►
Description
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee - April 14, 2021 - House Hearing Room 2
A
C
A
D
B
A
A
F
Excuse
me,
mr
chairman
parliamentary
inquiry,
the
items
that
were
taken
off
notice.
Specifically,
there
were
three
of
them,
I
think
by
chairman
representative
stewart.
Are
we
past
the
deadline
for
those
items
to
be
back
on
the
calendar
this
year,
they've
been
on
the
calendar
several
times
and
since
they
are
off
notice,
is
the
intention
then,
of
the
sponsor
that
he
will
not
by
his
own
choice,
be
going
forward
this
year
with
any
of
those
ideas.
F
E
A
A
Okay,
question's
been
called
on
the
amendment.
Any
objection,
I'm
saying
no
we're
now
voting
on
adding
amendment
number
six,
one
one,
seven
on
the
house
bill,
one
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
those
opposed.
No,
the
ice
prevail
we
adopt.
We
are
now
in
house
bill,
one
as
amended
representative.
Do
you
wish
to
go
out
of
session
at
this
time
to
hear
from
your
witnesses?
Yes,.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
without
objection
we're
going
out
of
session.
Mr
professor
kiel,
if
you
would,
there
is
a
if
you
use
that
podium
right
there.
There's
a
button,
looks
like
someone
talking
there
if
you'll
push
that
turns
your
microphone
on,
introduce
yourself
state
your
name
for
the
record,
who
you're
with
and
then
you'll
have
four
minutes
of
testimony.
G
Is
it
on
we're
good
good
evening?
My
name
is
daniel
keel,
I'm
a
fedex
professor
of
law
at
the
cecil
c
humphrey
school
of
law,
the
university
of
memphis
also
an
associate
director
at
the
benjamin
hooks
institute
for
social
change.
Also
at
the
university
I
teach
constitutional
law
in
in
that
work.
I
have
done
some
writing
and
research
on
the
application
of
the
death
penalty
to
individuals
with
intellectual
disability,
and
so
that
is
the
topic
that
I'm
speaking
on
this
afternoon.
G
G
Many
states
have
followed,
and
thus,
since
1990
it
has
been
unlawful
under
our
state
statutes
to
sentence
an
individual
with
intellectual
disability
to
the
death
penalty.
In
2001,
the
tennessee
supreme
court
went
ahead
of
the
united
states
supreme
court
in
declaring
that
the
execution
of
individuals
with
intellectual
disability
violated
the
state
constitution.
G
in
2011
tennessee
supreme
court,
again
ahead
of
the
of
the
federal
supreme
court
in
determining
that
the
type
of
evidence
available
to
prove
intellectual
disability
must
be
broader
than
what
had
previously
been
utilized.
So
that
has
been
the
case
since
2011
here
in
tennessee.
However,
despite
all
of
this
history
of
being
ahead
of
the
curve,
the
state
has
a
gap
in
its
intellectual
disability
law
with
regard
to
the
death
penalty.
G
Because
of
the
timeline
of
the
changes
in
when
someone
could
be
sentenced
with
someone
with
an
intellectual
disability
could
be
sentenced
and
what
evidence
would
be
available
to
prove
intellectual
disability.
There
are
some
individuals
on
death
row
here
in
our
state
who
have
credible
claims
of
intellectual
disability
that
have
never
been
heard.
G
G
While
the
supreme
court
has
recognized
this
problem,
the
tennessee
supreme
court
has
recognized
this
problem.
It
has
not
been
able
to
settle
on
a
solution
in
a
2016
case
that
rejected
a
request
by
an
individual
for
a
hearing
on
whether
or
not
he
had
intellectual
disabilities
and
thus
was
ineligible
for
the
death
penalties.
G
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir,
for
being
here
today.
We
appreciate
it
since
you're
a
professor.
Obviously
you
help
guide
kind
of
young
minds
on
how
they
think
about
these
issues
and
to
better
help
us
understand
kind
of
the
your
testimony
today
and
how
it
could
be
taken.
I
mean:
do
you
support
or
oppose
the
death
penalty,
just
kind
of
in
general,
I'm
trying
to
understand
kind
of
what
frame
of
reference
the
testimony
comes
from.
G
F
So
fair
enough
to
say,
then
anything
that
makes
it
more
difficult
for
the
death
penalty
to
be
and
actually
implemented
would
be
something
that
would
be
better
to
put
in
our
laws,
in
your
opinion,
put
as
many
obstacles
so
to
speak,
so
that
we
ensure
that
every
single
avenue
is
exercised
before
that
potential
penalty.
Work,
which
is
obviously
the
final
penalty
that
could
be
utilized,
would
be
carried
out.
