►
From YouTube: 5/5/2021 - Senate 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
Vice
chair,
canazaro
she's
on
her
way,
will
you
please
mark
her
present
when
she
arrives
senator
orrin
shaw
here:
senator
harris
she's
also
on
her
way,
if
you'd
mark
her
present
when
she
arrives,
senator
senator
settlemyre,
please
mark
him
present
when
he
arrives.
Senator
hanson
president.
A
Chair
schiavo,
I
am
here
I
have
arrived
and
I'm
sure
that
the
rest
of
the
committee
will
be
joining
us
soon.
We
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda.
Today
we
are
going
to
go
in
reverse
numerical
order,
starting
with
ab202,
then
we'll
do
ab-132
then
ab42
with
that
being
said,
I
will
open
the
hearing
now
on
ab202
and
whenever
you're
ready,
chair
yeager.
Oh
please
mark
senator
harris
present.
She
has.
C
Arrived
good
afternoon
cherish
ibel
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
steve
yeager
I
represent
assembly
district
9
in
southwest
las
vegas.
It's
my
pleasure
this
afternoon
to
present
assembly
bill
202
in
its
first
reprint.
I
also
have
with
me,
mr
mike
morton,
from
the
gaming
control
board.
He
is
on
the
zoom,
as
you
can
see,
and
he's
here
to
help
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
about
charitable
gaming
and
charitable
lottery
registration
program
assembly
bill
202
in
its
first
reprint
is
not
overly
complicated.
C
It
simply
caps
the
annual
fees
that
a
qualified
organization
must
pay
to
conduct
charitable
gaming.
It
caps
those
fees
at
ten
dollars
a
year
if
the
total
value
of
the
prizes
offered
by
the
organization
in
a
calendar
year
does
not
exceed
one
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
it
only
requires
one
annual
registration
with
the
gaming
control
board.
The
intent
of
the
bill
is
to
ensure
that
the
qualified
organization
is
able
to
keep
more
of
the
money
it
collects
to
fund
its
activities
and
also
to
cut
some
of
the
red
tape
associated
with
charitable
gaming.
C
Now,
for
a
very
short
bit
of
history
assembly,
bill
117
from
last
legislative
session,
the
2019
session,
which
was
an
assembly
judiciary
committee
bill,
made
some
changes
to
our
charitable
gaming
statute.
One
of
those
changes
was
to
remove
the
fee
structure
from
statute
and
allow
the
gaming
control
board
to
enact
regulations
setting
the
fee
structure.
The
gaming
control
board
did
just
that
in
revising
and
adopting
regulation
4a
in
october
of
2019.
C
Although
the
chair,
the
gaming
control
board,
has
the
discretion
to
waive
all
our
part
of
that
fee
and
did
so
on
occasion,
since
the
regulation
was
adopted,
I
began
to
hear
from
smaller
charitable
organizations
that
the
fee
structure
adopted
resulted
in
higher
fees
than
they
had
previously
paid
or
that
they
had
to
request
fee
waivers
on
a
more
regular
basis.
I
know
many
members
of
this
committee
heard
those
same
concerns
from
constituents
covet
hit
and
then
most
of
these
events
simply
did
not
happen,
because
charitable
gaming
really
wasn't
taking
place.
C
So
I
thought
it
made
sense
why
we
had
the
opportunity
to
statutorily
limit
those
fees
for
smaller
organizations,
so
they
don't
have
to
go
through
the
fee
waiver
process
each
time
and
they
can
keep
more
of
the
funds.
It
will
also
save
the
gaming
control
board
some
time
and
having
to
review
and
approve
fee
waivers.
So
that
is
essentially
what
assembly
bill
202
in
its
first
reprint
does.
I
will
let
committee
members
know.
I
have
one
conceptual
amendment
that
I
provided,
that
you
will
find
on
nellis
I'll
go
through
that
very
quickly.
C
The
amendment
has
three
parts
in
part:
one.
It
clarifies
that
video
lottery
terminals,
also
known
as
vlts,
are
included
in
the
definition
of
a
lottery.
Video
lottery
terminals
are
proliferating
around
the
nation,
particularly
in
states
where
lotteries
are
legal.
Of
course,
lotteries
are
not
legal
in
the
state
of
nevada,
unlike
nevada
slot
machines
that
use
a
random
number
generator
for
payouts
vlts
are
linked
to
a
central
network
that
connects
the
individual
vlts
in
a
particular
casino
or
in
a
geographic
region
just
like
a
lottery.
C
Furthermore,
in
many
states,
vlts
are
beginning
to
crop
up
in
locales
that
do
not
have
appropriate
gaming
regulation,
creating
problems
for
local
and
state
jurisdiction.
For
those
reasons,
I'm
bringing
an
amendment
like
this
one
in
front
of
you
to
make
clear
that
vlts
are
not
permitted
to
operate
in
the
state
of
nevada.
C
I
think
this
is
an
appropriate
limitation
on
the
prolif
proliferation
of
online
charitable
gaming
and
then
the
third
amendment
is
very
easy.
It
just
moves
the
effective
date
to
july
1
2021
to
give
the
gcb
a
little
bit
more
time,
because
they'll
need
to
adjust
their
regulations
to
align
with
this
bill.
Should
it
pass
with
that.
Madam
chair
with
that
chair,
I
appreciate
the
time
and
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
Thanks
chair,
actually
it
goes
back
to
ab117.
We
were
all
told
it
was
the
golden
knights
bill,
but
we
ended
up
discovering
that
buried
in
the
bill
was
a
provision
which
eliminated
the
ability
for
all
sorts
of
non-not-for-profit
organizations
to
have
charitable
lotteries.
Basically,
everything
from
raising
bake
sales
at
schools
to
political
organizations
that
raise
a
few
hundred
bucks
for
various
reasons.
D
Nothing
in
your
bill
looks
like
that
changes,
though
so
I'm
kind
of
hoping
that
my
old
buddy
chairman
jaeger
would
do
some,
because
we
all
got
beat
up
pretty
good
on
this.
For
it's
like
why
in
the
hell
would
you
guys
support
that,
and,
needless
to
say,
I'd
love
to
have
a
chance
to
correct
what
we
did
in
117..
C
Steve
yeager
for
the
record,
through
you,
chair
to
senator
hanson,
I
have
also
had
those
issues
raised
on
the
assembly
side
from
assemblywoman,
hanson
and
others,
and
I'll
just
note
for
the
record
that
currently
the
structure
is
this:
if
you
are
a
501c3,
you
can
do
charitable
gaming.
C
If
you're,
not,
you
can't
do
charitable
gaming,
and
I
think
that
creates
a
nice
bright
line
rule
for
the
gaming
control
board,
because
when
they
get
an
application
they
can
ask.
Are
you
a
501c3,
and
if
the
answer
is
yes,
you
can
do
it.
The
answer
is:
no.
You
can't
do
it
in
thinking
about
this
issue.
I
don't
feel
comfortable
moving
beyond
that,
because
I
think
we
get
into
some
real
gray
areas
when
we
have
organizations
that
aren't
501
c3s
that
want
to
do
charitable
gaming,
so
that's
sort
of
where
I'm
at
on
it.
C
I've
had
further
discussions
about
it,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
do
that
in
this
bill,
because
I
think
for
clarity
for
the
gaming
control
board.
It
just
makes
sense
to
have
that
brightline
rule
realizing
that
not
everyone's
a
501c3
and
they're.
Clearly,
charitable
and
civic
organizations
that
are
not,
but
I
think
that
is
an
appropriate
step
to
have
that
status,
to
make
it
very
clear
in
the
state
who
can
participate
and
who
cannot.
D
Fair
enough,
but
I
would
say
in
all
due
respect
to
mr
morton,
the
ability
of
the
gaming
control
board
to
block
virtually
every
type
of
lottery
or
thing
like
that
is
disturbing
to
me.
There
is
definitely
a
move
in
nevada
to
see
some
sort
of
a
lottery
actually
become
a
way
to
raise
money.
I
support
that,
and,
and
while
it's
nice
for
them
to
have
a
nice
clean
line
of
demarcation
between
what's
501
c
3
and
what
isn't
it's
really
hamstrung,
a
tremendous
number
of
small
organizations.
D
They
don't
have
the
funds
or
lawyers
to
go
out
and
become
a
501c3.
So
while
I
respect
your
opinion
on
it,
I
would
like
to
on
the
record
say
I
think
we
should
fix
that
problem
that
we
created,
I
think
unintentionally,
at
least
on
all
the
parts,
because
I
think
everybody
in
the
building
supported
the
thing
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
mistake
corrected.
So
all
due
respect
to
chairman
yeager,
I
would
still
hope
that
we
could
could
do
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
A
E
E
and
all
of
those
things
ended
the
day
that
last
bill
was
passed.
This
rectifies
a
significant
part
about
that
for
our
veterans
organizations
in
the
state.
We
also
object
to
the
fiscal
note,
because
that
income
didn't
exist
for
the
last
year
and
a
half.
I
don't
know
how
there
could
be
a
fiscal
note
on
this
bill,
so
the
united
veterans,
legislative
council,
the
disabled,
american
veterans
in
nevada
and
the
combat
wounded
veterans
in
nevada
support
the
passing
of
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
A
F
F
A
F
A
F
A
C
C
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that
chairman
yeager.
I
was
just
curious.
I
understand
the
desire
to
have
a
bright
line
test
for
the
gaming
control
board
and
I
was
wondering,
if
you'd
be
interested
in
expanding,
that
out
beyond
just
the
discussion
of
non-profits,
to
also
include
all
charitable
organizations
that
are
registered
with
the
secretary
of
state.
G
C
Steve
yeager
for
the
record,
through
you,
chair
to
senator
settlemeyer,
certainly
willing
to
have
that
discussion.
That's
a
new
idea!
That's
been
brought
up,
so
I
would
like
a
chance
to
think
about
that.
One
of
my
concerns
was
simply
what
was
noted,
which
was
we
need
some
kind
of
brightline
test.
So
I
think
the
gaming
control
board
is
not
in
the
position
of
picking
winners
and
losers
and
having
to
make
that
decision,
so
that
very
well
may
be
an
option.
I'm
open
to
consider
that.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
A
H
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
esteemed
members
of
the
judiciary
committee,
I
am
assemblyman
edgar
flores
for
the
record
proudly
representing
assembly
district
28,
and
I
am
here
to
present
assembly
bill
132.
Alongside
of
me,
is
mr
john
pierro,
who
will
provide
some
subject
matter.
Testimony
at
the
conclusion
of
my
remarks,
madam
chair.
If
I
just
may
offer
a
brief
roadmap
of
how
I
intend
for
the
conversation
to
proceed,
I
will
quickly
walk
through
the
genesis
of
what
this,
where
this
bill
commenced
address.
H
I
will
then
address
slightly
a
letter
that
was
submitted
by
dr
olivares,
who
co-presented
with
me
on
the
senate.
Excuse
me
on
the
assembly
side,
but
unfortunately
had
a
commitment
and
was
unable
to
be
here
in
person
and
then
I'll
hand
over
the
presentation
to
mr
pearl,
so
he
can
wrap
it
up
and
really
tell
you
what
he
sees
every
day
through
his
lens.
H
So
if
I
may
miranda
versus
arizona
is
a
1966
landmark
supreme
court
case
wherein
we,
we
learned
the
very
famous
miranda
warnings
so
prior
to
that.
Unfortunately,
there
was
a
whole
host
of
things
that
were
happening,
namely
a
lot
of
folks
did
not
understand
what
protections
were
extended
to
them
and
through
the
miranda
v,
arizona,
1966
supreme
court
case,
we
got
the
very
famous
phrases
of
you:
have
the
right
to
remain
silent.
Anything
you
do
can
and
will
be
used
against
you
in
the
court
of
law.
H
If
I
could
do
a
very
quick
shout
out
to
some
excuse
me,
senator
orrinshaw,
as
I
know,
he's
been
a
constant
advocate
for
juvenile
justice
and
ensuring
that
our
minors
have
the
protections
that
they
deserve.
I
would
not
have
been
working
on
this
bill
had
it
not
been
for
senator
oran
shaw,
so
I
just
wanted
to
extend
my
gratitude
for
all
his
work
and
allowing
me
to
to
work
on
this
bill
and-
and
I
forgot
to
say
this-
but
to
all
the
kids
in
the
state
of
nevada.
H
We
have
had
a
whole
host
of
supreme
court
cases,
wherein
we've
acknowledged
that
there
are
certain
things
that,
for
a
whole
host
of
reasons
included
in
the
letter
provided
by
dr
olivares,
that
a
minor
does
not
necessarily
understand
exactly
what
they
are
doing
and
that's
important,
because
what
this
bill
seeks
to
do
is
expand.
What
the
miranda
warnings
are
now
by
making
them
a
little
bit
easier
to
understand
and
the
language
that
you
you
see
in
assembly
bill
132.
H
I
had
an
opportunity
and
a
big
shout
out
to
cortez
elementary
school
west
prep,
because
I
I
gave
this
language
to
them
and
wes
prep.
If
you
don't
know,
they
are
k-12
and
cortez
is
an
elementary
school
and
I
gave
it
to
a
bunch
of
teachers
there
that
I
have
a
friendship
with,
and
I
asked
them
to.
Please
read
this
language
to
their
kids
and
provide
some
feedback
so
anecdotally.
H
They
started
giving
me
a
bunch
of
feedback
and-
and
they
said
that
the
kids
in
comparing
the
two
miranda
warnings
that
this
language,
that
is
in
assembly
bill
132,
seemed
to
really
go
further
into
the
understanding
and
comprehension
of
a
child
and
and
that's
exactly
what
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
this
bill
did.
H
H
We
limit
at
what
time
they
can
work.
We
tell
them.
They
can't
vote
purchasing
alcohol
tobacco
products.
There
is
a
whole
host
in
the
laundry
list
of
what
we
tell
miners.
They
can
and
cannot
do,
and
I
think
it's
because
collectively,
as
a
country
as
a
society,
we've
decided
that
we
have
a
responsibility
ensuring
that
miners
understand
exactly
what
they're
doing
and
at
times
they
don't
and
that
we
go
out
of
our
way
to
create
laws
and
protections
so
that
we
put
that
responsibility
upon
ourselves
to
create
that
safety
net.
H
And
I
say
that
because
what
more,
what
is
more
important
than
our
constitutional
protections,
and
how
often
are
minors
waving
away
those
rights,
not
understanding
when
they're
saying
you
have
a
right
to
an
attorney?
Do
you
want
to
speak
to
somebody
just
put
yourself
in
the
mindset
of
that
child?
If
they
genuinely
understand
what's
actually
happening,
and
if
I
may,
I
was
going
to
walk
you
through
a
bunch
of
supreme
court
cases,
but
let's
not
do
that.
I
I
do
have
a
brief
synopsis
in
the
past
10
years.
H
What
the
supreme
court
excuse
me,
15
years
with
the
supreme
court
case
law
has
done
so
in
in
the
last
15
years,
the
united
states
supreme
court
has
recognized
the
following:
children
are
generally
less
mature
and
responsible
than
adults,
often
lack
the
experience,
perspective
and
judgment
to
recognize
and
avoid
choices
that
could
be
harmful
to
them.
Children
characteristically
lack
the
capacity
to
exercise
mature
judgment
and
possess
only
an
incomplete
ability
to
understand
the
world
around
them.
H
Children
are
generally
more
vulnerable
to
outside
influences
than
adults
and
have
limited
understanding
of
criminal
justice
system
and
the
roles
of
the
institutional
actors
within
within
them,
and
and-
and
I
and
I
read
that
out
loud
because
we
didn't
come
up
with
this
language
out
of
nowhere,
and
we
didn't
come
up
with
this
concept
that
it
was
just
magically
born.
There
is
a
whole
host
of
case
law
that
goes
back
for
15
years,
where
we've
made
this
acknowledgment
that
we
understand
that
that,
unfortunately,
children
do
not
understand
what's
happening.
H
I've
always
anecdotally
shared
because
I
don't
know
if
I
have
the
data
to
prove
it,
but
I
am
a
huge
advocate
for
the
underrepresented
communities
and
I
talk
about
the
immigrant
community
a
lot
and
everybody
always
asks
me
who
do
you
think,
is
the
most
disenfranchised
community
when
it
comes
to
access
to
to
the
court
to
due
process.
H
H
If
I
may
I'll
walk
you
through
the
bill
language
now
and
express
how.
I
believe
that
this
bill
helps
address
that
concern
and
alleviate
some
of
the
frustrations
that
a
lot
of
folks
who
work
with
kids
in
the
juvenile
justice
system
have
concurred
that.
Unfortunately,
too
often
we
see
kids
waving
away
their
rights
without
necessarily
understanding
what's
happening.
H
So
if
I
could
walk
you
through
through
the
language
itself,
I
specifically
want
to
go
into
I'm
looking
at
section
1
lines,
six,
seven
and
eight
of
page
one
of
the
reprint,
and
it
says
you
have
the
right
to
remain
silent,
comma,
which
means
you
do
not
have
to
say
anything
to
me
unless
you
want
to
it.
Is
your
choice?
H
Moving
on
to
page
two
lines,
one
through
through
ten?
If
you
choose
to
talk
to
me
whatever
you
tell
me,
I
can
tell
a
judge
in
court.
You
have
the
right
to
have
your
parent
with
you.
While
you
talk
to
me,
you
have
the
right
to
have
a
lawyer
with
you.
While
you
talk
to
me,
if
your
family
cannot
pay
for
a
lawyer,
you
will
get
a
free
lawyer.
The
lawyer
is
your
lawyer
and
can
help
you
if
you
decide
that
you
want
to
talk
to
me.
These
are
your
rights.
H
Do
you
understand
what
I
have
told
you
do
you
want
to
talk
to
me,
and
this
is
I
guess
another
way
of
seeing
this
is
we're
taking
the
generic
miranda
rights
and
then
expanding
on
that
one
of
the
questions
that
I'd
like
to
preemptively
address
is
somebody
once
told
me:
well
if
miranda
v
arizona
created
a
rule,
a
set
of
rules
of
what
the
miranda
rights
have
to
be.
H
Are
we
somehow
violating
constitutional
law
by
expanding
on
them,
and
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that
that
set
the
floor,
but
not
the
ceiling
right?
That
is
the
bare
minimum
of
what
we
have
to
do,
but
we
as
a
state
can
go
above
that
and
say
we're
going
to
extend
the
the
the
miranda
right,
a
warning
to
ensure
that
everybody's
understanding
it
and
with
that.
Madam
chair,
if
I
may
hand
over
the
presentation
to
mr
john
piero,
so
he
can
give
you
real-life
examples
of
what
he
sees
every
day
in
his
job.
I
I
As
assemblyman
flourishes
said,
we
protect
children
in
all
other
aspects
of
the
law,
and
I
think
it's
time
that
we
provide
the
appropriate
protection
for
our
constitutional
rights
that
we
hold
most
sacred.
The
word
I
think
the
key
on
is
intelli
an
intelligent
waiver,
and
this
warning
here
that
assemblyman
flores
has
screened
through
both
elementary
school
teachers
and
through
lexile
testing,
to
to
make
sure
we
have
age-appropriate
words
that
children
can
understand,
provides
that
and
I'd
be
open
for
any
questions.
G
Thank
you
mater.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
appreciate
the
education
I
didn't
realize
until
actually
doing
a
quick,
google
search,
that
the
language
presented
from
suspect
to
suspect
can
actually
vary
state
to
state
and
that
each
state
sometimes
does
have
differences
of
how
the
wording
no
precise
language
is
actually
has
to
be
used.
G
But
in
that
respect,
if
someone
doesn't
follow
this
verbatim,
does
that
throw
it
all
out
or
as
long
as
I
get
the
gist
of
this
across
we're
just
trying
to
make
it
a
little
bit
simpler
to
understand,
and
I
appreciate
that
concept
to
the
youth,
but
in
that
respect,
if
let's
say
that,
if
you're
a
youth
officer
and
you
actually
catch
somebody
that's
over
18
and
they
use
this
language,
then
the
evidence
is
still
admissible
and
vice
versa.
If
an
officer
sadly
uses
a
more
adult
language,
would
that
be
still
admissible.
