lic safety and security policy and finance committee meeting of february 28; 2018. >> we call the committee on
public safety and security
finance policy to order.
>> [ROLL CALL]
>> CHAIR: DO YOU IS
THE MINUTES IN FRONT OF YOU?
ANYBODY HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO
GO THROUGH THEM?
>> I WOULD MOVE THE MINUTES;
MR. CHAIR.
>> REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM
MOVED TO APPROVE. ALL THOSE IN
FAVOR; SAY AYE. OPPOSED?
THIS MORNING WE WILL HEAR FROM THE
COMMISSION ON JUVENILE
SENTENCES AND HEINOUS CRIMES
GOING THROUGH THEIR REPORT.
WE'LL HAVE STARTING OUT WITH
JOHN KINGRY AND JUDGE
KATHLEEN GAIREN. WELCOME TO THE
COMMITTEE. IF YOU
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GO AHEAD AND GET
STARTED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS; MY
NAME IS JOHN KINGRY; THE
COCHAIR OF THE STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION COMMISSION ON
SENTENCES FOR HEINOUS CRIMES;
WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN
DECEMBER OF 2016. JOINING
ME AND SPEAKING IN A FEW MINUTES
IS JUDGE KATHLEEN GAREN. WE
COCHAIRED THE COMMISSION WHICH
INCLUDED 19 MEMBERS
WHICH I'LL DESCRIBE IN A
COUPLE MINUTES. AGAIN; THIS IS CREATED BY
THE STATE BAR; IT REALLY WAS
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] SEVERATE
SUPREME COURT DECISION BUT TWO
OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ONES WERE
MILLER VERSE VS ALABAMADIED
DIDEED IN 2012 AND [INAUDIBLE
COMMENTS] PROHIBITED
MANDATORY LIFE SONESS WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE FOR
HOMICIDES COMMITTED BY
JUVENILES.
>> COULD YOU-WE HAVE A
QUESTION-I DONT KNOW IF IT'S
WORKING OR NOT.
>> IS THAT BETTER; MR.
CHAIRMAN? THOSE TWO DECISIONS
--THAT BETTER?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS IS
THAT BETTER? THANK YOU.
AGAIN; THE COMMISSION WAS
NECESSITATED BY TWO SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS; MILLER VERSUS
ALABAMA IN 2012 AND MONTGOMERY
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] HOMICIDE
SAID COMMITTED BY JUVENILES.
THOSE TWO DECISIONS
RENDERED THE MINNESOTA STOOUTD ON
HEINOUS CRIMES
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THOSE
DECISIONS AND SEBERAL
OTHERS THE COURTS SAID THE 8TH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITED
CRUEL UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AS A RESULT FOR BAD
SUCH SENTENCES. THE CHARGE TO
THE COMMISSION FTS TO
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
LEGISLATURE REGARDING THE
FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE USED TO
SENTENCE JUVENILES CONVICTED
UNDER THE HEINOUS CRIMES ACT.
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE
TOSENTANCE FOR LIFE
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] BEFORE YOU ARE THE
COMMISSION MEMBERS. INCLUDED
19 INDIVIDUALS; JUDGES
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
LEGISLATURE; REPRESENTATIVE
O'NEILL AND
REPRESENTATIVE LESCH
SERVED WITH DISTINCTION ON THE
COMMISSION. REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL HAS THE
DISTINCTION MAKING
EVERY MEETING; ALL 7 OF THEM 2 AND A
HALF HOUR MEETINGS AND
APPRECIATED HER INPUT
VERY MUCH AND THANK HER FOR ATENEDING.
ALSO SENATOR HALL AND HAYDEN
WERE THE
LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES. WE
HAVE PROSECUTORS CRIMINAL DEFENSE
AND JUVENILE
REHABILITATION. WE HAD 7 MEETINGS AND CAN
CLUNEDED DECEMBER 2017. AT
EACH MEETING CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
EXPERTS AND CRIMINATE JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDERS MADE
PRESENTATIONS REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND IMPACT
ON JUVENILES. AND THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION REPRESENT OUR BEST
EFFORTS TO BRING MINNESOTA INTO
CONFORMITY WITH MILLER AND
MONTGOMERY AND THE NEED TO
CORRECT THIS LEGISLATION TO
CORRECT OUR STATUTE IS A
PRIORITY BY THE MINNESOTA STATE
BAR ASSOCIATION. WITH THAT;
I'LL LET JUDGE GAIRP
ENQUICKLY THE KEY DECISIONS THAT LEAD
HER AND GO THROUGH THE POWERPOINT.
>> THANK YOU; MR. CHAIRMAN AND
SENATORS FOR LETTING US
APPEAR HERE. LOF THE
PEOPLE ON COMMITTEE IT WAS A VOLUNTEER
RECRUITED BY ROBIN WULFORD WHO
WAS FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BAR
ASSOCIATION AND THIS WAS A
PROJECT HE TOOK ON AND
RECRUITED US; A ARM
TWISTING TOO CONNECTED WITH IT; AND IT
WAS-THE COMMITTEE WE WANTED TO
GET ALL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC
DEFENDER; COUNTY ATTORNEY
PERSON; I EXPECTED PROBATION
SENTENCING; VICTIM IMPACT
PEOPLE. WE GOT A
VARIETY OF PEOPLE TO BE ON THIS SO WE
COULD GET A LOT OF INPUT
INFORMATION FROM ALL TYPES OF
PEOPLE IT WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
FACT THAT MINNESOTA HAS A
STATUTE THAT REQUIRES
MAPDTORY LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE THAT
INCLUDES JUVENILES. THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN MILLER
V ALABAMA-BEFORE I GO FURTHER I
SHOULD INTRODUCE AS A LOT OF
YOU PROBABLY KNOW ME I
RECOGNIZE SENATOR [INAUDIBLE
COMMENTS] I WAS ASSISTANT
COUNTY ATTORNEY IN RAMSY COUNTY
AND CITY TRIAL COURT JUDGE
IJRAMSY COUNTY A LITTLE OVER 26
YEARS; I'M NOW WORK AS A SENIOR
JUDGE AND RETIRED THIS
COMMITTEE IS TRUE SOME SAID I'M
PARTIALLY FLUNKING RETIREMENT;
BUT I STILL SIT OCCASIONALLY AS
A SENIOR JUDGE AND DID THIS AS
A VOLUNTEER; TOTALLY AS A
VOLUNTEER; NOT OFFICIALLY AS A
JUDGE BUT RETIRED PERSON WITH
MY BACKGROUND Z
EXPERIENCE. SO; WITH THE MILLER V ALABAMA
CASE WHICH WAS IN 2012; THE
SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE
8TH-IT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT TOSENTANCE A
JUVENILE TO PRISON WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE. THEY
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS]
JUVENILE HOMICIDE OFFENDERS IS WHAT THAT CASE HAD TO DEAL WITH AND SAID
IT WAS A LITTLE LIKE-THEY
DIDN'T YOU COULD NEVER SENTENCE
A JUVENILE TO LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE; THEY SAID IT IS
EXCESSIVE UNDER THE 8 AMENDMENT
WHO CRIMES REFLECTS HOW YOU DO
FINE THIS?
EREPARABLE CORRUPTIONISM THAT WAS ONE
THING WE WERE DOING BECAUSE
AMOUNTIMATELY OUR
RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE
THAT YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING;
BUT THE CHOICES-YOU ARE THE
POLICY MAKERS AND YOU CAN
EITHER DO AWAY TOTALLY WITH THE
POSSIBILITY IN MINNESOTA
OFSENTANCES A JUVENILE OFFEND
ER TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT
ANY POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE; OR
IF YOUR POLICY CHOICE IS KEEP
THAT AS A OPTION; YOU HAVE TO
SET UP SOME TYPE OF PROCEDURE
OR CRITERIA THAT DEAL WITH THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER THIS JUVENILE
IS IRF REPARABLE CORRUPTED.
AGAIN; MILLER DOESN'T
BAN IT BUT SAY IT IS A VERY
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THEY
SAID ALSO THAT IF A COURT
DECIDED TO SENTENCE WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE;
THEY NEEDED TO CONSIDER THE
OFFENDERS YOUTH AND
CHARACTERISTICS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES. IN MINNESOTA AS
I SAID; THE HEINOUS CRIMES ACT
609.106; PROVIDES THAT
CERTAIN CRIMES INCLUDING FIRST DEGREE
PREMEDITATED MURDER SHALL NOT
MAY BUT SHALL BE SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
RELEASE. ON ITS FACE THE
STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
REGARD TO JUVENILES; ONLY
JUVENILES. WE ARE
PROPOSING TWO OPTIONS; ONE IS AMEND IT TO
SPECIFY THE FACT THAT SHOULD BE
USED TOSENTANCE JUVENILES UNDER
THE HEINOUS CRIME ACTS SO
PREMEDITATED FIRST DEGREE MURDER; OR TWO; ELIMINATE THE
LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY
RELEASE FOR
JUVENILES CONVICTED UNDER THE ACT AND ESTABLISH A
SENTENCE OF LIFE IN PRISON WITH
THE ELIGIBILITY OF
PAROLE AFTER A SPECIFIC TERM OF YEAR.
AGAIN; WE DON'T RECOMMEND IF
THAT PUTS OPTION YOU CHOOSE
WHAT THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF
YEARS SHOULD BE; AGAIN WE FEEL
HAT IS A POLICY DECISION
THAT LEGISLATURES SHOULD MAKE. THEN
THE COMPLITY REALLY SPENT OF
THE TIME DEALING WITH WHAT
THE FACTORS SHOULD BE AND TO DO
THIS WE READ THE CASE LAW;
BECAUSE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT HAS CHEWED THIS ISSUE
AROUND IN A NUMBER OF CASES;
ACTUALLY STARTING WITH A
CASE CALLED ROPER WHERE THE DEATH
PENALTY FOR JUVEILES IS OUT THE
DOOR; YOU CANT DO
THAT BECAUSE JUVENILES ARE DIFFERENT FROM
ADULTS AND THINK THAT IS A
CONCEPT WE CAN ALL ACCEPT. THE
FACTORS FOR OPTION ONE IF
THAT'S THE OPTION YOU CHOOSE
TO KEEP; MUST BE DETERMINED
WHETHER THE JUVENILE IS ONE THE
RARE OFFENDERS WHOZ CRIME
REFLECTS IRREPARABLE CORRUPTION
OR PERMANENT ENCOURAGEABILITY
OR WHETHER THE JUV JUV NILE IS
ONE WHOS CRIME REPRESENTS
TRANSIENT IMMATURITY.
THE LANGUAGE IS FROM THE CASE LAW
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN
OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS WE
REALIZE THOSE ARE PRETTY
COMPLICATED BUT WISE
TERMINOLOGY FOR WHAT OUR
COMMON SENSE TELLS US ABOUT
JUVENILES. THEY ARE IMMATURE BUT IS A
TRANSIENT IMMATURITY OR
IRREPARABLE CORRUPTION. WHAT
CRITERIA SHOULD BE SET UP IF IN
FACT YOU KEEP THAT OPTION FOR A
JUDGE TO LOOK AT AS OPTION 1.
THIS IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION
CENTERED ON. IFIA READ THE
REPORT WE BROUGHT IN ALL KINDS
OF PEOPLE. AT ONE POINT WE
WERE HOPING A NEURO SCIENTIST
COULD GIVE
US SOMETHING CONCRETE TO LOOK AT AND BROUGHT
IN DR. FRANCIS CHIN; PROBABLY
ONE THE LEADING NEURO SCIENTIST
IN ADOLESCENT ISSUES IN THE
COUNTRY FROM UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA AND DISAPPOINTED
THERE ISN'T A MAGIC BULLET. WE
HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO A POINT TO
PREDICT WITH ANY ASSURETY IF
SOMEONE IS IRREPARABLE
CORRUPTED OR
TRANSIENTLY IMMATURE; SO THEN WE LOOKED AT
THE CASE LAW; THE WISDOM OF THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND
ALSO LOOKED AT MINNESOTA'S
HISTORY OF WHAT FACTORS HAVE
CONSIDERED IN SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN DEALING WITH
JUVENILES SUCH AS DECIDING WHEN
A JUVENILE SHOULD
CERTIFIED TRIED AS A ADULT. WE FEEL THAT
REFLECTS MINNESOTA HISTORY AND
ALSO OUR SENTENCES GUIDELINES
AND WHAT FACTORERIZE CONSIDERED BY JUDGES AND HAVE BEEN FOR
YEARS DETERMINING WHEN YOU
DEPART FROM THE REGULAR
SENTENCE TO BE HEAVIER OR
LIGHTER SO THESE ARE FACTORS WE
BELIEVE YOU SHOULD PUT INTO
STATUTE IF OPTION ONE IS YOUR
CHOICE. THE NATURE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE
COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT-I
GUESS SOME MURDERS ARE
DIFFERENT FROM OTHER MURDERS IS
ONE WAY OF PUTTING IT; THE AGE
AND INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF OFFENSE. THE
EXCITANT THE
DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATION. WERE THEY THE
PLANNER OR LEADER OR FOLLOWER
THE AIDER AND A BETTER
SPHTHE EFFECT IF ANY OF PRESSURE
OR PEER PRESSURE ON THE ACTION OF
THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE. THE
DEFENDANTS IMMATURITY OR
FAILURE TO
APPRECIATE CONSEQUENCESS; THE MINUTE AL
AND EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
HEALTH
THRKS BACKGROUND INCLUDING HIS OR HER FAMILY
HOME AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT;
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
DEFENDANTS PRIOR DELINQUENT
AND/OR CRIMINAL HISTORY. MOST
OF THEM HAVE DULINK WNT
HISTORY; SOME DON'T HAVE ANY
CRIMINAL HISTORY AT ALL. SOME
MAY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
EERFBEN THOUGH THEY ARE STILL A
JUVENILE PREVIOUSLY TRIED AS AN
ADULT SO HAVE AN ADULT
HISTORY. AND THE DEFENDANTS PRIOR
HISTORY OF DELINQUENCY
PROGRAMMING AND TREATMENT AND
ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
RELEVANT TO THE
DETERMINATION OF IRREPARABLE CORRUPTION OR
TRANSIENT IMMATURITY. THAT
LAST FACTOR IS KIND A CATCH-ALL
THAT USUALLY
THE LEGISLATURE PUT IN THE STATUTE THAT
RELATE TO THIS AT ALL BECAUSE WE DONT
KNOW IN FUTURE FOR EXAMPLE
WHETHER NEURO SCIENCE WILL BREE
ABLE TO GIVE US MORE
INFORMATION AND THAT LEAVES THE
DOOR OPEN FOR ORT
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THOSE TWO POINTS.
THEN ANOTHER FACTOR THAT WE ADD
TO IF YOU DECIDE TO KEEP OPTION
1; IS TO MAKE PART THE STATUTE
THE SENTENCES JUDGE MUST ORDER
A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OR
PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION BY A
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL WITH
EXPERTISE IN FORENSIC
EVALUATION OF JUVENILES. THIS
IS USUALLY DONE ANYHOW BUT
THIS MAKES IT IS A MUST AND GIVEN
OUR DISCUSSION; GIVEN THE
CASE LAW IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
HAS DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES; THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WE
BELIEVE THAT THAT BE PART OF
YOUR DECISION. I THINK THAT
TAKES CARE OF WHAT I HAD TO
SAY. ONE THING
SOMEBODY ASKED-I WILL ANTICIPATE A
QUESTION; SOMEONE SAY WHY
DON'T WE JUST LET THE COURT DEAL WITH
IT? WELL; BECAUSE I THINK IT
IS A OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE
AND MINE PERSONALLY; THIS IS A
POLICY DECISION. JUDGES
SHOULDN'T DO PUBLIC
POLICY. THAT'S YOUR JOB. YEE DON'T
LIKE TO DO; WE DONT WANT TO DO
IT. OKAY? THANK YOU.
>> CHAIR: FALLOWED BY KELLY
MITCHELL; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
VERBENA SNOOUT STATUTE
AND ALSO A COMMISSION MEMBER.
WELCOME; IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME
FOR THE RECORD AND GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED. >> THANK YOU; MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M KELLY MITCHELL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE VER BUENA
LAW. I SERVED AS DIRECTOR MINNESOTA
GUIDELINES COMMISSION AND ALSO
WAS ASKED TO SERVE ON THE
COMMITTEE WITH THE REST THOF
MEMBERS AND ONE KEY THING I WAS
ABLE TO BRING TO
THE DISCUSSION IS WHAT ARE OTHER STATES DOING
TO ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE.
THIS IS A U.S. SUPREME COURT
CASE; WE ARE NOT UNIQUEX EVERY
STATE HAD LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
SENTENCES APPLICABLE TO
JUVENILE OFFENDERS SO HOW HAVE
THE OTHER STATES DEALT WITH IT
AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL TALK ABOUT
TODAY. WHEN THE
COMMISSION FIRST BEGAN MEETING IN 2017
THERE WERE 11 STATES THAT HAD
NOT YET ADDRESSED THEIR LAWS TO
BRING THEM INTO CONFORMITY WITH
THE SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS. THESE ARE THE 11 STATES
THAT HADN'T ACTED AS OF THAT TIME.
