BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
2
8
AB 1281 (Garrick) 1
As Amended April 25, 2011
Hearing date: June 14, 2011
Penal Code
JM:mc
PAROLE HEARINGS - AUDIOCONFERENCING
HISTORY
Source: San Diego County District Attorney
Prior Legislation: Proposition 9 (Marsy's Law) - November 2008
General Election
SB 1516 (Machado) - Ch. 289, Stats. 2004
AB 152 (Morrow) - Ch. 902, Stats. 1998
AB 2803 (Hauser) - Ch. 278, Stats. 1990
Support: Crime Victims United of California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD PROSECUTORS, VICTIMS, FAMILY MEMBERS OF VICTIMS, AND
DESIGNATED VICTIM REPRESENTATIVES BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR AT "LIFER"
PAROLE HEARINGS BY AUDIOCONFERENCING, IF AUDIOCONFERENCING IS
AVAILABLE?
(More)
AB 1281 (Garrick)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow prosecutors, victims,
family members of victims, and designated victim representatives
to appear at "lifer" parole hearings through audioconferencing,
if audioconferencing is available.
Existing law declares that a victim, next of kin, members of the
victim's family, and two representatives, as specified, have the
right to appear, personally or by counsel, at a hearing
considering parole suitability or the setting of a parole date
and to adequately and reasonably express their views concerning
the prisoner and the case, as specified. (Pen. Code � 3043,
subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law grants a life-term prisoner the right counsel at a
hearing for setting, postponing or rescinding a parole date.
The Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) must provide by rule for the
invitation of the prosecutor to represent the interests of the
people at the hearing. BPH shall notify the prosecutor and the
Attorney General at least 30 days prior to the date of the
hearing. The prosecutor shall be the sole representative of the
interests of the People. (Pen. Code � 3041.7.)
Existing law states that the victim, next of kin, immediate
family members or a designated representative and the prosecutor
may appear by means of videoconferencing, if it is available at
the hearing site. Videoconferencing is defined as live
transmission of audio and video signals from one physical
location to another. (Pen. Code � 3043.25.)
Existing law defines immediate family as the victim's spouse,
parent, grandparent, brother, sister, and children or
grandchildren who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.
(Pen. Code � 3043.3.)
Existing law permits the victim, next of kin, immediate family,
or two designated representatives to file with BPH a written,
audiotaped or videotaped statement, or statement stored on
another recording medium accepted by a court, expressing his or
(More)
AB 1281 (Garrick)
Page 3
her views concerning the crime and the person responsible, as
specified. BPH shall consider these statements prior to
reaching a decision. (Pen. Code � 3043.2.)
Existing law mandates that BPH, in deciding whether to release a
person on parole, must consider the entire and uninterrupted
statements of the victim or victims, next of kin, immediate
family members of the victim and the designated representatives.
(Pen. Code � 3043, subd. (d).)
Existing law states that any person interested in the grant or
denial of parole to a prisoner in a state prison has the right
to submit a statement of views in support of or opposition to
the granting of parole.
Existing law provides that the board, in deciding whether to
release the person on parole, shall review all information
received from the public to insure that the gravity and timing
of all current or past convicted offenses have been given
adequate consideration and to insure that the safety of the
public has been adequately considered. (Pen. Code � 3043.5,
subd. (b).)
Existing law (Cal. Const. Art. 1 Section 28 (b)(7), (15) and
(16)) declares that in order to preserve and protect a victim's
rights to justice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to
the following rights:
To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including
delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant
and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all
parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, and to be
present at all such proceedings.
To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the
parole process, to provide information to the parole authority
to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be
notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the
offender.
To have the safety of the victim, the victim's family and the
(More)
AB 1281 (Garrick)
Page 4
general public considered before a parole or other
post-judgment release decision is made.
This bill provides that parties with the right to appear at
parole hearings, including prosecutors, victims, family members
of victims and victim representatives, as specified, have the
right to appear via audioconferencing, if audioconferencing is
available.
This bill defines audioconferencing as the live transmission of
audio signals by any means from one physical location to
another.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
(More)
AB 1281 (Garrick)
Page 5
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
(More)
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Penal Code Section 3043.25 is the statute governing
the prosecutor's right to appear at a parole hearing
via video conferencing. In many cases, video
conferencing is not available at the hearing site, or
breaks down at the last minute. In some cases the
inmate does not have a good chance of receiving a
parole grant, and in those circumstances the cost to
personally attend the hearing outweighs the benefits
associated with personal attendance. This amendment
would provide that in those situations a speaker
phone, or other device, could be used to allow audio
conferencing as well as video conferencing at parole
hearings. Used wisely, this additional option could
save money and still give us a voice at appropriate
hearings. Although the Board of Parole Hearings has
allowed audio conferencing many times at parole
hearings, it is not done consistently. A change in
the law would correct this and allow for this option
at the prosecutor's discretion so long as a speaker
phone is available at the hearing site.
2. Background and Argument from the San Diego County District
Attorney (Sponsor) - Costs for Prosecutors to Travel to Parole
Hearings
The San Diego District Attorney, sponsor of this bill, argues
that while existing law allows prosecutors to appear at parole
hearings by video conference, video conferencing equipment is
often not available for hearings. In such a situation a
(More)
AB 1281 (Garrick)
Page 7
prosecutor must travel to the hearing. Parole hearings may be
held at prisons across the state. In 2010, San Diego
prosecutors
appeared at 335 lifer parole hearings. The cost of travel can
range from $90 to $1,000. Even video conferencing is itself
relatively expensive - averaging about $170 per hearing.
Audioconferencing is much less costly than personal appearances
or videoconferencing. The average cost of an audio conference
is $15.
It appears that victims could also benefit from the convenience
and reduced costs, and perhaps reduced stress, of appearing at a
parole hearing by audioconferencing. This bill does not require
the victim or prosecutor to appear by audioconferencing, these
parties could still appear personally or by videoconferencing.
SHOULD PROSECUTORS, VICTIMS, FAMILY MEMBERS OF VICTIMS AND
DESIGNATED VICTIM REPRESENTATIVES BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR AT
"LIFER" PAROLE HEARINGS BY AUDIOCONFERENCING?
***************