I
I
I
Peter
for
the
record,
you'd
probably
be
better
than
okay
with
this,
because
this
is
a
very
understandable
version,
so
you'd
actually
be
probably
safer
using
this
for
adults
and
if
I
may
just
put
a
quick
plug,
I
know
that
the
state
has
no
money,
but
other
states
have
studied
the
rates
of
dyslexia
in
prison
in
the
jail
and
they're
absurdly
high
and
most
of
the
adults
that
come
through
our
office
sixth
grade
reading
level
or
lower.
So
you,
this
is
actually
much
better
for
everybody's
understanding,
but
definitely
moving
that
way
for
children.
Okay,.
H
Thank
you,
chair
and
madam
chair.
If
I
may
assemble
medical
first
for
the
record,
and
I
appreciate
that
question
and
the
supreme
court
did
address
a
very
similar
question
in
2011
jdb
versus
north
carolina.
H
You
know
voluntarily,
be
show
up
and
and
participate
and
give
the
information-
and
I
know,
justice
sotomayor
in
that
specific
ruling-
said
it's
beyond
dispute
that
children
will
often
feel
bound
to
submit
to
police
questioning
when
an
adult
in
the
same
circumstances
would
feel
free
to
leave,
seeing
no
reason
for
police
officers
or
courts
to
blind
themselves
to
that
common
sense
reality.
We
hope
that
a
child's
age
properly
informs
the
miranda
custody
analysis.
H
So
there
is
absolutely
going
to
be
scenarios
where
whether
or
not
there
was
a
proper
miranda
warning
reading
to
to
to
that
child
will
be
litigated.
I
mean
it's,
it's
gone
all
the
way
up
to
the
supreme
court
and
and
that's
not
the
intent,
and
I
think
law
enforcement
will
attest
to
this-
that,
at
the
beginning,
they'll
very
likely
just
carry
a
little
card
and
how
to
you
know
how
old
are
you
once
they
recognize
that
they're
under
the
age
of
18
they'll
be
reading
off
of
that
little
card?
G
A
J
Ahead,
oh
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
compliment
edgar
flores
on
this
innovative
approach
to
try
to
help
children.
You
know,
I
think
a
lot
of
people.
Think
of
you
know,
children
being
arrested
and
think
of
you
know
graffiti
petty
larceny,
but
you
know
we
have
juveniles
up
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center.
J
Who
you
know
are
there
were
sentenced
as
adults,
so
these
rights
are
so
important
to
kids,
because
you
know
no
one
can
really
be
sure
when
that
initial
arrest
happens
where,
where
that
path
may
lead
and
whether
the
case
will
stay
in
juvenile
court
or
whether
there'll
be
an
attempt
to
transfer
it
over
to
adult
court
and
the
consequences
of
adult
court
in
adult
prison,
which
is
a
different
system
based
on
a
different
model
than
juvenile
court.
So
I
think
anything
like
this
that
helps
children
try
to
understand
their
rights.
J
D
Thanks,
madam
chair
quick
comment,
mr
pearl
mentioned:
we
protect
children
under
all
other
aspects
of
the
law,
but
actually
the
most
disenfranti
disenfranchised
group
are
the
unborn
and
there's
a
certain
assembly
woman
who
would
love
to
have
a
co-sponsor
on
her
bill
on
parental
notification,
so
just
want
to
get
that
on
the
record
real,
quick.
Now
the
actual
bill,
the
question
of.
Do
you
understand
what
I
have
told
you?
What
if
the
answer?
D
I
D
D
D
I
got
it
well,
that's
how
the
process
works,
so
I
I
got
it
but
but
yeah,
it
just
seems
to
me.
You
know
we
are
kind
of
schizophrenic
when
it
comes
to
what
you
can
and
can't
do
when
it
comes
to
underage
people
and
while
I
am
being
not
totally
facetious
about
the
unborn,
you
know
you
can
be
12
years
old
and
you
can
go
get
an
abortion
and
nobody
knows
about
it,
but
you
and
the
doctor,
but
that
same
12
year
old.
D
If
a
cop
dares
to
ask
him
a
question
about
hey,
do
you
steal
that
candy
bar
technically
he
could
be?
If
he
doesn't
do
this
warning,
assuming
we
pass
it
the
cop.
Could
you
know
whatever
evidences
he
gathers
gets
thrown
out,
but
so
I
don't
know.
Sometimes
I
wonder
the
whole
18
year
old
thing.
I've
got
the
whole.
I
just
had
lcb.
D
Do
it
again
for
me,
because
we've
got
an
issue
coming
up
on
this
and
it's
surprising
how
many
you
can
you
can
go
in
the
army
and
drive
a
tank
at
the
age
of
18.,
the
kids
charging
the
beach
at
eog,
more
often
18..
Yet
you
can't
buy
a
cigarette
when,
when
you're
18.,
you
know
so
there's
a
lot
of
weird
anomalies
in
our
law,
but
I
frankly
I
I
think
this
concept
is
good.
D
A
All
right,
senator
pickard.
K
Thank
you,
charles
scheibel.
I
I
you
know
it's
interesting
when
we
redid
or
we
created
nrcp
or
the
nevada
rules
of
civil
procedure
16215,
which
was
the
judicial
interviewing
of
children.
One
of
the
things
we
talked
about
actually
was
justice.
Sotomayor's
comment,
which
is,
I
think,
spot
on
that
children
simply
don't
understand,
and
and
mr
pero
to
your
point.
If
adults
aren't
understanding,
then
the
children
certainly
won't,
and
so,
while
I'm
perfectly
supportive
of
this,
I'm
just
wondering
are.
We
did.
K
H
You
for
that
question
senator
madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
pickard
assemblyman
flores
for
the
record,
so
the
the
quick
answers
it
has
been
vetted
kings
county
in
washington
has
a
very
similar
miranda
warning
reading
for
anyone
under
the
age
of
18.,
and
we
had
an
opportunity
to
reach
out
and
speak
to
some
folk.
H
In
fact-
and
I
don't
know
if
she'll
be
coming
up,
but
I
I
know
our
some
of
our
public
defenders
went
as
far
as
to
reach
out
to
other
public
defenders
out
there
and
judges
to
get
some
feedback
and
some
perspective
from
them,
and
I
will
say
going
back
to
senator
hansen's
question.
H
There
are
other
states
presently
that
do
not
allow
for
a
minor
to
wave
away
their
their
right
to
an
attorney.
In
fact,
if
there,
if
there's
going
to
be
a
custodial,
interrogation
attorney
must
be
present,
but
unfortunately
we're
not
there
anymore
we're
at
a
different
place
with
this
bill.
But
but
so
in
short,
we
have
had
the
opportunity
to
not
nevada
but
through
a
different
state,
see
how
it
played
out.
K
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
so
it
sounds
then,
like
we
may
have
some
data
to
show
that
this
meets
a
certain
minimum
level
of
of
understanding,
because
obviously
children
are
on
a
fairly
steep
learning
curve.
K
I
A
All
right,
if
there
are
other
questions,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions,
and
you
had
mentioned
that
you
ran
this
language
by
some
elementary
school
teachers
who
ran
it
by
their
kids,
which
I
think
is
brilliant.
And
I
love
that
method
of
vetting
it.
Because
my
legal
understanding
of
miranda
is
that
the
miranda
warning
has
to
conform
with
the
constitution,
and
there
are
certain
parameters
that
have
to
be
met
within
the
constitution.
A
Within
those
boundaries.
It
is
up
to
an
individual
peace
officer
to
determine
how
they
communicate
those
miranda
warnings
and
in
most
jurisdictions
like
in
las
vegas,
entire
departments
adopt
policies
that
are
across
the
board.
Consistent
with
that.
But
there's
nothing
in
law
that
prevents
an
officer
from
I
mean
things
in
policy,
but
nothing
in
law
that
prevents
an
officer
from
giving
a
different
warning
as
long
as
it
meets
those
constitutional
standards.
A
And
so
what
you're
doing
in
this
bill
is
further
refining
that
language
to
make
sure
that
it
is
understandable
to
a
particular
group
of
people
and
in
this
case
kids,
and
so
you
mentioned
that
you
had
compared
this
language
to
other
warning
language.
I
was
just
wondering
if
that
was
the
current
metro,
juvenile
warning
or
the
current
metro,
adult
warning
or
a
different
warning.
H
Altogether,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
that
question.
There's
so
many
metro
floors
for
the
record
we
used
so
ccsd
had
provided
us
some
language.
They
they
do
something.
I
believe
it's
called
the
miranda
plus
warning
and
I
I
believe,
clark,
county
school
district
may
be,
or
somebody
from
the
school
district
might
be
here,
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
I
saw
their
language
and
that's
the
language
I
used.
A
H
Thank
you
for
the
question
chairwoman,
some
of
the
metropolis
for
the
record
yeah.
The
feedback
that
we
got
from
the
teachers
was
that
they
understood
this
better
and
one
of
our
teachers
who's
amazing.
They
went
as
far
as
doing
a
role
play
and,
and
they
just
created
a
hypothetical
play
it
around
and
then
to
see
if
the
kids
would
say
yes
or
no
and
at
the
end
a
lot
of
like
no
I'd
rather
wait.
You
know.
A
The
first
one
is
about
the
term
parent
and
I'm
not
sure
about
the
the
law
for
juveniles,
if,
if,
if
they
really
only
have
the
right
to
have
a
parent
present
or
if
it
could
be
another
guardian
or
adult
with
some
kind
of
legal
authority,
I'm
not
sure
that
it
that
it
requires
an
amendment
to
the
bill,
because
I
understand
we're
trying
to
make
this
understandable
for
kids,
I'm
just
hoping
that
we
can
get
some
legislative
history
on
the
record
as
to
what
what
the
law
is
and
why
we've
chosen
this
language.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
Again
assemblyman
editor
flores
for
the
record
in
conversations
with
different
stakeholders
involving
law
enforcement,
the
county
and
the
school
district,
some
of
the
feedback
we
got
and
unfortunately
I
will
look
it
up
as
we're
speaking
like.
I
don't
have
the
exact
citation
there
is
a
nevada
supreme
court
case
on
point,
wherein
this
very
specific
conversation
was
had
as
to
whether
a
child
had
had
the
right
to
have
their
parent
present.
The
ruling
was
that
they
do
and
based
on.
A
I
would
appreciate
that
and
just
to
clarify
what
I'm
imagining
as
a
kid
who
hears
this
warning
and
lives
with
grandma
or
grandpa,
and
they
say
you
have
a
right
to
have
a
parent
present
and
they
think
oh
well,
my
mom
and
dad
aren't
around
and
so
they're
just
quiet
instead
of
saying
what
about
grandma.
So
that
that's
where
my
question
stems
from,
and
my
final
question
is
about
language
barriers.
A
I
assume
this
would
just
fall
into
all
of
the
other
case
law
that
has
been
decided
about
ensuring
that
people
have
access
to
information
in
their
in
a
language
that
they
understand,
and
I'm
just
hoping
that
you
can
assure
me
that
this
falls
into
that
category
and
we're
not
going
to
be.
You
know
missing
a
loophole.
I
don't
say
a
loophole
because
not
like
people
are
going
to
intentionally
avoid
this,
but
mit
we're
not
going
to
be
having
a
gap
for
kids
who
are
not
proficient
in
english.
I
A
L
L
I
began
to
research
this
issue.
I
would
just
also
note
that
senator
scheibel
was
involved
involved
in
those
conversations,
so
I
do
appreciate
her
work
on
this
as
well.
We
reached
out
to
ncj
fcj
with
joey
arduna
hastings
who
connected
me
with
not
only
the
public
defenders
offices
around
several
jurisdictions,
but
also
judges
and
former
judges
where
we
landed
on
what
seems
to
be
the
model
in
several
states
is
that
king
county
miranda
warnings.
L
I
would
just
note
that
they
were
actually
initiated
by
the
king
county
sheriff's
office,
in
collaboration
with
the
department
of
public
defense
and
a
non-profit
that
works
with
children
called
creative
justice.
So
these
were
carefully
vetted
miranda
warnings
and,
as
you
heard
them,
we
researched
that
within
our
own
state.
So
that's
kind
of
the
genesis
of
these
miranda
warnings
harvard
medical
school
also
studied
miranda
warnings
across
the
country
and
so
just
to
add
to
what
you
heard.
L
They
found
that
when
they
looked
at
the
miranda
warnings
for
throughout
all
the
different
jurisdictions,
that
52
of
the
warnings
required
someone
to
have
at
least
an
eighth
grade
level
of
reading
comprehension
and
then
when
someone's
arrested,
their
understanding
and
comprehension
is
reduced
by
20
percent.
So
that's
the
need
for
these
warnings.
L
As
to
senator
settlemyre's
question
regarding
the
differences
I
can
let
the
committee
know
I
had
the
privilege
of
of
going
along
on
a
ride-along
with
the
washoe
county
sheriff's
department.
This
past
week
weekend
where
the
officer
did
just
read
from
the
card,
and
I
do
hope
that
they
would.
Even
if
they
didn't
know
the
age
would
read
the
juvenile
miranda
warnings
because
they
do
provide
the
additional
clarity.
L
They
don't
change
the
constitutional
mandates,
but
do
help
ensure
that
everyone
understands
what
they're
agreeing
or
not
agreeing
to
their
huge
constitutional
rights
that
they're
either
asserting
or
waiving.
In
2010,
the
aba
passed
a
resolution
urging
governments
to
develop
simple
worded
miranda
warnings,
and
we
believe
that
this
does
exactly
that
just
to
provide
some
addition.
Additional
information
sheriff
john
ercart
from
the
king
county
sheriff's
department
said
that
these
are
simple,
comprehensive
language
designed
to
ensure
children
know
their
rights
when
they
make
that
knowing
and
voluntary
decision
he
said.
L
Criminal
convictions
have
much
larger
and
longer
impacts
than
a
possible
jail
sentence.
We
want
to
help
youth
succeed,
that's
why
we're
asking
them
to
help
us
solve
crimes
while
at
the
same
time
we
are
working
harder
to
protect
their
rights,
and
we
hope
you
will
join
in
that
effort
to
protect
their
rights.
Thank
you.
A
K
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
was
the
same,
that
my
concern
is
this
that
so
often
as
was
mentioned,
the
child
is
going
to
say
you
know.
Yes,
I'm
you
know
when
a
particularly
those
that
have
been
raised
to
to
respect
and
adhere
to
authority
and
there's
they're
asked.
Are
you
willing
to
do?
Are
you
willing
to?
After
all
this?
Are
you
willing
to
talk
to
me?
Many
of
them
are
just
going
to
reflectively,
say
yes
and
now
they're
subject
to
the
interrogation.
K
So
what
I
hear
you
saying-
and
I
just
want
to
confirm-
is
that
the
king
county
and
the
other
jurisdictions
that
have
adopted
like
language
have
found
that
these
younger
children,
even
though
they're
only
out
or
operating
on
an
80
percent
comprehension
basis
that
they're
understanding
that
this
means
they
can
say
no
and
they'll
be
safe,
is
is
that
accurate.
L
Pendrive
for
the
record,
through
youtube
to
senator
senator
pickard.
I
can't
say
that,
specifically,
because
king
county
does
have
additional
assurances
as
well.
I
will
note
that
the
studies
show
that
90
percent
of
our
youth
just
waive
their
rights,
and
it's
discuss
it.
The
reason
for
that
is
because
they
don't
understand
that
I
can
let
you
know
that
our
office
had
the
position
when
this
bill
first
started
that
we
needed
to
require
that
an
attorney
be
present
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
child
understood
their
rights.
We
were
willing
to
do
that.
L
A
M
Ready
good
afternoon
and
thank
you,
chair
schaible
and
committee
members
for
the
record-
liz
davenport,
l-I-z-d-a-v-e-n-p-o-r-t,
the
board
law
intern
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
Here
in
support
of
thank
you,
assemblyman
flores,
for
bringing
this
bill.
Children
are
our
most
vulnerable
population
and
we
must
protect
their
right
to
due
process
when
they
are
most
at
risk
of
being
caught
in
the
incarceration
machine.
M
M
Children
are
more
easily
intimidated
and
have
a
natural
dependency
upon
adults
and
therefore
recognized
as
having
a
high
susceptibility
to
any
police
coercion.
No
matter
how
slight
in
some
jurisdictions
as
many
as
80
to
90
percent
of
children
waive
their
right
to
an
attorney
because
they
do
not
understand
the
word
wave.
M
A
study
in
the
medical
journey
law
and
human
behavior
that
has
been
numerously
cited
shows
that
children
are
more
susceptible
and
more
likely
than
adults
to
make
decisions
that
reflect
a
propensity
to
comply
with
authority
figures.
The
aclu
of
nevada
supports
ab-132
to
enable
children
to
more
easily
understand
their
miranda
warnings
as
a
first
step
in
the
direction
to
protecting
children's
due
process
rights.
Thank
you
and
we
urge
your
support.
A
Thank
you.
So
much
is
there
anybody
else
in
person
all
right?
We
will
then
move
to
testimony
via
phone
in
support
of
ab132.
Each
person
will
have
two
minutes
if
we
could
get
the
first
person
in
line
please.
Mr
kyle.
F
F
N
N
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
osf
nevada
here
in
support
of
av-132,
we
believe
that
all
youth
should
have
access
to
the
resources
and
information
they
need
to
navigate
the
criminal
justice
system,
regardless
of
the
severity
of
the
charges.
Provisions
in
ab-132
will
help
increase
fairness
and
better
ensure
justice
for
youth
in
nevada.
We
urge
your
support.
Thank
you.
F
F
O
O
The
purpose
of
miranda
warnings
is
to
make
sure
that
people
are
not
tricked
or
coerced
accidentally
or
on
purpose
into
testifying
against
themselves,
and
that
policy
rationale
applies
a
special
force
to
children.
Practical
experience
bears
out
the
need
for
this
kind
of
specialized
warning
and
so
nacj
supports
this
bill.
Thank
you.
F
O
My
name
is
paul
casa,
that's
spelled
c-a-t-h-a
and
I
represent
the
culinary
workers
union,
local
226.
The
culinary
union
supports
assembly
bill
132
because
it
furthers
the
fulfillment
of
the
constitutionally
protected
rights
for
all
children
in
nevada.
Regardless
of
background,
the
culinary
union
represents
60
000
working
families
in
nevada.
A
majority
of
members
are
people
of
color
and
tens
of
thousands
of
parents.
O
F
B
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county
and
here
today
in
support
of
ab132
on
behalf
of
our
juvenile
justice
division
in
washoe
county,
we're
very
appreciative
of
the
assemblyman
and
the
work
to
help
with
the
amended
version
that
addressed
a
lot
of
our
concerns
with
the
bill
as
drafted
and
as
now
in
front
of
you
today
in
reprint.
One
we
believe
is
a
positive
step
forward
to
helping
youths
in
our
communities
that
may
fall
under
the
criminal
justice
system
and
are
in
full
support
of
the
bill
as
drafted.
Thank
you
so.
F
F
B
U
s
y
chief
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office
here
today,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association
in
support
of
ab132
we'd,
like
to
thank
assemblyman
flores
for
working
with
me
on
the
amendments
to
get
us
into
the
support
level
of
this
bill.
It
is
my
belief
that
ab132
is
a
developmentally
appropriate
miranda
for
children
who
have
contact
with
law
enforcement.
Thank.
A
A
A
A
P
P
This
bill
addresses
a
need
to
establish
the
statutory
authority
for
municipal
courts
to
conduct
jury
trials.
Historically,
municipal
and
justice
courts
have
not
con
not
conducted
jury
trials
here
in
nevada.
However,
as
a
result
of
a
statutory
change
in
2015
and
a
subsequent
nevada
supreme
court
decision,
municipal
courts
are
now
tasked
with
conducting
jury
trials
in
cases
involving
misdemeanor
battery
domestic
violence
in
2015.
P
This
presents
a
challenge
for
our
municipal
courts
without
specific
authority
granted
in
statute,
the
henderson
municipal
court
alone
processes,
approximately
a
thousand
domestic
violence
cases
each
year
and
establishing
authority
to
conduct
jury
trials
will
allow
these
courts
to
invest
in
the
infrastructure
necessary
to
move
forward
with
meeting
the
obligations
established
by
anderson
with
that
I'll
turn.