THIS IS A SHIFTING SANDS
QUICKLY UNDER THE ISSUE SO JUST
IN THE TIME WHEN BEGAN TO MEET
TO TODAY THREE MORE STATES HAVE
ADDRESSED THEIR LAWS SO NOW WE
ARE ONE OF EIGHT STATES THAT
HAVE NOT YET ATTEMPTED TO DEAL
WITH THIS ISSUE. SO; WHAT ARE
THE OPTIONS? BASICALLY THREE
DIRECTIONS THAT THE STATES HAVE
GONE. THE FIRST OPTION IS TO
ELIMINATE LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE FOR JUVENILES AND EPLACE WITH A
SENTENCE OF LIFE; SO YOU CAN
STILL V A MANDATORY SENTENCE
BUT ARE IT BE LIFE INSTEAD OF
LIFE WITHOUT PROEP
PAROLE AND SET A TERM OF YEARS FOR
WHEN THE JUVENILE MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR FIRST CONSIDERATION FOR
PAROLE. STHATS RR
ONE DIRECTION THAT STATES HAVE
GONE. THE OTHER
DIRECTION STATES HAVE GONE IS RETAIN
DISCRETIONARY LIFE WITH WITHOUT
PAROLE WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE A
CHOICE BEFORE THE COURT OF
WHETHER THESENTANCE SHOULD BE
LIFE OR LIFE
WITHOUT RELEASE. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION THEN THE COURT
HAS TO HAVE THOSE FACTORS
BUILT INTO THE LAW SO THEY CAN HAVE
IT BE
APPROPRIATE INFORMATION UPON WHICH TO MAKE THAT
DECISION AND THAT'S WHAT THE
CASE CALLS FOR. WHAT MILLER
CALLS FOR.
THE THIRD DIRECTION STATES HAVE GONE IS INSTITUTE A
FORM OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND
THE MOST COMMON WAY IS HAVE THE
PAROLE BOARD ESTABLISH NEW TIME
PERIODS FOR CONSIDERATION EVEN
IF THE PERSON WAS GIVEN LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE; GIVING THE
PAROLE BOARD THE AUTHORITY TO
HAVE A HEARING TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL COULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE SO
THAT'S THE ONE OPTION THAT IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO US BECAUSE WE
DONT-WE DONT HAVE PAROLE IN
OUR SYSTEM. SO; THIS IS THE
STUTES OF THE LAWS TODAY. THE
DARK BLUE STATES ARE THOSE THAT
HAVE CHOSEN TO ELIMINATE PAROLE
AND INSTATUTE A SENTENCE OF
LIFE. THE NEXT LITEEST COLOR
ARE THOSE THAT HAVE CHANGED THE
LAWS TO INCLUDE THE MILLER
FACTORS. THE
VERY LIGHTEST BLUE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE
DISCUSSIONARY PAROLE IN SOME
OTHER FORM SO THAT IS USUALLY
THE PAROLE BOARD TAKES CONTROL
OF THAT DECISION; AND THE GRAY
STATES ARE THE ONES THAT
HAVEN'T YET DONE ANYTHING TO
ADDRESS THEIR LAWS. I WILL SAY
THAT MOST OF
THESE STATES THAT ARE IN GRAY ARE LIKE US AND
HAVE VERY FEW OFFENSES THAT
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLESENTANCE IS
APPLIED TO SO THERE HASN'T BEEN
AS MUCH URGENCY THERE. THIS IS
THE TALLY JUST TO MAKE IT EASY
FOR YOU TO GET THE READ. SO;
GOING WITH THE LIFE SENTENCE
HAS BEEN THE MORE POPULAR
CHOICE AMONG THE STATES WITH 21
STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA GOING WITH THAT
ROUTE. 8 STATES HAVE CHANGED THE
LAW WITH THE MILLER FACTOR;
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THEN THERE
8 THAT
HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE FOCUSED ON THE FACT THERE
IS TWO CASES THAT WE NEED TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT IN
MINNESOTA AND TWO STOOUTS WE NEED TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT. I'LL TALK
ABOUT THE PREMEDITATED MURDER
STATUTE IN A MOMENT BUT THE
OTHER STATUTE THAT HAS BEEN
IMPACTED IS 609.3455 AND THATD
IS THE STATUTE THAT PROVIDES
THE PENALTY
FOR CERTAIN EGREGIOUS FIRST TIME OR REPEAT
SEX OFFENSES. IT IS VERY
RARELY USED AGAINST ANYONE LET
ALONE A JUVENILE BUT IT IS A
NON-HOMICIDE OFFENSE SO THE
OTHER SUPREME COURT CASE THAT
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS
GRAHAM V FLORIDA; THAT
CAME BEFORE MILLER AND THAT CAT
GORELY DETERMINED THAT LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENS ARE NOT
GIVEN TO JUVENILES
FOR NON-HOMICIDE OFFENSES SO
THE ONLY CHOICE WE HAVE TO BRING
THAT STUTE INTO CONFORMITY IS
A-MIND TO A LIFE SENTENCE.
JUDGE [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] MENTION FRD THE 609.106 WE
COULD RETAIN LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE AS LONG AS WE BUILD THE
FACTORS IN OR CHANGE TO A LIFE
SENTENCE WITH A TERM OF YEARS
FOR FIRST CONSIDERATION OF
RELEASE. JUST TO RECAP JUDGE
GEARIN WENT THROUGH THE
PROCESS TO ARRIVE AT THE FACTOR. HERE
IS THE LANGUAGE FROM THE
STATUTE IF YOU WANT TO
COMPARE. THERE IS LIKE ONE COMPACT
PARAGRAPH IN MILLER THAT SETS
FORTH THE CONSIDERATION THE
COURT SHOULD MAKE WHEN
DETERMINING WHETHER LIFE
WITHOUT PAROLE IS APPROPRIATE
FOR JUVENILES. THIS IS THE
KEY LANGUAGE SO THIS IS WHERE WE
STARTED. WE LOOKED AT ALL THE
OTHER STATUTES FOR THE OTHER
STATES THAT INCORPORATED THOSE
LAWS INTO THEIR LAWS. WE
HAVE A CHART WITHIN THE REPORT
THAT WE PROVIDED TO YOU THAT
ACTUALLY TELLS YOU STATE BY
STATE WHICH FACTORS THEY
BROUGHT IN; BUT THE
LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THAT PRETTY MUCH
AVENUE WN BROUGHT IN ALL OF THE
MILLER FACTORS ACCEPT
FOR THE ONE THAT SAYS INABILITY TO DEAL
WITH POLICE OFFICERS OR
PROSECUTORS; THAT WAS SQUISHLY
LANGUAGE THAT WAS HARD TO
DETERMINE HOW YOU WOULD
OPERATIONALIZE THAT SO NONE OF
THE 12 STATES HAVE BROUGHT
THAT LANGUAGE IN BUT THEY BROUGHT IN
ALL THE REST OF IT; AND
THEN THE 12 STATES THAT INCLUDED
THOSE FACTORS BROUGHT IN A FEW
OTHER IDEAS LIKE INTELLECTUAL
CAPACITY; CRIMINAL HISTORY AND
WE BUILTTHOSIS INTO THE
RECOMMENDED FACTORS AS
WELL. THE LAST THING I LIKE TO POINT
OUT IS THERE IS A UNRESOLVED
BLAKELY ISSUE AND THAT'S ALSO
BEEN HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU IN THE
REPORT. BLAKELY WAS A CASE
THAT HAPPENED EVEN BEFORE
MILLER AND GRAHAM IN 2004 AND
IF ANY OF YOU WERE HERE IN 2004
WHEN THAT HAPPENED YOU KNOW WE
NEEDED TO ADJUST A LOT OF
STATUTE TOOZ
BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE AND MAKE
SURE OUR SENTENCES GUIDELINES CONTINUE
TO WORK UNDER
BLAKELY. WHAT THAT CASE DOES IS ANY FACT
OTHER THAN A PRIOR
CONVICTION THAT INCREASE THE PENALTY
BEYOND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM
MUST BE SUBMIT TODAY A JURY AND
PROVEN BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT. SO; THERE WAS ACTUALLY
A QUESTION AMONG
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER
BLAKELY WOULD APPLY TO THIS ISSUE AND
APPLY TO HOW WE COULD FIX
THE STATUTE. IT IS A OPEN
QUESTION; WE DISAGREED AND
DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO
RESOLVE IT SO HOPE
YOUR ATTORNEYS WILL TAKE A GOOD LOOK
AT THIS ISSUE; BUT THE
QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE
IS; WOULD BLAKELY-SPHWE SET UP
A STATUTE AND SET UCH A CHOICE
BEWEAN LIFE AND LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE WOULD BLAKELY REQUIRE
ALL THE FACTORS IN THE
STATUTE BE SUBMIT TODAY A JURY OR IS IT
POSSIBLE TO STRUCTURE IT IN A
WAY THAT IT ISN'T
NECESSARY AND IT WOULD BE THE COURTS PURVIEW
TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION
RATHER THAN IT NEEDING TO BE
PROVEN TO A JURY. THAT IS
REALLY A OPEN QUESTION AND HOW
YOU EVALUATE THAT MAY DETERMINE
THE ROAD THAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN TAKING IN ORDER TO BRING THE
STATUTE INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I
THINK-GO
AHEAD. >> KELLY; IS FALLOWED BY
ANOTHER COMMISSION MEMBER;
PROFESSOR PERRY MOORE YARTY WHO
HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN
THIS AREA AND HAS BEEN ASKED
AND VERY HELPFUL IN OUR
DELIBERATIONS WITH THE
COMMISSION. SHE'LL BE FALLOWED
BY CUCOATA COUNTY ATTORNEY
JAMES MAXIM AND RETIRED JUSTICE
PAUL ANDERSON.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
PERRY MOORE YARTA A ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL. I TEACH
CRIMINAL LAW; JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND CODIRECT OUR CHILD ADVOCACY
AND JUVENILE JUSTICE CLINIC.
AMONG OTHER THINGS OUR
CLINIC REPRESENTS JUVENILES CHARGED
WITH DELINK WAES
OFFENSES IN JUVENILE COURT AND
ALSO REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE
SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT
PAROLE IN MINNESOTA AS
JUVENILES. SO; I'M GOING TO GO
THROUGH A LIST OF 8 INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCESED TO
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN THE STATE AND DO WANT TO BE CLEAR
OUR CLINIC DOES REPRESENT 2 OF
THEM. I'M HERE
TODAY PRIMARILY TO PROVIDE A OVERVIEW OF
THESE CASES BUT BEFORE I BEGIN I WANT
TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE
CASES AND THE LIST I PROVIDED.
THE LIST BEFORE YOU IS INTENDED
TO BE A BEAR BONES OVERVIEW OF
THE CASES. IT WAS WRITTEN TO
BE AS NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE TO
PROVIDE THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
AND BASIC FACTS OF THESE CASES;
BUT OF COURSE THESE CASES ARE A
LOT MORE THAN THAT. EACH CASE
HAS ONE OR MORE VICTIMS WHO
MATTERED EMENSLY AND WHO
SHOULD NOT HAVE DIED AND I WANT
TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. EACH OF
THESE VICTIMS HAD FAMILIES;
FRIENDS AND COMMUNITIES AND THE
COMMISSION IN ITS WORK NEVER
LOST SITE OF THAT FACT. IN
FACT; I BELIEVE I CAN
SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION WHEN
I SAY THAT NOTHING WE
PROPOSED; NONE OF OUR WORK IS EVER
INTENDED TO DISCOUNT THE LIVES
OR EXPERIENCES OF VICTIMS
OR THEIR FAMILIES RECOLLECT IN
FACT; SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS
DEVOTED THEIR CAREERS
TOVENEDICATING THE RIGHTS OF
VICTIMS AND I SAY THAT AS
SOMEONE WHO ALSO DEFENDS THOSE
ACCUSED OF KILLING THESE
PEOPLE. OF COURSE
EACH HOF CASES ALSO AS A DEFENDANT AND
EACH DEFENDANT WAS A
CHILD AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE. IN
MOST CASES THAT CHILD HAS A
TRAGIC STORY OR DID HAVE A
TRAGIC STORY WHEN HE OR SHE WAS
A CHILD OF THEIR OWN AND
AGAIN; I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I REPRESENT
TWO OF THEM AND HAVE SPNT A
LOT OF TIME WITH THEMCURRENTLY IN
THEIR FACILITIES. ALL 8
EXPERIENCED POVERTY; SOME FORM
OF DISRUPTED FAMILY; MANY OF
THEM WERE EXPOSED TO
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION OF THEIR OWN;
THEY SUFFERED DEVELOPMENTAL
DELAYS AND MENTAL ILLNESS; ALL
OF THE THINGS THAT WE
UNDERSTAND PLAGUE A ENORMOUS
NUMBER OF OUR
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. I WANT TO SAY THIS
AND CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THE
LIST YOU HAVE DOES NOT BRING
FULLY TO LOITHD THESE CASES ON
EITHER SIDE AND THE
QUESTION REALLY BEFORE US IS; HOW DO WE
DEAL WITH THESE? HOW DO WE
OVERCOME THE NOTION THAT SOME
OF THESE ACTS ARE IN FACT
HEINOUS BUT COMMITTED BY OUR
CHILDREN AND COMMITTED BY
CHILDREN WHO THE QUESTION IS
CAN WE SAY MAY OR MAY NOT BE
FULLY FORMED. THEY MAY BE NOT
BE DONE. SEVERAL MET LAST WEEK
WITH SOMEONE WHO
WAS SENTENCED TO A VERY LONG SENTENCE AS A 13
YEAR OLD WHO CAME OUT THE OTHER
END AND IS A PRETTY REMARKABLE
HUMAN BEING SO THAT IS THE
BACKDROP AND WILL KNOW THROUGH
THESE CASES. I LISTED THEM IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OLDEST TO
MOST RECENT. THE FIRST ONE
INVOLVED TENNESSEE IN TIMOTHY
CHAMBERS WHO WAS 17 YEARS OLD
CONVICTED OF FIRST
DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE OF A
POLICE OFFICER AND
SEVERAL RELATED FELONYS AND THIS
INVOLVED A 1996 INCIDENT. HE
WAS INVOLVED AND I'LL SAY I
REPRESENT HIM; HE WAS INVOLVED
IN A POLICE CHASE AND AN
OFFICER WHO BY ALL ACCOUNTS WAS
ACTING BRAVELY SET HIS CAR AS A
BARRICADE ON A EXIST IN A ROAD
IN RICE COUNTY AND MR. CHAMBERS
DROVE UP THE EXIST AND INTO THE
BARRICADE AND THE OFFICER WAS
KILLED. HE WAS SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE IN 1996 AND
PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA
SUPREME COURT'S 2016 DECISION
IN JACKSON VERSUS STATE
AND I'LL TRY NOT TO GO INTO
TOO MUCH DETAIL; THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT DECIDED OLD CASES
INVOLVING JUVENILES
SERVING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE THE
COURT ACKNOWLEDGED HAD TO BE
ADDRESSED UNDER MILLER AND
SUBSEQUENTLY
UNDER MONTGOMERY. THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU GO BACK
AND ASSESS THE JUVENILES
CULPABILITY 20 YEARS AFTER THE
FACT? CAN YOU FIND ALL THE
FACTS YOU NEED TO? CAN YOU
CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU
SHOULD TO FULLY ASSESS
CULLPABILITY AND CAPACITY FOR
REHABILITATION AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT SAID NO. THE
PASSAGE OF TIME PRECLUDES THAT
SO INSTEAD IT DID SOMETHING
FAIRLY TRICKY; IT REVIVED A OLD
STATUTE AND IT IS A PROCESS
CALLED STATUTORY REVIVAL IN
EFFECT THE LAST TIME THIS
PARTICULAR STATUTE WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT STATUTE
MANDATED THAT JUVENILE IN THE
SITUATION OF MOST OF THE 8
INDIVIDUALS BE SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR
RELEASE AFTER 30 YEARS
AND THAT'S EMBODIED IN A DECISION
CALLED; JACKSON VERSUS STATE.
PURSUANT TO JACKSON; MR.
CHAMBERS WAS RESENTENCED
IN JANUARY AND WILL BE ELIGIBLE
FOR PAROLE I BELIEVE IN 2026.
ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE. MR.
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] WAS CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE
PREMEDITATED HOMICIDE WHILE
COMMITTING A SEXUAL ASULT FOR
THE JULY 2000 SEXUAL ASULT AND
STABBING DEATH OF A 17 YEAR OLD
GIRL. HE TOO WASSENTANCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT RELEASE.
>> I
BELIEVE REPRESENTATIVE CONSUDINE HAS A QUESTION FOR
YOU. >> THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. HE
WAS RESENTENCED TO 30 YEARS THE
FIRST GENTLEMEN; WHEN DOES THAT
30 YEARS START?
>> IT BEGINS THE DAY THAT HE
WAS ORIGINALLY
INCARCERATED SO IN HIS CASE AND BELIEVE IN THE
CASE OF ALL 8 THEY WERE BROUGHT
INTO CUSTODY REALLY IMMEDIATELY
UPON THEIR ARREST FOR THE
INCIDENT IN QUESTION AND HAVE
NEVER BEEN RELEASED SINCE THE
CLOCK STARTS THEN. WITH
TIMOTHY CHAMBERS IT IS
MAY 1996; I DON'T HAVE THE
SPECIFIC DAY. IT IS 30 YEARS OUT FROM
THAT POINT THAT ELIGIBILITY
WOULD BE TRIGGERED AND AGAIN
THAT DOESN'T
EQUATE WITH RELEASE; THAT IS SIMPLY THE
FIRST POINT HE WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO GO BEFORE THE
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND SEEK
RELEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. SO WHO
NOW IS THAT APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY THAT WILL BE
MAKING THE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE
WILL BE
RELEASED? >> THAT IS A TERRIFIC QUESTION
REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM. THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT THE
COMMISSION ABSOLUTELY
RECOGNIZED AS A OPEN QUESTION
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME
AUTHORITY THAT CAN NOT JUST
REVIEW CASES AS WE TYPICALLY
HAVE IN MINNESOTA; BUT CAN DO
SO WITH A
APPROPRIATE AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE SO CALLED
MILLER FACTORS. THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS STILL I
BELIEVE THIS BODY AND THE
LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE.