F
A
F
G
Sure
there
is,
it
is
unconstitutional
under
our
state
constitution,
since
2001
and
unconstitutional,
under
the
federal
constitution
since
2002,
to
move
forward
with
execution
of
an
individual
with
intellectual
disabilities.
There
are
some
individuals
on
death
row
in
tennessee
who
have
credible
claims
that
they
would
qualify
as
individuals
with
intellectual
disability.
The
execution
of
those
individuals
should
they
have
intellectual
disability
would
be
unconstitutional.
G
Thus
far,
there
hasn't
been
an
opportunity
for
these
pre-1990
sentenced
individuals
to
provide
evidence
of
intellectual
disability.
This
would
provide
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
It
would
provide
the
court
with
an
opportunity
to
determine
whether
or
not
individuals
have
intellectual
disability
and
therefore
would
be
eligible
or
ineligible
for
the
death
penalty.
So
an
execution
of
an
individual
with
intellectual
disability,
which
is
plausible
under
our
current
law,
would
be
unconstitutional.
B
H
G
H
Not
really
just
want
to
know
what
the
constitution
says
about
the
death
penalty.
You've
used
the
term
constitution
several
times
and
I'd
like
to
know
what
part
of
the
constitution
that
you're
talking
about
when
you're
talking
about
the
death
penalty,
because
I
don't
really
think
the
constitution
addresses
per
se
the
death
penalty.
Yes,.
H
Wouldn't
that
be
your
de
the
definition
of
it,
because
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
doesn't
have
to
be
death
penalty.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
the
death
penalty
could
be
imposed
because
that
it
was
just
and
right,
so
it
wouldn't
be
considered
cruel
and
unusual
punishment.
So
again,
where
do
you
find
the
death
penalty
in
the
constitution?
I
don't
think
that
you
can
use
the
constitution
without
coming
up
with
the
actual
wording
in
the
constitution.
G
H
So
the
supreme
court
is
not
the
constitution,
it's
just
an
opinion
of
that
court
and
they
may
rule
on
it
and
that
rule
may
stand
until
another
jurisprudence
comes
along
or
court
comes
along
and
changes
it
so
again,
you're
not
finding
the
death
penalty
in
the
constitution.
So
my
statement
is
this:
don't
use
something
that's
not
there
and
try
to
make
it
appear
like
that
you're
using
the
constitution,
and
it's
unconstitutional.
H
You
can't
find
something
unconstitutional,
that's
not
in
the
constitution
to
begin
with,
and
so
the
wording,
it's
kind
of
like
the
separation
of
church
and
state.
It's
not
in
the
constitution,
it's
not
in
our
founding
documents,
but
it's
used
very
liberally
and
makes
people
think
that
it's
part
of
our
founding
documents
when
it's
not
so
that's
my
point-
don't
be
using
the
constitution
along
with
the
death
penalty,
because
it's
not
in
there
and
that's
my
point.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
professor
kiel,
for
being
here.
You
indicated
that
you
know
of
one
person
on
death
row
that
this
legislation
would
impact.
Is
that
purpose
pain?
That
is
the
person
I'm
aware
of
yes,
okay,
and
you
mentioned
about
the
supreme
court
in,
I
believe
it's
purpose
pains
is
appeal.
I
I
D
G
I
G
Don't
think
that
the
I
don't
I
can't
say
for
certain
what
the
tennessee
supreme
court
said
with
regard
to
that,
but
I
do
know
that
there
hasn't
been
an
evidentiary
hearing
whatsoever
on
that.
The
the
point
that
I
believe
was
being
pursued
was
to
try
to
get
a
finding
with
regard
to
intellectual
disability,
and
that
did
not
happen.
I
And
thank
you
and
for
clarity,
so
everyone
understands
mr
payne
and
his
attorneys
had
a
a
chance
to
raise
his
intellectual
disability
at
trial
level,
post,
direct
appeal,
supreme
court,
post,
conviction
and
then
federal
habeas,
and
I
think
it
wasn't
until
after
his
federal
habits,
he
came
back
to
supreme
court
on
this
additional
motion
for
the
intellectual
disabilities.
Is
that
does
that
fairly
summarize
your
recollection
of
how
his
case
proceeded
through
the
criminal,
the
justice
process?
I.
G
Believe
that
he
raised
the
intellectual
disability
claim
after
the
tennessee
supreme
court
in
2011
amended
how
intellectual
disability
is
interpreted,
so
I
think
there
was
a
one-year
period
after
that
and
I
believe
that's
when
he
raised
the
intellectual
disability
claim
because
of
the
adjusted
definition.
That's
my
understanding,
I'm
not
representing
him.