In
my
time
over
to
mark
skifalaqua,
our
city's
chief
prosecutor.
Q
Q
Here
are
some
of
the
issues
that
have
come
up
since
the
anderson
decision
was
decided.
The
first
and
the
most
glaring
is:
are
municipal
courts
allowed
to
conduct
jury
trials?
Now,
as
you
all
know,
typically,
cities
get
their
authority
from
a
few
sources
statutes,
maybe
their
charter
or
the
constitution,
none
of
which
directly
say.
Municipalities
can
conduct
jury
trials.
Q
It's
certainly
implied
in
the
anderson
decision,
which
was
a
municipal
court
case
actually,
but
it
doesn't
come
out
and
say
that
and
then
also
we've
never
had
the
history
in
nevada
of
doing
jury
trials
in
municipal
courts,
so
our
courts
just
aren't
outfitted
for
those
jury
trials.
There's
no
jury
boxes.
We
don't
have
a
jury.
Q
You
know,
commissioner,
we
don't
have
personnel
so
can
we
invest
in
and
get
these
going
and
what
rules
do
we
follow?
Our
rules
for
jury
trials
in
this
state
are
in
chapter
175
and
you
won't
see
the
word
municipal
court
in
there.
So
we
need
to
know
what
rules
to
follow.
So
we're
all
doing
this.
The
same
way.
Q
Q
I've
been
relying
on
this
case
in
my
arguments
throughout
the
various
courts.
I've
had
to
argue
this
in
front
of
this
is
donahue
versus
sparks
a
sparks
municipal
court
judge
in
1994
ordered
a
jury
trial
for
a
dui,
and
that
was
challenged
and
the
supreme
court
of
our
state
says
you
really
can't
do
that
municipal
court.
You
can't
just
order
it
because
you
want
it
absent
a
constitutional
ruling
or
a
constitution
to
comply
with
constitutional
law.
Q
Q
Q
But
it's
a
little
more
than
that.
This
is
1988
blanton
versus
north
las
vegas
municipal
court,
and
this
is
our
supreme
court
saying
it
was
a
challenge
to
a
dui
saying:
hey
we,
the
defendant,
said
I
wanted
a
jury
trial
for
a
dui
they've.
They
said
that
they
did
not
get
one,
but
they
also
went
on
to
say,
listen.
Even
if
we
rule
that
you
do.
Q
You
really
can't
do
these
until
the
legislature's
in
session.
It's
not
on
the
supreme
court
to
provide
the
rules
about
how
to
proceed
on
these
cases.
How
many
preemptory
challenges
you
know
make
sure
everything's
uniform?
That's
not
something
the
supreme
court
is
going
to
give
us,
so
the
supreme
court
has
already
said,
even
if
we
order
it,
don't
think
you're
doing
these
until
you
get
some
rules
from
the
legislature
and
if
you
recall
this
decision
came
out
right
at
the
end
of
the
last
session
september
2019.,
so
we
were
being
challenged
about
our
authority.
Q
We
didn't
have
any
rules,
mr
mentioned.
There
is
a
thousand
victims
about
a
year
that
we
handle
in
our
court
now
county-wide
just
taken
north
las
vegas,
las
vegas
and
henderson.
Almost
7
000
cases
of
misdemeanor
domestic
violence
way
more
than
the
clark
county
district,
attorney's
office,
public
defender's
office
and
justice
court
handle
so
just
theoretically.
Q
Q
So
what
the
cities,
the
three
largest
cities
in
clark
county-
it
was
enacted
domestic
violence,
ordinance
with
similar
penalties,
enhancement
capabilities.
It
doesn't
carry
the
gun,
prohibition,
which
is
how
you
get
around
doing,
not
doing
the
jury
trials.
This
was
meant
as
a
stop
gap
measure.
I've
said
this
publicly
since
september
of
2019.
Q
It
was
to
get
us
to
here.
We
want
to
go
forward,
we
want
to
do
these
trials,
but
we
need
to
protect
protection
and
rules
to
do
so,
and
that's
why
we're
here.
This
is
a
very
tough
problem.
This
is
one
of
the
tougher
problems
the
judiciary
has
dealt
with
in
some
time,
but
it's
not
an
impossible
problem.
Q
We
can
do
this,
so
the
bill
is
to
give
clear
language
that
we
can
provide
this
right,
give
us
the
rules,
so
we
know
we're
all
doing
this
uniformly
and
then,
lastly,
to
brought
a
clear
definition
in
the
of
the
gun-
prohibition
law,
which
is
not
very
clear
right
now,
and
so
we
know
exactly
who's
prohibited
who's
not
and
who
gets
this
trade
trial
and
who
doesn't.
Q
Q
But
again
that's
a
lot
of
conformity
just
to
make
sure
we
can
comply,
but
I'll
just
touch
on
two
parts
that
are
a
little
more
substantive
one:
the
size
of
the
jury.
How
many
jurors
do
we
need
for
a
misdemeanor
jury
trial
in
the
state
of
nevada
in
1983
the
1983
legislative
session?
Added?
In
a
section
that
said,
you
can
do
six
for
a
misdemeanor.
You
can
do
six
jurors.
Q
Q
The
u.s
supreme
court
says
you
can
do
six
under
the
federal
constitution,
but
there's
been
many
states
that
have
struck
down
their
six-person
jury
statutes,
and
I
looked
into
those
about
why
this
is
our
constitution
on
jury
trials.
Article
1,
section,
3.,
the
right
of
a
trial
by
jury,
shall
be
secured
to
all
and
remain
in
violate
forever.
Q
Q
Q
So
there
was
talk
in
our
constitution
convention
and
they
said
12
when
interpreting
article
1,
section
3.
So
the
inviola
language
there's
also
a
couple
cases
in
nevada
that
have
decided
this
they're
old,
but
they
are
around
the
time
that
our
constitution
was
adopted.
Q
State
versus
mcclear
also
1876,
also
a
body
of
12
men
to
be
perfectly
clear
with
everyone
we
would
want
six.
This
is
going
to
be
hard
enough
on
everybody,
and
most
of
our
buildings
are
not
made
for
jurors
juries
at
all,
and
so,
when
you
have
12
it's
just
it's
tougher
because
you
have
space
concerns,
and
I
fully
understand
that.
Q
Q
Currently-
and
I
put
it
up
there,
obviously
in
in
red,
is
the
the
current
language,
but
this
is
the
proposed
change.
We
define
it
not
based
on
nevada
law
but
federal
law,
so
how
the
federal
law
defines
domestic
violence.
Now
that's
run
into
trouble
when
we're
talking
about
this
issue.
Q
Now
the
issue
there
is
most,
I
wouldn't
say
most,
but
a
large
portion
of
our
cases
deal
with
dating
relationships.
There's
something
called
the
boyfriend
loophole
in
the
federal
gun
law.
Well,
that's
what
it
is.
It
doesn't
include
your
general
dating
relationships,
so
we
have
currently
in
nevada
a
husband
abusing
his
wife
and
is
convicted
of
that.
That
person
is
prohibited
from
having
a
firearm
going
forward.
Q
Q
Q
Q
There's
also
another
problem.
There's
this
hayes
case
out
of
the
u.s
supreme
court.
It's
interpreting
the
federal
gun
law
and
what
it
says
is
you
could
be
convicted
of
a
lesser
offense
and
still
be
prohibited.
Federally
so
simple
battery,
simple
assault,
simple
coercion,
and
so
then
we
would
have
to
provide
jury
trials
to
to
those
individuals
as
well,
and
we
want
to
keep
this
very
clear.
This
is
for
the
crime
of
battery
domestic
violence.
You
have
to
be
charged
with
that.
You
have
to
be
convicted
of
that.
Q
Q
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation.
It's
wonderful
to
have
you
here,
mr
skiff
walkway
and
his
work.
Senator
harris.
B
Q
Through
the
chair
to
you
senator
it
will
still
be
operative,
but
I
want
to
be
clear:
you
would
be
prohibited
for
getting.
You
would
get
a
jury
trial
under
the
ordinance
going
forward
and
the
reason
why
is
we
included
under
the
the
new
definition
of
the
gun,
prohibition
that
it's
a
violation
of
state
law
or
any
other
jurisdiction,
has
kind
of
the
same
law?
We
have
the
same
law,
so
whatever
one
we
chose
to
fight,
it
really
probably
doesn't
make
a
difference
either
way,
you're
going
to
get
the
jury
trial
either
way.
B
Okay,
that
makes
sense,
and
my
my
second
question
is
about
section
13
and
it
looks
like
here
on:
let's
see
line
38
you
have
the
parent
or
legal
guardian
of
the
person
is
it
is
that
intended
to
capture
juveniles,
or
is
it
also
intended
to
apply
to
the
adult
guardianship
relationship.
Q
Thank
you
senator
through
you
mark
skifalaqua.
It
is
starting
with
just
the
parent
child,
let's
say
biological
parent
biological
child.
Yes,
it
would
apply
going
forward,
meaning
when
both
are
adults.
Okay,
so
it
would
certainly
apply
for
the
defendant
hitting
the
a
child
who
was
under
the
age,
but
also
a
40
year
old,
hitting
a
20
year
old
that
that
would
qualify
the
legal
guardian
language,
that's
actually
already
in
the
federal
the
definition.
So
I
I
put
it
here,
but
that
being
said,
that
wouldn't
be
much
of
a
change.
B
Okay,
as
currently
drafted,
it
seems
this
would
apply
to
someone
who
has
a
guardianship
of
the
estate
of
an
adult
or
a
guardianship
of
a
person
or
person
and
a
state
right.
So
it
seems
this
is
sweeping
in
that
adult
guardianship
process.
And
if
it's
your
intention
to
carve
that
out,
then
I
think
there
may
be
an
amendment
that
would
need
to
be
put
forth.
Q
K
K
After
our
conversation,
I
looked
up
the
burowski
case,
which
it
was
interesting
because
it
had
to
do
with
public
administrators
that
violate
the
law
and
thus
are
subject
to
a
misdemeanor,
and
in
that
case
they
or
the
supreme
court,
the
nevada
supreme
court
allowed
for
or
stated
that
a
person
could
consent
to
fewer
than
12..