>> PLEASE INTRODUCE YOUR SELF.
>> KELLY MITCHELL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF VERBENA
INSTITUTE. THE RELEASING AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS
ANYONE SERVICEING A LIFE
SENTSANCE. THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE THE ONE
TO ANSWER THOU THAT PROCESS
WORKS BUT KNOW THEY HAVE A
REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCESS
FOR ALL
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR RELEASE
BUT THEY GO THROUGH BEFORE HE
MAKES A DETERMINATION.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSUDINE: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR.
CURRENTLY UNDER MOST
SENTENCES THE LAST THIRD IS KNOCKED OFF
ALL MOST AUTOMATICALLY SO
ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS DIFFERENT IN
THIS CASE?
>> IT IS. IT IS DIFFERENT IN
THE CASE OF LIFE SENTENCE WHERE
THERE IS PAROLE ELIGIBILITY AND
THAT IS BECAUSE A LIFE SENTENCE
WITHOUT PAROLE ISN'T DETERMINED
IN THE SAME WAY.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSUDINE: BUT WE DONT HAVE A PAROLE BOARD
SO THAT ISN'T SET UP SO THAT IS
NOT DETERMINED YET?
>> TECHNICALLY IT ACCOUNTED FOR
IN THE STATUTE AND SORRY I
SHOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO THAT
PIECE FIRST. >> WE DO HAVE A MECHANISM IN
PLACE THAT INVOLVES CORRECTIONS
REVIEWING ALL THESE SENTENCES
IF THEY COME FORWARD. IT ISN'T
PAROLE IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE
IN OTHER STATES BECAUSE OUR
STATE HAS A
DETERMINED PROCESS. THE OPEN QUESTION IN OTHER
STATES THAT HAVE OUR FORM
OFSENTANCES SCHEME IS WHETHER
THAT PARTICULAR REVIEW PROCESS
THAT NORMALLY RESTS WITHIN
CORRECTIONS SHOULD SOMEHOW ALSO
BE INFUSED WITH SOME OF THE
OTHER FACTORS WE DISCUSSED AND
THE COMPOSITION OF
WHATEVER COMMITTEE IS INVOLVED IN
DOING THAT REVIEW BE ALTERED TO
ACOUPT FOR THE FACT THAT THESE
INDIVIDUALS HAVE A SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT HISTORY. HOPE THAT
ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
>> REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE:
IT DOES AND AULTS SEEM TOOZ PUT
A TRU-MINDS BURDEN ON THE
COMMISSION OF CORRECTIONS AT
THIS POINT. THANK YOU; MR.
CHAIR.
>> MAY I RESPOND TO
THAT? >> YES; GO AHEAD.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE PERIODICALLY DISCUSSED
WITH COMMISSIONER ROY; AND
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE ALL
TAKE VERY
SERIOUSLY. THE REALLY GOOD
NEWS ABOUT MINNESOTA IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE
THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS IN THIS
SITUATION. OTHER STATES FOR
EXAMPLE PENNSYLVANIA IS WORK WG
OVER 500 INDIVIDUALS NOW. WE
HAVE 8 WHO WILL BE COMING UP
AND THE TRADITION HERE OF
COURSE IS THAT WE DON'T SEEK
EXTREME SENTENCES NEARLY AS
OFTEN AS OTHER STATES SO WHAT
COMMISSIONER ROY HAS SAID AT
THE VERY LEAST PRIVATELY IS THE
NUMBERS ARE SUCH THAT THEY
COULD BE ACCOMMODATED; BUT IT
IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
>> GO AHEAD AND
CONTINUE. >> I'LL CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH
THE CASES. I'LL CONTINUE TO GO
THROUGH THE CASES. I'LL ONLY
PROVIDE DETAIL BEYOND WHAT IS ON THE SLIDE TO
THE EXTENT ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE SEEKS
IT; BUT MR. ROMAN KNOWS LIKE
MR. CHAMBERS ALSO WAS
RESENTENCED PURSUANT TO JACKSON
TO LIFE WITH RELEASE
ELIGIBILITY AFTER 30 YEARS AND
THAT TOO WOULD BEGIN AT
THE POINT OF HIS ORIGINAL
INCARCERATION. MR. PENDALTON
SIMILARLY WAS RESENTENCED IN
HAD FALL OF 2016 TO LIFE WITH
ELIGIBLE. INVOLVES FIRST
DEGREE FELONY MURDER AND
STABBING DEATH OF A ADULT
MALE. THERE WERE 3 ADULT
ACCOMPLISHES IN THIS CASE AND
YOU BEGIN THE 30 YEAR COUNT
STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2004.
FRANSON JACKSON IS THE CASE IN
WHICH OUR MINNESOTA
SUPREME COURT DECIDED HOW TO HANDLE
THESE RETROACTIVE MILLER CASES
AND HIS CASE INVOLVED A GANG
RELATED SHOOTING DEATH OF A
15 YEAR OLD BOY. HE WAS
SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT RELEASE AND
PURSUANT THODECISION HIS ON
CASE RECENTANCED IN OCTOBER
2016 TO LIFE WITH ELIGIBILITY
AFTER 30 YEARS. LUMONTA
MARTIN INVOLVED ANOTHER GANG RELATED
SHOOTING DEATH OF A 19 YEAR OLD
MAN. HE TOO WAS SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT RELEASE. HE ALSO
RECEIVED A NEWSENTANCE OF LIFE
WITH RELEASE ELIGIBILITY AFTER
30 YEAR JZ
CONSECUTIVE 12 MONTH TERMS TACKED ON TO THE END FOR
CRIME COMMITTED FOR A
BENEFIT OF THE GANG. BRIAN LEE FLOWERS
AND STEFAN THOMPSON; THIS CHART
SHOULD BE UPDATED BECAUSE WE
RECEIVED ASENTANCE IN MR.
FLOWERS CASE ABOUT A HOUR AGO
THAT ACTUALLY
CHANGED THE CONTOURS OF WHERE WE GO FROM
HERE. I SHOULD IN FUM
DISCLOSURE; I REPRESENT MR.
FLOWERS. BOTH MR. FLOWERS AND
MR. TAUMPTION WERE CONVICTED AS
CODEFENDANTS FOR FIRST
DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER FOR THE
JUNE 2008 STABBING DEATH OF A
WOMAN AND HER 10 YEAR OLD
SON. THEY WERE BOTH ORIGINALLY
SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE LIFE
WITHOUT RELEASE TERMS; BUT AS
YOU MIGHT EXPECT; BECAUSE
THESENTANCES WERE
AUTOMATIC THERE WAS NOT A SENTENCE
HEARING; THEY WERE IMPOSED
AUTOMATICALLY AFTER THE
CONVICTION. BOTH CASES HAVE
BEEN LITIGATED IN FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT. MR. FLOWERS WAS
RESENTENCED TO CONCURRENT
SENTENCES OF LIFE WITH
RELEASE ELIGIBILITY AFTER 30 WREERS IN
MARCH OF 2007; THE DISTINCTION
THOUGH THERE WAS WHETHER OR NOT
THE DECISION IN JACKSON WHICH
SAID YOU CANNOT GO BACK AFTER
THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND
RE-CREATE EVIDENT YOU DONT HAVE
AND ASSESS CULPABILITY
PRECLUDED THE DISTRICT COURTS
ABILITY TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES WHICH INVOLVES SOME
MEASURE OF
CULPABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ITS OWN AND THE
COURT SAID UNDER JACKSON IT
COULDN'T DO THAT. THE STATE
APPEALED AND JUST THIS
MORNING THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
DECIDED THAT IN FACT THE
DISTRICT COURT CAN DO THAT AND
REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR A HEARING
WHERE IT WILL GO FLOW THE
PROCESS ASSESSING CULPABILITY
OF
CONCURRENT VERSUS CONSECUTIVE SENT BSS AND
BELIEVE THE SAME WILL TAKE
PLACE IN MR. THOMPSONS CASE AS
WELL. THE FINAL CASE IS A CASE
OF [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] LEE.