So
I
don't
know
and.
I
Look
I
I
thank
you
and
part
of
the
reason
I
bring
these
things
up.
Is
these
cases
are
extremely
complicated
and
tedious
and
they
get
down
in
the
legal
weeds
and
but
it's
and
there's,
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
there's
are
folks
that
are
opposed
fundamentally
to
the
death
penalty
and
they
are
well
funded
and
they
try
to
help
these
individuals
that
are
sentenced
to
the
death
penalty
and
the
victims.
I
You
know
they
generally
don't
have
someone
in
their
corner
advocating
for
the
death
penalty,
they
they
move
on
with
their
lives
and
have
to
just
sit
back
and
watch
the
consequences,
and
I
just
hope
we
all
remember
the
victims
when
we
consider
amending
state
statutes
to
giving
people
additional
chances
at
the
apple.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
coming,
appreciate
you
and
nice
talking
with
you
look
forward
to
meet
you
again
soon.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
F
I
failed
to
mention
earlier
by
the
way
you
don't
know
who
I'm
talking
about
it
doesn't
matter,
but
some
of
your
former
students
have
actually
bragged
on
you
to
me.
So
just
so.
You
know
that
I
actually
didn't
realize
that
students
stepped
up
to
the
microphone,
but
I
know
you
only
by
reputation
like
I
said:
we've
not
met
before,
but
some
of
your
former
students
have
bragged
about
you
and
spoke
in
very
glowing
terms
on
your
performance
as
a
professor
and
that
they
learned
a
lot
from
you.
So
I
appreciate
your
work
there.
F
J
F
G
G
Yes,
the
justification
for
the
finding
in
2001
in
the
tennessee
supreme
court
and
in
2002
in
the
federal
supreme
court
was
that
individuals
with
intellectual
disabilities
are
not
able
to
participate
in
their
defense
to
the
same
extent
as
they
might
otherwise.
In
addition,
there's
questions
about
culpability
with
regard
to
individuals
with
intellectual
disability
and
the
thought
that
the
imposition
of
the
death
penalty
would
not
serve
its
penalogical
purposes
for
such
individuals.
G
G
At
that
time,
the
definition
of
what
constituted
intellectual
disability
was
fairly
rigid
and
included.
Circumstances
such
that
any
test
in
which
an
individual's
iq
was
deemed
over
70
would
make
someone
ineligible
to
be
found
to
have
intellectual
disability.
So
I
believe
in
mr
payne's
case,
there
had
been
such
at
least
one
test
in
2001
when
the
van
tran
case
changed
the
law.
G
Here
it
was
not
until
2011,
I
believe
it's
the
coleman
case
when
the
tennessee
supreme
court
adjusted
what
must
be
considered
evidentiarily
in
terms
of
proving
intellectual
disability,
so
that
the
70
would
not
sort
of
per
se
make
someone
ineligible
to
become
to
be
considered
with
individ
intellectual
disability.
And
so
it
was
at
that
time
after
that,
evidentiary
change
that
I
believe
mr
payne
brought
his
claim
that
he
was
ineligible
for
execution
due
to
intellectual
disability.
G
In
addition,
I
know
that,
after
the
2002
federal
supreme
court
case
with
regard
to
intellectual
disability,
approximately
seven
percent
of
individuals
on
death
row
brought
claims,
and
so
a
significant
number
brought
claims
claiming
that
they
were
ineligible
for
execution
due
to
intellectual
disability
and
a
significant
number,
maybe
as
many
as
40
of
those
7
percent
were
deemed
to
be
intellectually
disabled
and
therefore
ineligible.
For
the
death
penalty.
C
Specifically,
he
asked
me
to
look
at
the
interrelationship
between
race
and
intellectual
disability
claims
and
the
death
penalty,
and
I
am
embarrassed
to
say
that,
even
though
I
do
live
in
these
legal
weeds
every
day,
I
did
not
know
that
80
of
the
people
with
intellectual
disability
claims
are
people
of
color,
that's
an
astoundingly
high
rate,
and
so
we
already
know
from
studies
about
the
death
penalty.
That
race
does
play
a
role
and
I'm
not
saying
intentionally.
C
I'm
just
saying
we
know
it's
a
fact.
The
studies
show
it
so
folks
with
intellectual
disability,
who
are
people
of
color.
The
deck
is
doubly
stacked
against
them,
and
we
also
know
that
25
of
the
people
who
have
been
exonerated
found
innocent
were
people
with
intellectual
disability,
so
when
the
u.s
supreme
court
decided
that
it
was
unconstitutional
to
execute
or
that
it
violated
the
eighth
amendment's
prohibition
against
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
to
speak
more
specifically
to
execute
people
with
intellectual
disability.
C
So
in
2016,
when
the
court
looked
at
the
pain
case,
they
did
not
find
that
mr
payne
waived
his
claim
and
in
fact
they
said
in
that
case,
and
also
the
keem
case-
that
the
state
of
tennessee
has
no
interest
no
interest
in
the
execution
of
people
with
intellectual
disability,
because
this
is
not
a
procedural
issue.
It's
a
substantive
issue.
So
what
I
would
draw
your
analogy
to
would
be
a
case
that
came
out
a
few
years
after
atkins,
which
is
the
roper
versus
simmons
case.
C
It's
an
easier
analogy
because
it
deals
with
not
executing
children.
So
if
somebody
was
convicted
and
sentenced
to
death
and
their
birth
certificate
wrongfully
said
that
they
were
18
years
old
in
one
day,
they
could
be
sentenced
to
death
and
if
they
got
up
to
their
execution
date,
and
somebody
went
back
in
the
records
and
found
out,
no,
they
were
actually
17
years
old.
You
couldn't
execute
them
period,
paragraph
at
the
end.
C
You
can't
waive
that
substantive
claim
and
that's
really
what
the
court
was
saying
in
the
paying
case,
which
was
why
they
were
saying
that
this
body
should
take
up
the
cause,
and
you
should
be
applauded
for
doing
that.
As
the
former
solicitor
general
of
the
united
states,
ken
starr
told
you
in
his
testimony
to
this
body
when
he
supported
this
claim,
as
did
the
american
bar
association,
who
told
you
that
this
legislation
needed
to
happen,
as
did
the
person
who
wrote
our
statute
in
1990.
C
Now
mr
payne
could
not
file
an
intellectual
disability
claim
under
the
statute,
because
the
1990
statute
was
not
retroactive.
The
court
specifically
found
that
mr
payne
was
convicted
in
1988,
so
that
prohibition
did
not
exist
at
the
time
of
his
conviction.
He
was
not
allowed
to
raise
the
claim
in
post-conviction
either.
Nor
was
he
able
to
raise
the
claim
in
habeas
and
in
fact,
at
the
time
that
atkins
was
decided,
he
had
been
granted
habeas
relief
in
federal
court.
At
the
time
atkins
was
decided.
He
wasn't
actually
under
a
capital
sentence.
C
E
C
Yes,
sir,
the
death
penalty
information
center,
which
is
a
nonpartisan,
think
tank
that
does
not
take
a
position
on
the
death
penalties.
Most
recent
study,
which
came
out
in
2020,
I
think,
just
at
the
end
of
the
year,
established
that
there
is
a
disparity
both
from
the
charging
decision,
all
the
way
to
the
decision
of
who
jurors
decide
to
impose
the
death
sentence
on
and
who
is
actually
executed.
The
race
of
the
victim
is
the
number
one
factor
that
will
predict
who's
actually
executed.
80
percent
of
the
people
who've
actually
been
executed
in
the
country.
C
C
Absolutely
basically,
the
citizens
of
the
state
of
tennessee
are
paying
for
the
political
will
of
just
a
couple
of
prosecutors
in
this
country.
Shelby
county
has
earned
this
count
in
the
state.
Shelby
county
accounts
for
more
than
half
of
tennessee's
death
row.
That's
why
I
represent
all
of
these
folks.
The
tennessee
citizenry
actually
has
not
been
imposing
death
sentences.
We've
only
had
one
or
two
new
death
sentences
in
the
past
decade
and
since
2007,
eight
of
the
nine
death
sentences
have
been
people
of
color
and
almost
every
single
new
death
sentence.
C
E
C
C
Yes,
sir,
and
I
would
also
say
this
is
not
going
to
open
any
floodgates,
I'm
too
busy.
I
represent
all
these
guys
and
this
isn't
going
to
be
the
state
post,
conviction,
defender's
office,
doing
it.
This
is
going
to
be
my
office
and
I'm
too
busy
I'm
not
going
to
be
filing
claims
that
aren't
going
to
go
anywhere,
because
I
don't
have
time-
and
I
don't
have
the
money
to
do
it.
So
this
is
just
going
to
address
a
problem
that
exists.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
miss
henry
for
being
here,
and
I
appreciate
your
passion
for
your
client
and
your
zealousness,
and
I
applaud
you
for
that.
I
I
I
just
want
to
clarify
something
because
from
your
presentation
it
sounds
like
that
mr
payne
has
had
no
opportunity
to
ever
raise
the
issue
of
his
intellectual
disability
in
any
of
his
proceedings.
To
date
is
that.
