BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1610|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1610
Author: Bonta (D), et al.
Amended: 6/3/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/10/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De León, Knight, Liu, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mitchell
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Material witnesses: human trafficking
SOURCE : Alameda County District Attorney
DIGEST : This bill provides that if a defendant has been
charged with human trafficking, as specified, the people or the
defendant, if the defendant has been fully informed of his/her
right to counsel as provided by law, may have a witness examined
conditionally.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that when a defendant has been charged with any
crime, he/she in all cases, and the people in cases other than
those for which the punishment may be death, may if the
CONTINUED
AB 1610
Page
2
defendant has been fully informed of his right to counsel,
have witnesses examined conditionally in his/her or their
behalf, as prescribed.
2.States that when a defendant has been charged with a serious
felony, as defined, or in a case of domestic violence, the
people or the defendant may, if the defendant has been fully
informed of his right to counsel, as provided by law, have a
witness conditionally examined if there is evidence that life
of the witness is in jeopardy.
3.Provides that when there is evidence that the life of a
witness is in jeopardy, the defendant or the people may apply
for an order that the witness be examined conditionally.
4.Provides that, after a deposition is taken, if the court finds
witness is unavailable at trial, as specified, the deposition
may be read into the record, or if video-taped, that tape may
be played at trial by either party and the same objections may
be taken to a question or answer contained in the deposition
or video-recording as if the witness had been examined orally
in court.
5.Provides that an application for a conditional examination
shall be made upon an affidavit stating all of the following:
A. The nature of the offense charged;
B. The state of the proceeding in the action;
C. The name and residence of the witness, and that his/her
testimony is material to the defense or prosecution of the
action; and
D. The witness is about to leave the state or is so sick and
infirm to afford reasonable grounds that he/she will not be
able to attend trial or is a person 65 years of age or
older or a dependent adult, or that the life of the witness
is in jeopardy or that the witness is a victim or material
witness in a domestic violence case who is being
intimidated or threatened.
This bill:
CONTINUED
AB 1610
Page
3
1.Provides that if a defendant has been charged with human
trafficking and there is evidence that the victim or material
witness has been or is being dissuaded by the defendant or a
person acting on behalf of the defendant, by intimidation or
physical threat, from cooperating with the prosecutor or
testifying at trial, the people or the defendant may, if the
defendant has been fully informed of his/her right to counsel
as provided by law, have a witness examined conditionally if
any of the following apply:
A. There is evidence that the life of the witness is in
jeopardy;
B. There is evidence that the witness has been threatened
or dissuaded from testifying at the trial; or
C. The court finds that there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the witness will not attend the trial.
2.Provides that the affidavit, as it pertains to a conditional
examination, could also state that there is evidence that the
victim or a material witness in a case where the defendant has
been charged with human trafficking has been or is being
dissuaded by the defendant or a person acting on behalf of the
defendant by intimidation or physical threat, from cooperating
with the prosecutor or testifying at trial.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/23/14)
Alameda County District Attorney (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association Inc.
City and County of San Francisco
District Attorney of Alameda County
Judicial Council
Peace Officers Research Association of California
CONTINUED
AB 1610
Page
4
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/23/14)
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Recently in Orange County, at least one victim of human
trafficking was murdered and multiple juvenile victims
received implicit threats from people inside the community,
all while the defendants remained behind bars.
AB 1610 allows for a conditional examination when a material
witness is a victim of, or witness to, a felony prosecution
involving human trafficking, commercial sex acts, or forced
labor or services. In much the same way that the elderly,
infirm, and transitory populations are afforded the
opportunity to testify early in case their status renders them
unavailable at the time of trial, AB 1610 does the same for
victims of human trafficking by giving the people and
defendant the opportunity to conditionally examine the witness
in order to preserve his or her testimony.
The conditional exam is more important than ever because it
provides the only avenue to preserve important testimony that
may not be available at the time a criminal case finally goes
to trial.
Once a victim of human trafficking is threatened pre-trial or
moved outside the local jurisdiction, it could be too late to
capture his or her testimony, resulting in cases being
dismissed for lack of evidence and offenders getting away with
abuse simply because the testimony of the witness was not
obtained soon enough.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice states:
[C]urrent California law completely provides for the use of
conditional examination when a proper showing can be made that
such procedure is necessary to preserve the witness'
testimony. AB 1610 seeks to create a new exception to
in-court testimony based solely on the nature of the case
CONTINUED
AB 1610
Page
5
being prosecuted. Conditional examination exists to
accommodate a particular situation involving the circumstances
surrounding a given witness. AB 1610 would ignore the very
reason why the conditional examination exceptions exist.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 4/24/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Pan,
Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gray, Harkey, Mansoor, Nazarian, Vacancy
JG:k 6/23/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED