
last
step
after
these
over
a
decade
work
on
this
issue
and
to
get
it
over
the
finish
line.
So
I
thank
the
chairman
and
the
vice
chair
chairwoman
and
the
members
of
committee
for
discussing
this
with
us
over
the
years
and
the
many
members
who
of
the
public
that
spoke
today
and
we're
excited
to.
Finally,
finish
this
issue,
thank
you
so
much.
A
Thank
you,
mr
erb,
and,
as
you
know,
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
time.
Still
we've
got
about
a
month
until
our
first
committee
passage
deadline,
so
I
would
certainly
invite
our
presenters
today
to
continue
the
dialogue
with
some
of
those
who
who
spoke
in
opposition,
because
I
I
agree,
I
don't
think,
there's
a
philosophical
opposition
to
what's
trying
to
be
done.
A
I
think
it's
an
opposition
to
particular
portions,
or
maybe
particular
words
or
phrases,
so
I
certainly
would
invite
you
to
continue
those
discussions
and
please
keep
me
updated
on
how
those
discussions
go,
but
for
now
I
just
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
gonzalez,
professor
anderson
and
mr
erb
for
presenting
this
morning.
We
appreciate
very
much
you
spending
a
little
bit
of
your
thursday
morning
with
us
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
201,
we'll
go
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda
today,
which
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder.
We
deserve
up
to
30
minutes
of
each
meeting
for
public
comment.
Public
commenters
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
for
members
of
the
public
to
provide
general
information
or
thoughts
about
jurisdiction
within
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
A
J
R
C
R
R
The
police
then
kept
lisa,
who
was
52
years
old
and
suffering
from
terminal
stage,
4
breast
cancer
and
her
16
year
old
daughter,
who
was
also
present
in
an
ambulance
three
feet
away
from
where
johnny's
body
laid
riddled
with
bullets
from
the
police
for
for
from
4am
until
8am
they
were
kept
in
the
back
of
a
police
ambulance.
Lisa
was
denied
her
medication.
R
They
were
placed
into
the
ambulance
with
johnny's
body
laying
feet
away.
Family
members
were
denied
access
to
lisa,
who
was
without
her
oxygen
and
medication
and
wore
only
a
thin
nightgown.
They
sat
feet
from
his
body
and
they
were
denied
use
of
the
bathroom
and
were
not
allowed
to
leave
the
ambulance
after
four
hours.
They
were
then
brought
to
sparks
police
department
to
be
interrogated
for
hours,
never
being
told
they
could
leave
and
that
they
did
not
have
to
participate
in
this
interrogation.
R
These
families
were
in
shock
and
grief
and
they're
dragged
down
to
the
department
after
their
loved
one,
was
killed
right
in
front
of
them.
The
entire
time
her
older
daughter
jill
was
at
the
apartment,
trying
to
obtain
lisa's
medication
and
oxygen
and
reno
police
refused
that
to
give
her
lisa's
meds
and
they
refused
and
the
lisa
did
file
a
lawsuit
against
the
agencies
and
she
did
settle
with
him,
but
sadly,
as
I
mentioned
before,
she
never
found
out
who
the
officers
were
who
killed
her
husband.
R
A
J
P
P
I
am
the
policy
director
for
faith
in
action
nevada.
We
are
also
a
member
of
the
the
nevada
housing
justice
alliance
on
march
31st,
20
days
from
today.
Both
the
state
and
federal
eviction
moratorium
are
set
to
expire.
According
to
the
last
numbers
that
have
been
reported,
there
are
an
estimated
up
to
500
thousands
of
added,
but
at
risk
of
facing
eviction.
The
quinn
center
also
reports
that
the
majority
of
these
who
are
experiencing
unemployment
and
difficulty
obtaining
rent
due
to
clover
19
is
are
disproportionately
bipod
communities.
P
Unless
the
moratorium
are
extended
here
in
nevada,
we
will
be
facing
another
crisis
on
our
hands.
We
should
be
asking
what
can
be
done
to
help
these
nevadans,
who
are
falling
through
the
cracks
and
being
left
behind
due
to
the
extremely
large
number
of
pending
unemployment
and
rental
assistance
claims
families
are
not
able
to
receive
the
public
assistance
that
the
state
has
promised
tenants
in
time
to
stave
off
evictions.
P
P
A
A
A
Don't
see
anything
else,
so
while
we
were
meeting
our
agenda
was
posted
for
tomorrow
and
we
will
be
starting
at
eight
o'clock.
So
I'm
sorry
about
that.
I
know
it's
early,
but
we
have
three
three
bills
we're
going
to
hear
tomorrow
and
we
also
have
a
work
session,
so
there
oh
looks
like
about
seven
bills
on
work
sessions.
A
So
at
some
point
today,
members
you'll
be
getting
a
work
session
document
that
details
what
the
work
session
will
look
like,
but
I
would
encourage
you
to
refresh
your
memory
on
those
bills,
some
of
which
we
heard
really
only
a
couple
weeks
ago,
but
days
here
can
sometimes
seem
like
months.