C
I
Mr
well
didn't
the
supreme
court
in
his
2016
appeal
indicate.
We
concluded
that
a
defendant
who
had
been
sentenced
to
death
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
the
intellectual
disability
statute
could
move
to
reopen
a
previously
filed
post-conviction
petition
on
the
basis
of
the
new
and
retroactive
constitutional
ruling
that
we
issued
in
the
van
tran
decision.
C
But
mr
payne
could
not
have
I
mean
he
could
have
physically
filed
it.
He
could
have
written
a
piece
of
paper
and
filed
it.
I'm
not
saying
he
couldn't
two
things
one.
He
wasn't
under
a
sentence
of
death,
he'd,
gotten
penalty
phase
relief,
but
second,
our
statute
didn't
cover
him
because
it
was
unconstitutional.
C
So,
yes,
he
could
have
filed
a
feudal
document,
but
it
wouldn't
have
gotten
them
anywhere,
because
our
statute
did
not
meet
constitutional
muster
at
that
time,
which
is
why
the
court
in
that
case
said
we
urge
the
legislature
in
purvis
paine's
case.
They
urged
you
all
to
adopt
this
legislation,
which
is
before
you
today.
I
Well,
I
appreciate
that
and
these
cases
are
extremely
complex
and
I
just
quickly
read
the
opinion,
so
I
don't
know
all
the
facts
in
history
of
mr
payne's
case.
I
quickly
read
the
supreme
court
decision.
It
appeared
to
me
that
they
were
saying
there
was
an
opportunity
for
him
to
raise
it
and
it
appeared
that
he
did
not,
for
whatever
reason
I
don't
know
if
he
had
counsel
at
that
point
or
what
their
other
circumstances
what
I
am
concerned
about.
You
know.
I
I
think
you
may
agree
with
me
that
folks,
that
advocate
against
the
death
penalty,
use
any
and
all
means
to
try
to
keep
people
from
being
put
to
death
based
upon
a
criminal
sentence
that
is
opposed
by
a
jury
in
tennessee
so
and
every
time
there's
a
new
case.
It
seems
like
the
ball
kind
of
gets
moved
a
little
bit
and
we
all
have
to
adjust
based
on
what
the
sixth
circuit
does,
the
supreme
court
tennessee
supreme
court.
So
it
seems
like
it's
a
never
ongoing
legal
battle
that
never
ends.
I
C
And
so
you're
from
paris
tennessee,
so
you
remember
the
robert
co-case
and
I
was
very
familiar
with
and
you
know
I
get
those
arguments
all
the
time.
Oh
you're,
just
against
the
death
penalty,
you're
just
going
to
try
and
pull
out
any
trick.
You
can
so
I
hired
the
prosecutor,
the
witne,
the
expert
that
the
prosecution
used
in
the
robert
co-case
to
evaluate
purpose
pain.
For
exactly
that
reason,
we
don't
just
file
any
old
thing.
We
do
what
we
need
to
do
to
represent
our
clients.
Well,.
I
C
What
the
expert
says
that
the
prosecution
relied
on
is
that
every
single
score,
when
properly
reviewed
under
clinical
standards
is
70
or
below
so
the
reported
number
is
the
problem
and
and
focusing
on
the
reported
number
is
how
tennessee
gets
into
trouble,
which
is
why
we
are
the
only
state
in
the
country.
Who's,
never
granted.
Relief
under
atkins.
C
There
was
another
version
of
it
that
was
being
bandied
about,
that
would
that
used
the
phrase
current
and
that
got
taken
out
of
it
for
exactly
that
reason,
so
that
this
is
the
only
bite
at
the
apple
that
these
guys
are
going
to
get.
If
the
word
current
stayed
in
it,
I
honestly
was
telling
folks
don't
use
current,
because
then
I
could
keep
coming
back.
C
A
There
is
other
legislation
out
there
and-
and
I've
been
trying
to
do
some,
compare
and
contrast
to
the
two
in
comparison
to
this
amendment
that
we
just
adopted
earlier
sets
a
one
year
effective
date,
one
year
within
this
act,
whereas
that
other
does
not
have
that
time
constraint
on
there.
Are
you
familiar
with
this
other?
I
know
I
recognized
you
as
being
in
the
room
on
that
day,
and
so
I
I'm
just
curious.
If
you
can
speak
to
that.
C
I've
been
trying
to
get
a
copy
of
the
amendment
on
house
bill
1062.
I
have
not
been
able
to
see
what
the
current
state
of
that
amendment
is.
So
I
don't
know
if
it
has
the
one
year.
I
do
know
that,
having
worked
with
representative
hardaway,
that
the
one
year
was
important
to
the
da's
conference
and
to
the
attorney
general's
office.