K
And
so
I
thought
it
interesting
that,
particularly
when
we
look
at
statutory
construction
and
interpretation
of
constitutional
law,
one
of
the
canon
suggests
that
we
are
allowed
as
a
legislature
to
deviate
so
long
as
we're
not
contrary
to
the
constitution
and
the
constitution.
Although
in
the
borowski
case
they
state
that
the
law
knows
no
number
other
than
12..
K
Similarly,
the
constitution
doesn't
require
12
for
misdemeanor
convictions,
and
so
wouldn't
it
be
true
that
if
we
as
a
legislature,
post
borowski
and
all
the
history
that
has
ensued,
particularly
in
light
of
the
anderson
case,
we
are
at
liberty
to
state.
A
six-member
jury
is
sufficient.
In
these
cases,.
Q
Thank
you
senator
the
chair
to
you
mark
scifilacqua.
The
question
is,
is
the
word
12
embedded
in
the
word
and
violate
to
this
to
the
degree
that
we
can't
make
a
law
that
goes
against
us?
I
certainly
don't
have
a
crystal
ball,
but
I
will
say
that
the
other
states
that
have
looked
at
it
with
similar
history
and
similar
language
have
said.
No,
you
couldn't
do
it
absent
a
constitutional
amendment.
K
All
right
and
so
on
that
interpretation,
then
it's
my
understanding,
then
that
if
we're
going
to
do
this,
we're
going
to
be
impaneling,
12,
jury,
juries.
Sorry,
it's
hard
to
talk
with
a
mascot.
We
will
be
in
paneling,
12,
juror
juries,
which
then,
what
kind
of
accommodations
are
we
going
to
have
to
make?
I
mean,
besides
just
the
obvious,
creating
the
jury
box.
You
hinted
at
jury,
commissioners
and
the
like.
K
Q
Thanks
senator
the
chair
to
you
mark
scifilaqua,
there's
no
question:
this
is
difficult.
The
main
issue
is
space
frankly
and
expense.
When
you
have
more
jurors,
you
need
more
room,
you
need
more
room
with
courtroom.
Q
You
need
more
room
in
a
jury
facility
to
to
call
the
initial
pool
in
and
you
need
to
summons
a
wider
net.
You
need
more
people
to
show
up.
So
there's
no
question
that
there
is
an
added
expense
from
6
to
12..
I
will
say
the
statute
does
allow,
along
with
the
browski
case,
the
parties
can
agree
to
less.
Q
I
will
almost
always
agree
to
less
if
the
other
side
will
allow
it,
but
again,
that's
why
it's
it's
difficult,
and
I
don't
see
this
necessarily
as
a
discretionary
thing.
I
wish
it
was,
but
perhaps
my
mind
will
be
changed
at
some
point.
It
just
hasn't,
given
all
the
states
that
have
looked
at
it
other
than
that
though.
Yes,
it's
it's
the
space,
it's
the
summons
and
it's
the
room
itself.
K
And
then,
if
this
bill
passes,
how
long
do
you
think
it'll
take
for
at
least
the
city
of
henderson
to
prepare
for
that.
Q
Thank
you
senator
marcus
lockwood
through
the
chair
at
least
six
months,
and
that's
why
we
gave
ourselves
some
time
before
this
would
be
fully
enacted
and
fully
in
law.
There's,
probably
a
short-term
plan
and
a
long-term
plan
we'll
have
to
do
short
term.
Maybe
some
folding
chairs
and
trying
to
figure
out
a
different
space
to
call
the
jury
pool
into.
But
that
being
said,
then
we
would
need
to
do
construction
and
that's
more
of
a
long-term
plan.
G
Q
I
think
senator
mark
scott
walkway
through
the
charity.
No,
so
this
would
be
the
lar.
The
larger
cities
could
summons
their
jury,
pool
from
their
cities
themselves.
They
wouldn't
have
to
go
county-wide,
but
if
you're
under
the
population
cap,
you
can
send
your
summonses
out
county-wide.
Q
We
also
worked
with
the
justice
of
the
pieces
on
this,
so
there's
something
similar
with
their
townships.
If
they
have
a
small
township,
they
could
go
county-wide
not
just
to
the
barriers
of
their
township.
G
I
appreciate
that
explanation
if
I
could
have
another
question.
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
curious.
I
understand
the
concept
of
not
not
wanting
to
have
all
the
federal
rules
directly
listed
as
far
as
word
for
word,
but
would
there
be
an
objection
to
the
concept
of
just
referring
to
the
federal
rules
in
order
to
make
it
easier
to
understand
from
state
to
state
and
just
make
it
more
applicable.
Q
Mark
skiffalacqua
through
the
chair
to
you
center.
I
apologize
to
ask
clarifying
question:
are
you
talking
about
the
gun?
Prohibition
section
itself?
Okay,
thank
you,
the
the
issue
that,
if
we
do
that
the
concern
is
roping
in
all
these
other
crimes
that
we
don't
want
people
to
be
prohibited
for
or
to
give
them
a
jury
trial.
Q
Q
A
P
Minutes
hi
liz
ortenberger
for
the
record
o-r-t-e-n-b-u-r-g-e-r.
Thank
you
to
the
chair
and
the
committee
for
hearing
this
bill
and
the
city
of
henderson
for
bringing
it
forward.
I'm
the
ceo
for
safe
nest,
we're
on
the
front
line
of
the
epidemic
of
domestic
violence
every
day
serving
over
25
000
clients
annually
we're
in
full
support
of
this
bill
as
it
ends
the
firearm
loophole
created
by
the
municipal
courts
in
response
to
anderson.
P
A
F
F
N
N
F
F
B
B
B
Our
office,
which
is
referred
between
3
500
and
5
000
cases
a
year,
has
had
domestic
violence
cases
dismissed
outright
with
two
of
our
six
courts,
saying
that
they
do
not
have
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
case.
If
it
requires
a
jury
trial,
we
have
had
convictions
under
our
ordinance
where
a
victim
who
has
just
testified
about
the
abuse
will
leave
with
her
abuser
and
go
back
home
to
a
place
that
we
know
has
firearms
we've.
B
B
Victim
safety
has
been
eroded
by
the
current
ambiguity
in
the
law.
The
fact
is:
domestic
violence
is
one
of
the
most
common
types
of
violent
crimes
in
nevada.
In
2019,
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office
noted
nearly
25
000
reports
of
domestic
violence
simply
put.
We
need
every
town,
city
and
municipality
in
nevada
to
help
combat
this
issue.
Prosecute
these
cases
hold
offenders
accountable
and
keep
victims.
Safe
ab42
allows
for
the
continued
prosecution
of
these
violence
cases
within
city
jurisdictions.
B
F
F
B
M-C-C-O-R-M-I-C-K,
I'm
an
assistant
city
manager
for
the
city
of
sparks,
testifying
in
support
of
ab-42
after
the
nevada
supreme
court
determines
that
a
jury
trial
is
required
for
certain
domestic
battery
offenses.
The
city
of
sparks,
adopted
an
ordinance
allowing
its
municipal
court
to
hold
jury
trials
when
constitutionally
required.
B
That
ordinance
was
a
stop
gap
measure
to
hold
domestic
violence.
Offenders
accountable
until
the
nevada
legislature
could
act.
Ab-42
would
remove
all
doubt
as
to
whether
sparks
municipal
court
may
hold
jury
trials
if
constitutionally
required
to
do
so.
The
city
of
sparks
does
have
concerns
about
the
logistics
and
the
costs
of
12-person
juries
and
questions.
Whether
12
person
juries
are
constitutionally
required
for
misdemeanor
offenses
like
these.
B
F
F
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ariel
edwards
a-r-I-e-l-l-e
e-d-w-a-r-d-s,
with
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
We
are
in
support
of
assembly
bill
42.
We
would
like
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsors
for
working
with
the
city,
and
we
are
in
support
of
the
amendment
that
has
been
proposed.
Ab-42
gives
additional
clarity
to
the
nrs
as
it
pertains
to
prosecuting
battery
domestic
violence
cases
as
we
understand
ab42.
N
If
the
city
of
north
las
vegas
wants
to
continue
prosecuting
battery
domestic
violence
cases
that
jury
trials
will
be
required
unless
waived
by
the
defendant.
That
being
said,
we
would
like
to
state
for
the
record
that
our
support
comes
with
the
cost
to
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
We
have
submitted
a
fiscal
note
regarding
ab42.
N
The
fiscal
note
would
be
substantial
due
to
the
need
for
retrofit
and
expansion
of
our
municipal
courts
to
house
such
cases,
and
we
support
the
effective
date
for
passage
in
the
bill
to
accommodate
these
cases.
So
again,
we'd
like
to
thank
the
city
of
henderson
for
working
with
us,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
consideration.
F
R
Thank
you,
chair
scheible
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
My
name
is
john
jones
j-o-h-n-j-o-n-e-s
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
district
attorney's
association.
We
are
in
support
of
ab42,
and
I
want
to
start
off
by
thanking
the
city
of
henderson,
miss
rourke
and
mr
skipalaqua
for
bringing
the
bill
simply
put.
Ab42
provides
clarity
and
first
it
clarifies
that
municipal
courts
can
hold
domestic
violence
trials.
It
would
be
disastrous
for
domestic
violence
prosecutions
if
the
future
court
ruling
held
that
municipal
courts
did
not
have
jurisdiction
over
db
trials.
R
A
ruling
like
this
would
require
the
county
da's
offices
to
handle
all
domestic
violence
cases
within
a
county
and,
as
mr
skipalaqua
indicated,
the
southern
municipal
jurisdictions
in
clark
county
combined
handle
more
of
these
cases
than
the
clark
county,
da's
office.
Clark,
county
d.a
cannot
more
than
double
our
caseload
and
still
provide
the
justice
that
domestic
violence
victims
deserve.
R
Second,
we
fully
support
moving
away
from
the
federal
definition
in
the
prohibited
person
of
the
firearm
statute.
Moving
away
from
the
federal
definition
will
provide
clarity
as
to
which
defendants
are
prohibited
from
possessing
a
firearm.
