Shh…don’t look now…
but the Judiciary Committee is in full swing again and is considering several important bills again. Here’s a listing of the bills up for public hearing today, with some links to submitted testimony. I’ll have more on specific bills as they progress.
S.B. No. 348 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE VIDEOTAPING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS. (JUD)
S.B. No. 349 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA. (JUD)
S.B. No. 357 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION. (JUD)
S.B. No. 537 (COMM) AN ACT PROVIDING COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION SERVICES TO END-OF-SENTENCE INMATES. (JUD)
S.B. No. 543 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCE REVIEW Modifications. (JUD)
S.B. No. 1159 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING PRISON POPULATION.
H.B. No. 6031 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING PAROLE AND PROBATION TRANSPARENCY. (JUD)
H.B. No. 6341 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL.
H.B. No. 6342 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING DISEASE PREVENTION IN THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. (JUD)
H.B. No. 6581 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF DRUGS NEAR SCHOOLS, DAY CARE CENTERS AND PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS.
H.B. No. 6624 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES.
H.B. No. 6685 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE REPORTING OF INMATE POPULATION DENSITY AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY SPECIFIC DATA.
H.B. No. 6697 (RAISED) AN ACT ESTABLISHING A SENTENCING COMMISSION.
H.B. No. 6704 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING PRISON OVERCROWDING.
H.B. No. 6706 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING RESCISSION OF PROBATION.
The submitted written testimony in each of these cases can be found here.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on March 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm, and is filed under ct legal news, ct state law, eyewitness id, prison overcrowding, proposed legislation. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 1 year ago
And, as it is Spring, heeeeere comes the Mary Jane bill!
about 1 year ago
I’m not sure the drafters of the eyewitness bill understand the research on fillers — the idea is to make the fillers match the descriptions of the culprit (the guy/gal the witnesses saw) without making the suspect stand out. The witness description tells you want was important to them — so if the description says 5’2 and heavy set — the fillers should be of a similar size/build — unless the suspect (however he or she was picked) doesn’t fit that description.
Also would be important that the suspect and fillers all be in neutral clothing. If the witness describes the culprit as, to take your recent poll, wearing a black hoodie — the suspect shouldn’t be the only one wearing a black hoodie.
I’d also love to see language requesting recording of the ID procedure whenever feasible so there is a record of how long it took to make the pick, how certain the witness was, any feedback from the administrator, etc. Alternately, the adminstrator (who presumably doesn’t know who the suspect is under this bill) should write his/her report BEFORE being told whether the witness picked the suspect.
I like the custodial interrogation bill, but don’t see why it can’t cover out-of-state interrogations conducted by CT personnel if feasible to do so — what, the CT state police can’t borrow or bring a tape recorder?