A
K
K
The
motion
must
set
forth
a
colorable
claim
that
the
defendant
is
ineligible
for
the
death
penalty
due
to
intellectual
disability.
Either
party
may
appeal
the
trial
court's
decision
in
accordance
with
rule
3
of
the
tennessee
rules
of
appellate
procedure,
and
then
it
adds
a
subdivision
g2
which
states
a
defendant
shall
not
file
a
motion
under
subdivision
g1.
If
the
issue
of
whether
the
defendant
has
an
intellectual
disability
has
been
previously
adjudicated
on
the
merits
in
this
committee
as
to
house
bill
1,
the
committee
just
added
an
amendment
with
draft
code
6117.
K
If
the
trial
court
determines
that
the
petition
sets
forth
a
colorable
claim,
then
the
court
shall
order
a
hearing
at
which
the
state
and
the
defendant
may
present
witnesses
and
evidence
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
The
courts
shall
issue
written
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
either
party
may
appeal
the
trial
court's
decision
in
accordance
with
rule
3
of
the
tennessee
rules
of
appellate
procedure,
and
it
also
adds
a
subdivision
g2,
which
is
consistent
with
house
bill.
1062
amendment
that
we
adopted,
so
the
different
language
is.
J
K
K
I
I
You:
haven't
really
had
the
opportunity
to
sit
down
and
maybe
study
both
bills,
but
it
sounds
like
the
bill
that
representative
hardaway
is
proposing
would
have
a
one
year
period
that
people
must
fight
within
that
one
year
or
they
are
going
to
waive.
That
claim.
Would
you
does
that
seem?
It
seems
like
that.
That's
probably
this
version
is
maybe
a
little
more
restricted
than
the
other
version
from
the
other
bill
that
was
discussed.
C
F
F
If
we're
going
to
execute
someone,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
every
opportunity
has
been
taken
whether
we
pass
this
bill
or
not.
I
mean
there
are
a
lot
of
procedures
out
there
to
make
sure
that
those
that
are
being
executed
are
guilty
of
the
offense
that
that
they've
been
found
guilty
of
and
that
the
proper
procedures
of
the
court
system
were
taken
to
ensure
that
that
you
know
the
worst
situation
would
not
occur,
and
then
an
innocent
person
be
executed,
and
so
I
appreciate
the
job
you
do.
Thank
you
for
it.
F
I
cannot
imagine,
and
most
of
us
cannot
imagine
how
extremely
difficult
it
is
on
you
and,
quite
frankly,
on
the
attorneys
in
the
attorney
general's
office
that
many
times
you're
against
to
handle
these
type
of
cases
they're
all
heartbreaking
and
everybody
loses
because
of
the
heinous
nature
of
these
crimes,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
I
appreciate
the
job
that
you
do.
It's
extremely
difficult.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
our
guests.
All
right,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
very
much.
You
and
I
have
met
before
on
on
this
issue
and
discussed
this
and
and
you've
been
very
diligent
in
coming
to
our
meetings
that
we've
had
and
working
with,
representative
hardaway.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
efforts
in
this
in
this
endeavor.
I.
A
E
E
You
also
have
heard
the
the
testimony
that
those
who
are
intellectually
disabled
are
more
at
risk
because
of
the
deficiencies
in
tennessee
state
law.
Current
tca
you've
heard
testimony
of
the
unconstitutionality
of
executing
the
intellectually
disabled,
so
black
caucus
has
seen
all
of
these
issues
and
has
taken
it
upon
themselves
to
make
sure
that
we
filed
the
very
first
piece
of
legislation
for
the
112th
general
assembly
to
address
this
issue.
E
A
L
You,
mr
chairman
of
committee
and
good
evening,
to
the
rest
of
you
well,
this
bill
seeks
to
add
more
teeth
into
the
law
to
drivers
who
are
caught
repeatedly
on
revoked
and
suspended
license.
Currently,
the
first
offense
is
a
class
b
misdemeanor
and
the
second
subsequent
offenses
are
class,
a
misdemeanors,
and
this
bill
changes
the
third
and
subsequent
fences
after
that
to
class
e
felonies.
Ultimately,
we
just
want
to
increase
the
penalty.
Try
to,
hopefully
deter
repeat
offenders.
L
This
bill
was
actually,
I
think
about
two
three
weeks
ago.
We
actually
brought
it
up
and
had
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
it,
and
we
had
a
few
people
that
had
some
concerns
and
we
went
back
and
forth
and
talked
about
those.
I
don't
know
that
any
of
those
concerns
are
necessarily
have
have
been
remedied,
but
I
want
to
move
forward
if
there's
any
way
possible.
Mr
chairman,
okay,.
B
B
F
All
right,
so
I
feel
kind
of
compelled
to
speak
on
this
I
mean
I
carried
the
bill
a
couple
of
years
ago.
That
debate
was
a
mitchell
traffic
offender,
a
butcher,
motor
motor
vehicle
offender,
and
it
left
a
bit
of
a
gap
in
the
statue
for
those
that
are
just
flagrantly
disregard
the
fact
that
their
license
has
been
revoked.
F
So
this
is
a
much
cleaner
way
to
accomplish
that.
If
you
have
someone
that,
just
over
and
over
and
over
again
gets
out
there
and
disregards
the
fact
that
they've
lost
their
license
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
I
will
say.
I
hope
that
the
court
system
will
always
work
with
someone
if
they're
in
court
on
a
driving
revoke
license
to
figure
out
why
it's
revoked
and
help
them
get
their
license
back.
That's
the
courts
that
I
practice
in,
and
I
don't
know
about
the
other
attorneys
on
the
committee,
but
the
courts
that
I
practice
in.
F
A
K
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
sponsor.
I
understand
the
intent
of
the
legislation.
I
I
just
want
you
to
understand
where
I
am
today.
I
know
we've
talked
about
this
before,
but
our
good
friend
judge
carter
in
civil
justice
committee
earlier
this
year
told
a
story
about
a
man
that
he
referred
to
as
tiny.
D
He
needed
to
work
to
feed
his
family,
and
so
this
is
an
issue
that
I
know
I've
worked
with
judge
carter
on
before
and,
unfortunately
I
think
this
bill
paints
too
broad
of
a
brush
for
me.
You
know
if
we
were
to
limit
it
to
certain
offenses
or
something
like
that,
but
unfortunately
this
will
pull
in
folks
who
just
simply
cannot
afford
to
pay
the
fine
in
the
fee.
And
so
I
just
those
are
my
concerns.
D
L
Subsection
a
it
gives
the
which,
which
is
referred
to
in
the
bill
it
talks
about
the
canceled
suspended
or
revoked
because
of
a
conviction
of
vehicular
assault,
vehicular
homicide
or
driving,
while
under
intoxicated,
shall
be
punished.
So
it's
my
understanding
that
there's
three
conditions
there
that
can
be
you
can
lose
the
license
or
have
those
revoked.
L
A
A
J
Thank
you
chairing
committee.
I
thank
you
for
your
indulgence
today.
As
we
talk
about
house
bill
221
and
what
house
bill
221
does
it
requires
a
court
to
grant
judicial
diversion
for
position
of
less
than
an
ounce
of
marijuana,
regardless
of
the
prior
or
the
defendant,
is
prior
criminal
conviction
convictions.
J
Zero
of
those
were
related
to
marijuana,
and
I'm
talking
about
all
this
to
let
everyone
know
about
how
marijuana
is
not
one
of
those
drugs
that
did
harm
as
many
others
do.
The
main
drug
that
caused
45
percent
of
deaths
in
tennessee
was
fentanyl,
not
marijuana
and
also,
according
to
the
very
institute
of
justice
in
2016
tennessee
made
eight
thousand
seven
hundred
fourteen
arrests
from
from
position
and
another
two
thousand
five
hundred
and
six
for
sales
arrest,
which
total
twenty
one
thousand
for
marijuana.
J
J
Also,
you
have
states
like
mississippi
that
pass
medical
marijuana
with
68
of
the
vote,
so
I
I
bring.
I
bring
this
bill
here
today
and
I
also
look
forward
to
working
with
members
of
this
body,
our
law
enforcement,
our
da's
and
all
other
stakeholders
over
over
the
summer
and
over
another
period
of
time.
B
J
B
B
F
F
A
A
D
D
Thank
you
very
much
members.
This
bill,
as
amended,
was
brought
to
me
by
one
of
my
public
defenders.
His
name
is
travis
jones
down
in
murray
county.
I
know
general
cooper
who's
with
us
here
in
the
building
today
knows
him
and
it
seeks
to
clean
up
a
process
that
is
really
already
current
law
when
a
judge
sentences,
someone
to
probation
for
more
than
one
offense,
the
judge
sentences
the
defendant
to
either
concurrent
or
consecutive
probation
sentences.
D
Concurrent
sentences
are
intended
to
be
served
at
the
same
time,
while
consecutive
sentences
must
be
served
one
after
the
other.
If
an
offender's
probation
is
revoked
and
the
two
sentences
are
to
be
served
in
the
same
jurisdiction,
the
process
is
relatively
straightforward.