We
urge
this
committee
to
pass
ab42.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
F
N
Chair
scheibel
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
callie
wilson,
with
the
city
of
reno,
that's
c-a-l-l-I,
w-I-l-s-s's
and
sam
e-y.
We
are
here
in
support
of
ab42
today
we
support
this
bill,
as
it
provides
needed
clarity
and
confirmation,
as
mentioned
by
several
of
my
colleagues
from
other
municipalities.
Today,
we
appreciate
the
city
of
henderson
recognizing
this
need
and
bringing
forward
the
belt.
We
also
want
to
thank
the
city
of
henderson
for
working
with
us
early
in
the
process
to
resolve
a
minor
operational.
N
We
had
related
to
the
role
of
our
police,
chief
and
chief
marshall
in
our
local
system
prior
to
the
bill
heading
to
a
work
session.
We
hope
to
seek
additional
clarity
with
the
bill
sponsor
on
the
constitutionality
question
that
was
raised
and
discussed
today
related
to
number
of
jurors.
We
believe
this
question
is
not
as
clear
and
we've
made
changes
to
our
courts
under
a
different
interpretation.
N
The
change
to
12
could
create
logistical
and
fiscal
challenges
for
us,
but
we
look
forward
to
that
conversation
to
get
some
additional
information,
and
thank
you
to
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
today.
F
O
Good
afternoon,
chair
shy
below
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
aj
d
lab
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
My
last
name
is
phonetically,
spelled
david,
easy,
lincoln,
adam
paul
for
the
record.
The
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
is
in
support
of
ab42
and
its
provisions,
and
with
that
chair,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
conclude
my
short
testimony.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
john
pure
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
we
had
submitted
a
proposed
revision,
and
that
is
the
only
reason
we're
in
opposition.
If
section
12,
subsection
10a
of
the
original
bill
is
amended,
that
would
pull
us
out
of
opposition.
There
were
several
da's
down
south
that
made
the
argument
that,
once
you
have
a
prior
felony
or
prior
battery
domestic
violence,
conviction,
then
you're
no
longer
entitled
to
a
jury
trial.
I
I
Everybody
said
in
2017,
when
I
was
here
that
if
we
enacted
jury
trials
for
these
type
of
charges,
it
would
be
the
consequences
would
be
disastrous
and
we
we've
been
doing
it
for
a
long
time.
I
fully
do
believe
that
municipal
courts
should
have
the
right
to
hold
jury
trials
because
they
do
handle
a
lot
of
the
cases
we
just
want
to
see
some
of
the
bill
adjusted.
I
also
think
that
a
lot
of
the
issues
could
be
handled
with
interlocal
agreements,
while
courtrooms
are
being
outfitted.
I
The
henderson
justice
court,
which
is
just
one
floor
below
the
henderson
municipal
court,
does
have
a
jury
box,
and
so
perhaps
municipal
courts
could
handle
their
jury
trials
in
there.
The
floodgates
have
not
opened
on
jury
trials
around
the
state,
I
believe
we're
still
at
less
than
20,
even
though
this
decision
has
been
quite
a
quite
a
time
being,
and
we
may
even
be
less
than
that.
I
L
Good
afternoon
cherish
tribal
members
of
the
committee
kendra
burchie,
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
We
are
also
in
opposition,
mostly
just
on
what
we
provided
in
our
amendments,
with
some
additional
clarity
that
we
would
like
to
see
in
this
bill
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
are
all
operating
under
the
same
system
across
the
state.
L
And
so
we
believe
that
everyone
who
is
charged
with
that
domestic
battery,
regardless
of
the
jurisdiction,
should
be
an
and
afforded
that
jury
trial
right
and
since
I
do
have
a
a
judicial
officer
seated
next
to
me.
At
this
moment,
I
will
give
a
shout
out
to
up
in
washoe
county.
I
think
that
we've
done
a
very
great
job
of
working
with
all
stakeholders
after
the
anderson
decision
came
out
to
see
how
we
can
allow
for
jury
trials
to
proceed
in
our
different
courts.
L
So
I
do
appreciate
the
stakeholders
for
meeting
with
us
at
great
length
and
also
agree
that
there
needs
to
be
a
further
clarity
with
section
13
to
ensure
that
we
are
not
including
our
vulnerable
adults
wards
of
guardianships.
So
I
appreciate
those
discussions
and
look
forward
to
continuing
to
discuss
this
bill
with
the
sponsors.
Thank
you.
S
Chair
schaible
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
kevin
higgins,
I'm
the
chief
judge
in
the
sparks
justice
court,
I'm
also
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
judges
of
limited
jurisdiction,
which
is
the
association
of
all
the
lower
court
judges
in
nevada
reluctantly.
We're
opposed
to
subsection
of
section
3
of
the
bill,
which
would
increase
the
size
of
the
juries
in
justice,
municipal
courts
to
from
six
to
12
jurors.
We
don't
think
that's
constitutionally
required.
S
We
don't
think
it's
required
by
case
law
and
I
think
the
adverse
consequences
to
many
of
our
courts
outweigh
that.
Few
of
our
courts
in
nevada
have
room
for
six
jurors
and
they're
struggling
with
that
fewer
still
can
accommodate
12
and
have
an
ire
of
50..
The
original
bill
did
not
have
that
change
in
it.
It
was
amended,
I
believe,
on
the
floor.
S
S
Later
case
law
talked
about
the
number
of
jurors
since
1983,
the
nrs
has
limited
the
number
of
the
jurors
in
criminal
cases
in
justice
court
to
six,
and
there
used
to
be
a
fair
number
of
jury
trials
in
justice
court.
The
statute
has
allowed
for
a
long
time.
It
was
just
not
an
option
that
was
taken
by
most
talking
to
some
of
our
senior
judges
that
was
common
in
washoe
county,
at
least
through
most
of
the
70s
and
80s
to
have
jury
trials
and
duis.
S
S
I
think,
if
you
take
a
closer
look
at
them,
they
don't
require
12-person,
jurors
in
justice
court.
The
mcclear
case
dealt
with
an
act
of
the
legislature
that
did
away
with
all
the
challenges
for
cause
in
nevada
and
they
were
litigating
whether
or
not
that
was
appropriate.
Mcclary
said
it
was,
and
this
was
a
felony
case.
It
was
a
case
over
a
rape.
It
was
a
district
court
case.
It
was
not
a
lower
court
case.
S
Of
course,
mcclaire
also
said
based
on
the
common
law,
the
jurors
meant
12
competent
men,
so
pushing
mclare
to
its
logical,
maybe
not
illogical.
Conclusion.
Half
the
people
in
this
building
couldn't
sit
on
a
jury.
If
we
were
following
mcclaire
today,
based
on
their
decision,
the
borowski
case
was
an
impeachment
case.
The
county
county,
assessor,
I
think,
was
in
washoe
county,
had
taken
a
bunch
of
money
and
walked
off
the
job.
The
question
was
whether
the
district
court
could
handle
the
case.
The
term
misdemeanor
was
used
in
the
statute.
S
It
was
really
an
impeachment
stat
case
that
he
was
being
impeached
for
a
high
crime
and
misdemeanor.
The
district
court
said.
Yes,
the
supreme
court
said
the
district
court
could
hear
the
case,
even
though
the
phrase
misdemeanor
was
used
and
he
was
found
guilty
and
disrecorded
and
as
as
a
historical
note,
he
was
sentenced
to
a
two
thousand
dollar
fine,
which
he
was
allowed
to
pay
off
at
two
dollars
a
day
in
prison.
So
he
had
a
thousand
dollar
prison
sentence
to
pay
off
his
two
thousand
dollar.
S
Fine,
but
both
of
these
are
felony
cases.
These
are
not
lower
court
cases,
they
don't
address
the
case.
Many
states
have
chosen
to
give
greater
constitutional
rights
in
many
cases,
places
including
the
number
of
jurors
across
the
united
states.
But
the
us
supreme
court
has
said
repeatedly
that
six-person
juries
in
lower
courts
are
constitutional.
Now
nevada
can
choose
to
go
to
12
jurors.
S
S
I
have,
I
have
a
basically
a
brand
new
courthouse.
Eight
years
old
we
have
a
we
built,
a
jury
box,
anticipating
short
form,
civil
jury
trials,
there's
six
seats
in
it.
Four
and
two
alternates
we're
looking
how
to
squeeze
seven,
we're
probably
going
to
have
to
have
people
out
in
folding
chairs
to
accommodate
a
12
person,
jury
plus
two.
S
It's
probably
going
to
require
a
chainsaw
and
a
significant
amount
of
work
in
my
courtroom,
we've
actually
gone
looked
at
a
bid
for
75
000
plus,
when
you
take
social
distancing
in
and
of
an
ire
of
probably
50
to
get
12
people,
I'm
not
sure
we
have
any
place
in
our
courtroom
house
to
put
50
people
that
are
socially
distanced.
So
our
concern
is
really
the
practical,
pragmatic
consequence
of
increasing
the
number
the
number
of
jurors.
S
We
can
end
up
in
high
school
gyms
and
elks
halls
across
nevada
that
are
that
are
big
enough,
but
there
are
no
benches
and
and
security
and
and
recording
equipment
and
jury
boxes.
I
mean
it's
possible
to
do,
but
the
consequences
I
I
think
are
unintended
and
I
think
that
anything
that
causes
it
to
be
more
difficult
to
hold
a
jury
trial
in
a
domestic
violence
case
should
be
avoided.
S
I
think
making
it
as
difficult
as
this
might
be
in
some
jurisdictions
may
very
well
lead
to
different
charging
decisions.
If
there's
a
question
about
whether
it's
appropriate,
I
think
we've
seen
fewer
domestic
violence
cases
charged
in
washoe
county.
Since
anderson
happened,
I
can't
it's
anecdotal.
I
haven't
done
a
statistical
analysis,
we're
ready
to
go
in
sparks
with
a
six
person
jury
we
have
22
backed
up,
but
because
of
covet
we
haven't
been
able
to
do
it.
We're
working
with
the
county.
S
The
the
the
district
court
jury,
commissioner,
will
be
start
pulling
the
jurors
here
in
in
july,
we've
looked
at
several
alternates.
Can
I
sit
in
reno
in
district
court
and
hold
the
case
there?