IN THIS CASE HE WAS CONVICTED
OF SEVERAL HOMICIDE RELATED
OFFENSES FOR THE 2010 SHOOTING
DEATH OF THREE MEN DURING A
ROBBERY OF A MARKET. THIS CASE
AS A
COMPLICATED PROCEDURAL HISTORY AS WELL. HE WAS
ORIGINALLY SENTENCED TO TWO
CONSECUTIVE LIFE TERMS WITH
RELEASE ELIGIBILITY AFTER 30
YEARS AND SINGLE LIFE RELEASE
TERM WHICH WAS
AUTOMATIC. HIS CASE THE APPEAL WAS FINAL; THE
SENTENCE WAS NOT FINAL AT THE
TIME MILLER CAME DOWN SO HIS
CASE IS NOT RETO ACTIVE SO THE
REVIEW OOF HIS
SENTENCE IS AUTOMATIC AND THE COURT DIDN'T
NEED TO WAIT TO SEE IF MILLER
APPLIED RETO ACTIVELY AND WHAT
THE COURT ESSENTIALLY DID IS
THE MINNESOTA SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED ON A APPEAL THE TWO
LIFE SENTENCES WITH ELIGIBILITY
AFTER 30 YEARS BUT SENT BACK
THE LIFE
WITHOUT RELEASE SENTENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR RESENTENCING AND AT THE
TIME IT SAID GO THROUGH THE
MILLER FACTOR PROCESS WHEN YOU
RESENTENCE HIM. THE DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE SAID IMPOSE A THIRD
LIFE WITH ELIGIBILITY RELEASE
TERM AFTER 30 YEARS WHICH IS
LIFE AFTER 90 YEARS.
THATSENTANCE WAS APPEALED. IT
WAS UPHELD BY THE MINNESOTA
SUPREME COURT IN A
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THAT IS THE UNIVERSE
OF THE 8 CASES ALL OF WHICH
HAVE BEEN RECENTANCED TO THIS
POINT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
FLOWER JZ THOMPSON AND THEN
MR. ALI ISPENEDING BEFORE THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT. HAPPY TO STAND
FOR QUESTIONS.
>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
MR. [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] THANK YOU;
GOOD MORNING.
>> I'M JAMES BAX TRM
DAKOTA COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF MINNESOTA COUNTY
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. I WAS A
MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION THAT
REVIEWED THESE SENTENCING
ISSUE YOU ARE HEARING THE REPORT IN
REFERENCE TODAY. I
FULLY SUPPORT THE REPORT
THAT WAS COMPLETED BY THE COMMISSION AND
I SUPPORT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS;
BUT I AM HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU
WHAT THE POSITION OF THE
MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IS. YOU HEARD THERE IS A NUMBER OF AUMGZS YOU
CAN DO IN REFERENCE TO
ADDRESSING THE
UNACONSTITUTIONALALTY. THE MINNESOTA COUNY ATTORNEYS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS HAVE SUPPORTED
THE POSITION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD ABOLISH THE
SENTENCE OF LIFE WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE FOR
ANYONE WHO IS UNDER THE AGE OF
18 CONVICTED OF A CRIME THAT
CARRIES THAT SANCTION AND WE
WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE ADOPT THE
POSSIBILITY FOR BASICALLY
ESTABLISH A LIFE
SENTENCE WITH A POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE IN
THOSE SITUATIONS AND THAT THE
ELIGIBILITY FOR RELEASE BE 25
YEARS RATHER THAN 30 YEARS.
THE 30 YEAR ELIGIBILITY
SANCTION APPLIES TO ANY
ADULT SENTENCED TO LIFE WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE. THERE
ARE CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF FIRST
DEGREE MURDER THAT IS WHERE THE
SANCTION IS. COMMITTING A
AGGREGATEED ROBBERY
CONSIDERED A LIFE WITH POSSIBILITY OF
RELEASE AFTER 30 YEARS AS A
ADULT. WE BELIEVE
JUVENILES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS AND WHY OUR
RECOMMENDATION IS THAT REVIEW
DECISION BE MADE AFTER 25
YEARS RATHER THAN 30 YEARS FOR A
JUVENILE CONVICTED OF THESE
CRIMES. JUST SO YOU KEEP IN
MIND YOU HEARD ABOUT THE 8
CASES; THESE ARE CASES
JUVENILESSENTANCED TO LIFE WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE; THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
OTHER CASES WHERE
JUVENILES IN OUR STATE HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE AFTER 30
YEARS; SO THE LIST IS LONGER
THAN JUST THESE 8 JUVENILES
SERVING E LIFE AND THESE ARE
THE MOST SERIOUS
AND HEINOUS CRIMES IN THE STATE. YOUR
LEGISLATIVE BODY HERE HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE
DECISIONS AS TO WHAT THE
SENTENCES SHOULD BE AND WE SUPPORT A
MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN THOSE CASES
WHETHER A ADULT OR JUVENILE BUT
FOR JUVENILES IF YOU ARE
CONVICTED OF A CRIME THAT
CARRIES A LIFE IN
PRISON SANCTION IT SHOULD BE WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE AFTER
25 YEARS. THAT IS THE POSITION OF
OUR COUNTY
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT
YOU HEARD. WANT TO THANK
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL FOR HER
LEADERSHIP AND
OTHER REPRESENTATIVES THAT
PARTICIPATED AND SENATORS THAT
PARTICIPATED IN
THIS COMMISSION. THIS IS A
ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. WE
SHOULD NOT LEAVE
A UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON THE
BOOKS IN MINNESOTA; SO I WOULD
URGE YOU TO MAKE A DECISION AND
MOVE FORWARD IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE SHOULD
GET THIS RESOLVED AND PUT
INTO LAW AND YOU ARE THE POLICY
MAKERS JUDGE GEARIN SAYS AND WE
SHOULD ESTABLISH A LAW THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURTS DECISION. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY AND IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY
AND PRSHZ
THE WISDOM ORPHTHE COMMISSION. WE HAD A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS Y DIDN'T REALIZE
IT WAS 7; 2 AND A HALF HOUR
MEET SHZ. IT WAS HEAVY
AND WEIGHTED AND DELVE
INTO DEEP DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL THE
DIFFERENT ASPECTS. WHAT I
FOUND MOST INTERESTING AND IF
YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE
IT MIGHT BE SURPRISING COMING
FROM YOU CONSIDERING YOUR
HARD STANCE ON CRIME AND WE ALL KNOW
THAT VERY WELL AND
REEXPECT THAT; BUT AS WE WERE DEBATING
AND DISCUSSING AND FINALIZING
THE REPORT TO BRING TO
THE LEGISLATURE; WE DID A TEST OF
THE ROOM TO SEE THE APPETITE OF
ALL OF THE SPECTRUM OF FOLKS AT
THE TABLE WHETHER THEY WOULD BE
IN FAVOR OR NOT OF THE
MILLER FACTORS. I FOUND YOUR COMMENT
ABOUT THAT INCREDIBLY
INTERESTING. IF I RECALL AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG; I
BELIEVE YOU SAID IT WOULD BE SO
EXPENSIVE Z SO CUMBERSOME IN
MINNESOTA TO FOLLOW THE MILLER
FACTORS THAT PROSECUTION WOULD
BE INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING AND IT WOULD BE A DUELING BACK AND
FORTH OF PSYCHOLOGIST AND
PSYCHIATRISTS; CAN YOU SPEAK TO
THAT FOR A MOMENT?
>> THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR;
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL; YES; I
DID MAKE COMMENTS ALONG THE
LINES AS YOU MENTIONED AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE
WERE TO ADOPT THE LAW THAT
INCORPORATES THE MILLER FACTORS
THAT WE WOULD HAVE
EXTENSIVE LITIGATION IN THESE TYPES OF
CASES OVER WHETHER OR NOT THOSE
FACTORERIZE APPLICABLE AND
WHAT MANY EXPERT-IT WOULD BE VERY
EXPENSIVE TO LITIGATE THESE
TYPE ISSUES. IF THAT IS THE
DECISION OF THE DEJ
LAICHER TO DO; BUT OUR REMATION IS TO JUST
ELIMINATE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE;
CREATE A LIFE IN PRISON
SANCTION FOR JUVENILE
OFFENDERS CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE
MURDER AND HAVE ELIGIBILITY OF
RELEASE AFTER 25 YEARS
RATHER THAN 30 SO THAT WOULD BE
MUCH LESS LITIGIOUS IN OUR VIEW.
>> REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL:
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK
YOU FOR CONVEYINGTHALITY TO THE
COMMITTEE. ALSO; CAN
YOU JUST GIVE US A LITTLE MORE MEAT AND
BACKGROUND AS TO HOW THE COUNY
ATTORNEYS ARRIVED AT
25 YEARS VERSUS 30 AND I WAS MADE AWARE
THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF A
JUVENILE IN LIFE IN PRISON IS
51 YEARS OLD I BELIEVE I WAS
TOLD AND TERRY MOORE ARTY IS
SAYING YES. DID THAT WEIGH
INTO YOUR DECISION TO GO TO 25
YEARS AT THE FIRST LOOK OF
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE GIVEN
THAT THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF A
JUVENILE SPTANCED TO PRISON IS
41 YEAR 51 YEARS.
>> THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS
DISCUSSED AND TALKING ABOUT THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY ASSOCIATION
BETHE BORD OF DIRECTORS WHICH
IS 23 OR 25 MEMBERS OF
OUR ELECTED COUNTY
ATTORNEYS ACROSS OUR STATE AND A FEW DEPUTY
COUNTY ATTORNEYS ON THE BOARD;
BUT WE DISCUSSED THIS AT
LENGTH FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. WE
REVIEWED HADF I HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED DEAL WG
JUVENILE JUSTICE ISUES FOR MANY
YEARS. I COCHAIR THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE FOR FR THE NATIONAL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASSOCIATION
OVER 15 YEARS AND WE
DISCUTSSED THESE ISSUES SAT THE STATE
LEVEL AND NATIONAL LEVEL AND
YES; I HAVE-MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
REACHED THE CONCLUSION THERE IS
A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN ADULTS AND JUVENILES IN
TERMS OF THE
BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
CAME DOWN WITH THE DECISION IT
DID BUT THE NUMBER OF YEARS WE
HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE
CRIMES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE
THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMES THAT
OCCUR IN OUR STATE; THE MOST
SERIOUS CRIMES; THE
PREMEDITATED MURDER OF
ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND IN SOME CASES
MULTIPLE HUMAN BEINGS;
THESE ARE CRIMES AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT CLEARLY 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD
ADULTS HAVE A DIFFERENT-THEY
UNDERSTAND RIGHT FROM WRONG
AND THEY UNDERSTAND IT IS WRONG TO
KILL SOMEONE AND THIS ISN'T A
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THEY
SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE; YES; THEY SHOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE AS ADULTS FOR
COMMITTING THE MOST HEINOUS
CRIMES; BUT IN
RECOGNITION THEIR BRAINS MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN FULLY DEVELOPED AT THAT AGE WE
WOULD RECOMMEND
A LESSER SANCTION THAN THE 30 YEARS THAT
APPLIES TO ADULT FOR REVIEW OF
POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE AND
THESE ARE
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
INDIVIDUAL CASE AND FACTS
INVOLVED IN THE CASES AND LOOK
AT THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON THAT
IS CONVICTED OF COMMITTING
THESE CRIMES AND ALL
THESE FACTORS THAT-WE STILL LOOK AT
THOSE AND THOSE
WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER
OF CORRECTIONS OR PAROLE BOARD
IF THE LEGISLATURE CHOOSES TO
CHANGE THE WAY THE CASES ARE
REVIEWED BUT WE BELIEVE 25
YEARS IS APPROPRIATE AND NEEDED
IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL OF
SANCTION FOR THIS TYPE OF A
HEINOUS OFFENSE THAT THE
JUVENILE WOULD BE CONVICTED
OF. THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCES OF
OPINION BUT THE
COUNTY ATTORNEYS BELIEVE 25 YEARS-IT
IS LIFE SANCTION WITH REVIEW
AFTER 25 YEARS AND THAT IS OUR
BELIEF. >> REPRESENTATIVE WARD: THANK
YOU; MR. CHAIR
AND-MR. BACKSTROM; THANK YOU FOR COMING AND APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE
AND I MAY BE JUMPING WAY AHEAD
BUT WONDER IF YOU KNOW OF ANY
RESEARCH BEEN DONE AND MAYBE
PENNSYLVANIA IS A BETTER
EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE
MORE PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH; BUT IF
CHILDREN ARESENTANCED AS WE
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING; 30 YEARS
LATER OR EVEN 25 YEARS
LATER WHEN THEY SPENT MORE THAN HALF
OF THEIR TIME INCARCERATED AND
HOPEFULLY GETTING TREATMENT AND
PROGRAMMING; WHAT IS THERE
ABILITY TO FUNCTION ON THE
OUTSIDE? I'M THINKING ABOUT
BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND THE KIND
OF LIVES THAT THEY END UP
LIVEJUG GROWING UP IN; IS THERE
ANY RESEARCH; HAS ANYBODY
LOOKED AT WHEN WE DO THIS
EVALUATION AFTER 25 OR 30 YEARS
OR 40 YEARS ORE WHAURFB IT ENDS
UP BEING; IS THERE ANY
INDICATION ANYWHERE THAT
WE'VE REALLY BEEN ABLE TO HELP SOME
PEOPLE AND HELP THEM BE
PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY?
>>
MR. CHAIR; REPRESENTATIVE I'M NOT THE PERSON TO ASK THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION; BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A
GOOD QUESTION AND SOMETHING THAT
THE PSYCHOLOGISTS THAT DEAL WITH
THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD REALLY
HAVE TO ADDRESS. AND THEY
ARE REVIEWED AND AS YOU
PROBABLY WELL KNOW WHEN SOMEONE IS IN
OUR PRISON SYSTEM MINNESOTA'S
PRISON SYSTEM IS VERY GOOD IN
TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITIES
GIVEN TO OFFENDERS WHO HAVE
BEEN INCARCERATED IN TERMS OF
DEVELOPMENT
AND KRAESING MINUTEAL MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS
AND EDUCATIONAL AND GROWTH
POTENTIAL SO THERE A R A LOT OF
OPPORTUNITY. WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THESE TYPES OF
HEINOUS CRIMES THAT HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED THERE NEEDS TO BE A
SIGNIFICANT SANCTION. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AND I'LL
INVITE JOSEPH ANDERSON UP IF
THERE ARE NOT FURTHER
QUESTIONS OF ME.
>> CHAIR: THANK YOU.
MR. ANDERSON IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE
YOURSELF AND BEGIN.
>> CHAIR; MEMBERS OF COMMIT I
USED TO BE SOMEBODY; NOT SO
MUCH ANYMORE; BUT WHERE SERVED
ON THE COMMITTEE. IF YOU WOULD
LOOK AT ME AS A PIECE OF
GRAMMAR AND
PUNKZUATION LOOK AS ME AS A EXCLAMATION
MARK TODAY AND I'M A EXCLAMATION MARK
BEHIND THE STATEMENT THAT YOU
NEED TO DESOMETHING. I AM NOT
GOING TO BE SO BOLD OR NAIVE TO
SAY IN A
COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE STANERED YOU ARE COMPELLED TO
DO
SOMETHING. THAT IS-BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT. BUT; YOU SHOULD
BE DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE
INACTION WILL
SPEAK VOLUMES ABOUT WHO YOU ARE AS A
LEGISLATURE AND WHO WE ARE AS A
STATE. NOW IN THE AGE OF FAKE
NEWS; DISTORTION; WHATEVER; WE
SELDOM GET FACED WITH SOME
THINGS THAT ARE
ABSOLUTE TRUTHS; BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTE
TRUTHS INVOLVED HERE. ONE;
MINNESOTA HAS ON ITS BOOKS LAWS
THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NO
QUESTION. THOSE LAWS ARE THE
PRODUCT OF THIS BODY ASSIGNED
BY THE GOVERNOR. MINNESOTA IS
ONE OF 8 STATES THAT REMAINS
THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ON
THE BOOKS. ANOTHER TRUTH AND I
WANT TO SAY; THIS IS NOT AN IDO
LOGICAL ISSUE. MOST
PEOPLE WILL AGREE THAT OUR CURRENT
SUPREME COURT IS A
CONSERVATIVELY ORIENTED SUPREME
COURT; BUT THAT COURT
INTERPRETING OUR MOST
FUNDAMENTAL LAW; THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTIONAL SAID WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE BOOKS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES
THAT FUNDAMENTAL LAW. SECOND;
OR THIRD BASICALLY; IS THAT
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS
TAKEN A OATH TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTION BOTH THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE
MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION. SO; YOU IS A SWORN DUTY TO ACT AND
YOU SHOULD INFUSE THAT WITH THE
IDEA THAT YOU HAVE A DUTY TO
TIMELY ACT WHEN YOU BECOME
AWARE SOMETHING YOU HAVE DONE
OR PREDECESSORS HAVE
DONE VIOLATE OUR LAW. WE HAVE
ANOTHER ISSUE KEY TO MY WHAT I
USED TO DO FOR TWO DECADES; THE
CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS. I HAVE WRITTEN ON
WHERE MERCY AND COMPASSION CAN
BE WITHIN THE PREROGATIVE
OF THE JUDGE OR THE
JUSTICE; FORGIVENESS IS NOT. THAT IS A
BIGGER SOCIETY ISSUE THAT IS
DETERMINED BY POLICY AND WHO
ARE THE POLICY MAKERS IN OUR
SOCIETY. JUDGES DO IT
SOMETIMES WHEN WE HAVE TO BUT
THE MAIN POLICY MAKERS IN OUR
SOCIETY ARE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES AND GOVERNOR.
THAT'S YOU. IT IS RIGHT AT
YOUR DOOR STEP AND I'LL TELL
YOU COURTS WILL
MAKE A DECISION WHEN WE ARE FORCED TO BY A
ISSUE. I MEAN; WE DONT LIKE
TO; YOU SHOULD BE BACK IN OUR
CONFERENCE ROOM WHEN WE SAY WHY
DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING; THEY
COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!