The
offender
either
serves
a
sentence
at
the
same
time
or
back
to
back,
unfortunately,
for
offenders
with
probation
sentences
in
multiple
jurisdictions.
The
separate
sentences
do
not
officially
begin
until
each
judge
revokes
probation.
D
This
glitch
in
the
system
leads
to
enormous
losses
of
both
time
and
money
spent
transferring
offenders
from
jurisdiction
to
jurisdiction
in
order
for
their
sentences
to
be
officially
revoked
for
concurrent
sentences.
These
transfers
and
delays
in
the
judicial
process
mean
that
an
offender
could
end
up
serving
more
time
than
their
sentence
authorized
for
consecutive
sentences.
D
A
For
that
explanation,
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
on
this
amendment
motion
has
been
called
our
question.
Okay,
are
you
out
of
service?
Tonight
too,
question
has
been
called
on
the
amendment,
any
objection,
seeing
none
we're
now
voting
to
adopt
amendment
number
six,
seven,
four,
four
on
the
house
bill,
1183,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
as
opposed
no
the
ice
prevail.
A
Will
you
adopt
we're
on
house
bill
1183,
as
amended
question
has
been
called
any
objection,
seeing
none
we're
now
voting
to
send
house
bill
1183
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye,
those
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
prevailed
and
you
move
on
the
full
criminal.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
committee.
B
A
A
You
wish
to
proceed
with
that.
I'm
sorry!
Mr
chairman
members,
I
got
so
excited.
I
got
ahead
of
myself.
There's
a
there's,
an
amendment
drafted
code,
four,
five,
five:
zero.
That
is
correct.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
that
amendment.
Thank
you.
The
question's
been
called
on
the
amendment.
Any
objection,
seeing
none
we're
now
voting
to
add
amendment
number
four:
five:
five:
zero
on
the
house
bill,
1121.
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye
aye,
as
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
A
If
we
adopt,
we
are
now
on
house
bill
1121,
as
amended
question
has
been
called
any
objection,
seeing
no
we're
now
voting
on
sending
house
bill
1121
on
the
full
criminal,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye.
Those
opposed
no
the
eyes
prevail.
Now
you
move
on
the
full
criminal
item.
Number
13,
1319
by
representative
hardaway.
A
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
sponsoring
the
legislation.
Let
me
ask
you
this:
could
would
the
notice
be
satisfied
if
the
the
judge
or
the
court
personnel
simply
handed
a
a
card
to
anybody,
that's
convicted
of
a
misdemeanor,
here's
a
list
of
the
expungable
offenses,
and
this
is
what
you
got
to
do?
Would
that
satisfy
the
notice.
E
I
Then
what
you've
indicated
to
me
that
unless
they
take
steps
to
prohibit
that
procedure,
it
seems
like
handing
a
card
to
the
defendant,
saying
hey
if
you're
convicted
of
any
of
these
offenses,
you
are
eligible
for
expungement
and
that
would
satisfy
the
the
intent
and
the
notice
of
this
bill
is.
That
is
that
something
would
you
disagree
with
that.
B
A
A
A
E
A
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
objective
for
house
bill
1323
is
to
make
sure
that,
when
we
have
victims
of
domestic
violence,
especially
that
they
know
what
their
options
are
in
terms
of
showing
up
at
the
the
hearing
for
bail
to
and
the
the
other
options
that
are
available,
that
we've
already
got
in
statute,
this
would
just
give
them
that
information
in
a
written
form
so
that
they
can
take
advantage
of
their
their
rights.
A
Thank
you.
Would
you
mind
withdrawing
that
motion?
Thank
you.
I
I,
I
did
have
a
question
for
the
sponsor
on
this.
Unless
there's
anyone
else
that
had
a
question
before
that,
but
representative
hardaway,
my
question
to
you
is:
is
this
what,
if,
in
a
county
that
they
do
not
use
the
gps
monitoring
systems?
Would
this
cause
someone
who
has
made
bail
for
that
charge
of
domestic
violence
to
have
to
sit
in
jail,
waiting
on
a
service
provider
from
another
county
or
somewhere
across
the
state,
to
come
in
to
attach
this
monitor?
E
Thank
you
for
the
question,
mr
chairman.
This
doesn't
address
the
actual
implementation
of
the
gps
monitoring
system,
just
notice
to
the
victim
at
the
the
time,
the
location
of
the
incident
itself
in
a
form
that
they
can
maintain
written
form
and
be
able
to
review
it
later.
It
in
no
way
forces
any
of
the
the
counties,
the
law
enforcement
agencies
to
do
anything
different
other
than
what
they're
doing
right
now
in
terms
of
gps
monitoring
devices.
Okay,.