I'm
not
sure
my
criminal
jurisdiction
moves
from
sparks
to
reno,
and
so
that's
a
that's,
a
question
that
would
have
to
be
resolved.
S
We
have
many
small
townships
in
nevada
that
aren't
located
in
the
same
city
or
town
where,
where
the
district
court
is,
you
know,
we
have
townships
that
are
less
than
a
thousand
people.
I
mean
the
lander
county.
The
austin
township
has
287
people
in
it.
I
mean
you're
going
to
be
to
call
50
people
you're
going
to
have
to
call
a
quarter
of
the
of
the
people
that
live
in
the
township
to
pull
whether
he
can
go
up
to
the
argenta
township
in
battle
mountain
and
hold
the
trial
there.
S
I
think
that's
an
open
question
we're
going
to
have
to
we're
going
to
have
to
address
we.
We
are
in
no
way
opposed
to
jury
trials.
In
these
cases
we
think
it's
absolutely
important.
You
know
I've
been
on
the
bench
18
years.
I
I
know
what
domestic
violence
does
to
families
and
the
victims,
but
I
think
those
cases
need
to
be
resolved
quickly
and
not
being
pushed
out
and
and
making
it
more
difficult.
I
fear
we'll
make
don't
take
those
cases
longer
to
go
on
balance.
S
I
I
just
think
in
rural
nevada,
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
accommodate
this
if
we
have
to
we'll
make
it
work,
but
I
don't
think
the
trials
are
going
to
be
in
the
justice
court
they're
going
to
they're
going
to
have
to
be
somewhere
else.
So
we
we
agree-
and
I
you
know-
I
agree
with
the
folks
in
the
city
of
henderson
other
than
this.
This
late
change,
the
number
of
jurors
we're
we're
fully
behind
this
bill.
S
K
Thank
you
and
thank
you
judge.
I
appreciate
it
sounds
like
you
have
already
done
the
research
that
I
started
but
did
couldn't
get
very
deep
in
when
it
comes
to
six-person
juries.
Yes,
we
already
do
those
in
in
small
civil
cases.
In
your
experience,
it
sounds
like
you
haven't
done
any
in
a
misdemeanor
case,
but
there
is
some
history
of
that.
K
Have
we
and
you
said
that
we
haven't
seen
any
challenges,
I'm
wondering
if
that
meant
that
we
haven't
seen
anyone
challenge
it
or
we
haven't
seen
any
reported
decisions
opining
as
to
whether
or
not
that's
the
case,
I'm
just
trying
to
look
at
the
landscape,
because
I
agree,
I
think
I
would
interpret
the
law
and
particularly
the
history.
K
I
don't
see
we
change
things
all
the
time
the
supreme
court
will
give
deference
to
the
to
use
a
word.
I
don't
like
to
use
to
the
legislature
because
we
changed
law
all
the
time
and
the
constitution
doesn't
specify
12
jurors,
it
just
says,
jury
trials.
So
do
you
know,
has
this
ever
been
challenged?
Has
every
anyone
ever
brought
this
to
the
court
and
the
court
declined,
because
that
declination
might
also
be
indicative
of
a
tolerance
for
a
six-person
jury.
S
Please
I'm
sorry,
thank
you.
Kevin
higgins
sparks
justice
court.
I
I'm
unaware
of
any
challenges
to
the
six-person
jurors.
I
know
the
supreme
court's
had
the
opportunity
there
have
been
two
or
three
decisions
addressing
collateral
issues.
Since
anderson
nothing's
been
said
about
the
number
of
jurors,
I
mean
it
hasn't
been
addressed.
S
One
of
my
senior
judges
that
sits
for
us
used
to
sit
at
the
lake
and
reno
in
the
80s.
They
did
jury
trials
and
justice
court.
They
did
them
for
duis
to
my
knowledge,
they
were
six-person,
jurors
and
since
83
our
statute
has
said
in
criminal
cases
in
justice,
court
six-person
jurors
are
appropriate.
So
there
may
very
well,
you
know:
there's
152
000
people
in
my
township
there's
two
million
people
in
in
las
vegas.
S
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you,
your
honor
for
being
here.
One
question
based
on
mr
schiffelok
was
testimony.
If,
if
let's
say
you
went
with
trials
with
just
six
jurors,
is
there
a
risk
of
those
decisions
being
overturned?
If
later
an
appellate
court
says
that
you
know
we
thought
we
were
right,
but
no
you
weren't
right
really
12
is
the
magic
number
that
we
needed.
S
Chair
schreifel,
kevin
higgins,
the
sparks
justice
court.
There
is
some
complicated
case
law
in
the
retroactivity
of
constitutional
rights,
but
I
think
if
the
case
is
concluded
by
the
time
the
supreme
court
says
we
think
12,
I
don't
believe
they're
going
to
retroactively,
go
back
and
change
any
of
the
prior
cases.
S
B
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
If
your
courtroom
was
currently
set
up
to
do
12-person
juries,
would
you
still
be
in
opposition.
S
Well,
I
personally,
no
probably
not,
but
I'm
also
here
on
behalf
of
the
you
know:
95
limited
jurisdiction,
judges
in
nevada.
I
think
some
of
the
bigger
courthouses
could
handle
it.
I'm
just
austin
and
beatty
and
eureka
and
those
those
courts
are
going
to
be
in
trouble.
I
I
don't
think
it's
constitutionally
required
if
you
want
to
make
a
legislative
decision.
That's
required,
of
course,
we'll
do
that.
B
I
guess
my
concern
is
putting
a
price
on
a
constitutional
right.
You
know
I
mean
it's
expensive
to
do
a
jury
trial
in
the
first
place
right
and
at
one
point
those
weren't
required,
and
then
we
forced
everybody
to
get
with
it
because
we
decided
that's
what
people
deserve
right.
So
yeah,
I
I
I
guess.
That's
that's
all!
Well,.
S
In
fact,
just
just
a
brief
response:
kevin
higgins-
I
agree
with
you:
we
shouldn't
put
a
price
on
a
constitutional
right.
I'm
not
sure,
though,
with
saying
that
that
there's
a
constitutional
right
to
12
person
jury
trials
in
justice
court.
If
our
supreme
court
says
that
we're
you
know,
I'm
going
to
be
calling
the
county
and
saying
we
got
to
start
knocking
walls
out,
but
until
that
happens,
I
would
like
to
do
what
is
required.
B
S
I
perhaps
kevin
higgins,
I
understand
there
have
been
some
cases
held
in
in
clark
county.
I
know
the
renal
justice
court
had
two
seated
and
then
the
cases
were
canceled
before
they
happened.
We've
we
called
we're
in
the
process
of
calling
one
jury
before
covid
and
that
got
cancelled.
So
theoretically
it
would.
It
potentially
require
somebody
to
be
convicted
and
and
appeal
it,
but
I
have
not
had
much
luck
asking
supreme
court
justices.
S
A
D
Oh
just
a
quick
apology.
I
had
to
step
out
for
a
minute,
but
I
just
want
to
say
hi
kevin
hickens
and
I
actually
grew
up
together
when
boy
scouts
went
to
sparks
high
school
together.
He
and
alexis
are
friends
too,
and
he
was
sitting
out
there
and
I
didn't
recognize
your
hair
was
darker
last
time.
Yes,
yes,
it
was,
and
I
might
have
had
some
still
it's
been
a
while.
D
A
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
scheible
to
testify
in
opposition
on
assembly
bill
42,
please
press
star,
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
again
to
testify
in
opposition
on
assembly
bill
42,
please
press
star,
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
caller
with
the
last
three
digits:
five
zero.
Two
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and
maybe
again.
R
Chair
scheible
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
dan
reed
d-a-n
d-a-n-r-e-I-d,
with
the
national
rifle
rifle
association
here
in
opposition
today,
while
we
are
appreciative
of
the
bill
and
the
due
process,
protections
and
enhancements
that
it
provides,
our
opposition
is
limited
to
section
13
and
the
expansion
beyond
the
federal
law
for
a
lifetime
fire
armed
prohibition
for
misdemeanor
crimes
of
domestic
violence.
R
We
have
worked
with
the
sponsor
of
this
bill
and
we
will
continue
to
try
and
do
that,
but
with
the
change
in
who
can
be
prohibited
and
for
these
misdemeanor
crimes
that
that's
just
a
bridge
to
par
for
us
and
we
will
be
in
opposition
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
F
O
I
want
to
note
that
we're
not
opposed
to
the
concept
of
allowing
municipal
courts
to
hold
jury
trials
for
domestic
violence
charges,
but
it's
important
to
get
the
details
right.
We
don't
feel
that
the
bill
is
currently
drafted.
Does
that.
I
would
also
note
that
the
whole
reason
we're
here
in
the
first
place
is
that
the
supreme
court
found
that
the
existing
version
of
these
statutes
is
unconstitutional.
O
O
A
F
F
Q
Thank
you
mark
scaflocko.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
committee.
Thank
all
the
those
who
testified
in
both
ways.
I
do
appreciate
the
comments.
The
good
news
is,
it
doesn't
sound,
like
anybody's,
really
opposed
to
the
municipalities
having
the
clear
right
to
do
the
jury
trials
and
move
forward.
So
I
think
that's
a
positive,
a
positive
thing.
I
would
also
like
to
note
that
you
know
I
keep
coming
back
to
the
constitution.
The
right
by
jury
shall
be
secured
to
all
and
remain
in
violate
forever.
Q
It
doesn't
say
just
those
in
a
certain
court.
It
says
to
all
now
that
being
said,
that
is
my
interpretation
and
that's
why
you
know
we
have
the
12..
The
practical
concerns
are
real.
We
will,
with
everyone's
permission,
circle
back
with
the
lcb
legal
team,
see
if
we
can
look
at
this
again
see
if
there's
anything
anybody's
missing
and
if
needs
be,
to
change
that,
but
we'll
definitely
have
that
discussion.
I
do
want
to
thank
everyone
today.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
We
appreciate
you
and
everybody
who
weighed
in
today.
That
concludes
the
hearing
on
ab42.
I
will
now
close
that
hearing
and
we
will
move
on
to
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
present
to
give
public
comment?
I
don't
see
anyone
so
broadcast.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
for
public
comment.