|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On Wednesday, HB307, or the Speedy Trial Act, was favorably reported by the House Judiciary Committee with one amendment. Its Senate equivalent, SB178, was also approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
HB307 “gives the chief justice of the Supreme Court in conjunction with the district attorney and attorney general’s office the ability to either shift a sitting judge from another county, or alternatively to take a retired judge and place them there in order to clear some of this backlog,” Rep. Jim Hill, R-Moody, explained to the House committee.
During the committee meeting, Hill also introduced an amendment that would allow presiding circuit judges to reassign cases to “any other circuit or district judge in the circuit without regard to division or specialty.” After this sole proposed amendment was adopted, the committee unanimously voted to favorably recommend the bill to the House.
Hill told APR last week that he introduced HB307 to address the “constitutional issues about not trying criminal cases in a speedy manner.” Under both the U.S. Constitution and section 6 of the Alabama state constitution, anyone charged with a crime has a right to a “speedy” trial.
The legislation has also been endorsed by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who told local news channels yesterday that it would mean “greater flexibility for us, especially when we’re using retired judges.”
In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, asked, “Is [SB178] to include funding for additional resources that go along with additional judges?”
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, responded by pointing out that the bill creates a “Speedy Trial Fund” that the Chief Justice could draw from to pay for visiting judges’ expenses.
After Coleman-Madison’s question was addressed, the bill was quickly favorably reported to the Senate.
Rep. Hill’s split sentencing bill, HB43, was also given a public hearing during the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. HB43 would grant judges more latitude in issuing split sentences, or sentences for Class A or B felonies split between prison time and parole.
One committee member, Sen. Lance Bell, R-Pell City, opined that under Alabama’s current laws, he and his fellow senators on the committee could all receive a 30 year sentence and get out at different times. “There’s no rhyme or reason why that happens,” he complained.
Beginning with Bell’s comments, most of the committee’s discussion focused on how long people convicted of felonies would be required to serve in jail, and if they could be released early. Under Alabama law, defendants who receive split sentences are not eligible for parole or other deductions from their sentence during the time in prison they are sentenced to serve.
Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, called HB43 a “good bill” and said that “at some point in time you just gotta remove people.”
During the public comment period, Wanda Miller, the executive director of Victims of Crime and Leniency, told the committee her “phone has been ringing off the hook” with people complaining about “the chipping away of punishment.” Other speakers who opposed the bill spoke about their personal experiences and fears of offenders being released early.
Arguing in favor of HB43, circuit judge Jeff Kelley called the bill “another tool, in the right cases, to be able to dispense justice for the victims as well as to the defendants.”
Nettie Blume, representing the Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, also spoke in favor of the proposed legislation and suggested it be amended to allow judges to reconsider past sentences. Rep. Hill and some senators on the committee clarified that they would not support making the bill retroactive.
HB43 will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. HB307 and SB178 now need to be passed by the House and the Senate.