INACTION OFTEN SPEAKS LOUDLY
WHO WE ARE AS A STATE AND WHO
YOU ARE AS A BODY SO THINK A
LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS CAN BE
ASKED BY ANY OF YOUR
CONSTITUENCIES; MADAM
REPRESENTATIVE; MR. REPRESENTATIVE; WE DO HAVE ON
THE BOOKS SOMETHING THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; WHY HAVE YOU
CHOSEN NOT TO ACT? YOU
ARE NOT COMPELLED TO ACT BUT THINK YOU
HAVE A ABSOLUTE DUTY TO ACT AND
PLEASE DO SO. I WILL NOT SPEAK
TO THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES IN
FRONT OF YOU; I WILL SAY A
COUPLE THINGS. ONE; DON'T LET
YOUR OWN VISION OF WHAT IS
PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF REPRESENTATIVE WARD'S
QUESTION WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
PEOPLE ARE IN PRISON A LONG
TIME BUT DO ITING WITH A
UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN
CONDITION AND THE IS A PLACE
FOR REFORM AND FORGIVENESS IN
OUR SOCIETY.
ANOTHER THING; SOME KNOW I WAS ON THE CAPITAL
RESTORATION COMMISSION. I HAVE
GIVEN A LECTURE ABOUT THE DEAD
HAND OF THE ARCHITECT; THE
ARTIST; THE JUDGE AND THE
LEGISLATURE. WE ARE OFTEN
FORMED BY THE DEAD HAND OF WHAT
YOU DO TODAY. LAWYERS WILL BE
GUIDED IN THE FUTURE BY WHAT
I DID BEFORE BUT I WOULD ASK
THAT YOU WILL BE AWARE OF THE
CONCEPT AND NOT TRY TO MAKE
THAT DEAD HAND TOO
CONTROLLING. HAVE A LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN
FUTURE GENERATIONS TO REALIZE
THEY CAN DEAL WITH AND
HANDLE WITH SOME THE PROBLEMS AS THEY
EVOLVE. IT WAS SURREAL TO SEE
THE CASES REVIEWED TODAY
BECAUSE I KNOW EACH OF THEM
RATHER INTIMATE LA. SOME I
WROTE THE DECISIONS ABOUT AND
SOME I DESCENTED ON; WROTE
EXTENSIVELY ON. THERE IS
SOMETHING VERY TRUE ABOUT IT
PEOPLE THAT COME INTO OUR
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND DO VERY
BAD THINGS;
HEINOUS CRIMES. MOST OF THEM ARE NOT
EVIL. MOST OF THEM DO BAD THINGS;
THEY DO STUPID THINGS; THEY
GETD INTO
BAD SITUATIONS. SOME UP THERE I WILL SAY YES; I
THINK THERE MAY BE WUB OR TWO
BECAUSE OF THEIR MAKEUP THEY
ARE EVIL BUT MOST ARE
NOT TRULY EVIL BUT THEY DO BAD THINGS AND
THERE IS ROOM IN THE
SYSTEM ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE A
JUVENILE FOR REFORM. ONE THING
I SAY ABOUT MYSELF; BE
CAREFUL BECAUSE I'M DAIRNS
WITH DANGEROUS WITH A LITTLE
KNOWLEDGE AND IN ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION REPRESENTATIVE WARD; IT IS ALL OVER THE
SPECTRUM BECAUSE I DO FOLLOW THE LIVES
OF SOME OF THOSE
PEOPLE WHO I HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON. SOME
WILL DO WELL; SOME HAVE DONE
WELL IN PRISON AND TAKE
ADVANTAGE-SOME HAVE WITHDRAWN
AND BECOME WORSE PERSONS AS A
RESULT OF THIS PROCESS THEN
THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WENT
IN. IT IS ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
PUT IN YOUR SYSTEM A METHOD TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT
WHOLE BROAD SPECTRUM; BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
ABSOLUTES. FINALLY; SOME DONT WANT TO BE HERE TODAY
AND I DONT WANT TO BE HERE TODAY. I
HAVE A STRONG RESPECT
FOR SEPARATION OF
POWERS. I'M AWARE OF MY FORMER POSITION; I
DONT LIKE APPEARING BEFORE
YOU; BUT I'M HERE FOR ONE REASON;
SOME ARE HERE
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL. SOME ARE
SURPRISED ABOUT MY SUPPORT FOR MY
COLLEAGUE DAVID [INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] FOR HIS AOPPONENTMENT
TO THE 8TH CIRCUIT. DAIBED AND
I DISAGREE ON MUCH ABOUT
THE LAW AND HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED;
BUT WE AGREE ON
THE FUNDAMENTAL CONSPT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND
WHAT MUST BE DONE TO MAKE IT
WORK WELL. YOU SHOULD
AAPPRECIATE
WHAT REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL HAVE DONE. SHE AND
I WERE PUT IN A ROOM AND ASKED TO
DECIDE WE WOULD DISAGREE ON A
LOT; BUT WE DO HAVE A
FUNDSMENTAL AGREEMENT ON HOW
OUR SYSTEM OR DEMOCRACY NEEDS
TO WORK AND SHE HAS
BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO YOU SHE IS
ASKING YOU BASICALLY DO THE
RIGHT THING AND AS MARTIN
LUTHER KING ONCE SAID; THE TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING IS
ALWAYS NOW. DO QUAT YOU NEED TO DO.
THAT'S MY EXCLAMATION POINT.
ANY
QUESTIONS? >> REPRESENTATIVE DEAN. NO.
>> REPRESENTATIVE
HILSTROM. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND
YOUR HONOR FOR BEING
HERE. >> CAN I SAY ONE
MORE THING? IT IS A PLEASURE FOR JIM
BACKSTROM AND ME TO SIT
HERE AND BE ON THE SAME SIDE OF A
ISSUE. [LAUGHTER]. HE HAS A
GOOD HEART AND APPRECIATE HIS
COMMENTS.
>> REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM: I
WILL POSE A HIPTHETICAL; IF WE
ACTUALLY ADOPTED WHAT MR.
BACKSTROM IS ASKING 25
YEARS AND DID AS YOU SAID THE
RIGHT THING; WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO
THESE CASES OR
WOULD LIKELY HAPEN TO THE CASES THAT ARE
ALREADY CORRECTED WHERE
THEY HAVE SAID LIFE WITH RELEASE AT
30 YEARS? WHAT
WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE WOULD BE THE NEXT
STEP? >> ARE YOU A LAWYER?
>> REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM: I
AM.
>> JUDGES HATE HYPOTHETICAL JZ
YOU KNOW THAT AND PUTTING ME ON
THE SPOT. JUDGES ARE VERY
PRACTICED AVOIDING THE FULL
SPECTRUM. I THINK THAT THE
CASES WE HAVE NOW THAT
WERE UP HERE THEY ARE MOVERING ON. I
WOULD DISAGREE WITH ONE
THING; HE SAYS THE PRISON SYSTEM DOES
IT WELL; NO WE ARE A CUT ABOVE;
SO IT A COMPARATIVE HE JUST-WE
DO IT VERY WELL COMPARED TO
OTHERS. I THINK THERE ARE A
LOT OF DEFICIENCIES AND I'M ON
THE RECORD OF THAT. I THINK IT
WORKS WELL; THERE IS A LOT OF
WEIGHT ON THE COMMISSIONER BUT
I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE A
SYSTEM WHERE IT IS A [INAUDIBLE
COMMENTS] WE ARE ALL HUMAN
AND MAKE MISTAKES AND THINK THERE
NEEDS TO BE SOME ENTITY THAT
WILL REVIEW THE CONDITION OF A
INCARCERATED PERSON WHETHER THE
IS 25 YEARS OR 30 YEARS AND SO
LET IT START ADMINISTRATIVELY
WITH THE COMMISSIONER AND THEN
IF THERE IS DISPUTE LET IT GO
THROUGH A PANEL THAT WILL MAKE
THAT DECISION. THE BILL IS IN
THE DETAIL OF WHO IS PART THE
PANEL BUT THINK THAT WOULD
WORK. BY THE WAY;
HE'S RIGHT; THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
LITIGATION. MAYBE NOT AS MUCH
AS HE ANTICIPATES; BUT THEN IT
IS HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS
SOMETIMES. >> REPRESENTATIVE
HILSTROM: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. SO
THEN WOULD YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD
MAKE IF WE WERE TO DOPT A 25
YEARS RETROACTIVE TO APPLY TO
THESE 8 CASES
THAT HAVE GOTTEN LIFE WITH 30 YEARS OR HOW WOULD
YOU-I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A
CHANGE WE MAKE IMPACTATHIZE
CASES ALREADY RELITIGATED NOT
THE THREE STILL YET TO BE
DETERMINED BUT THE OTHER 5
CASES. >> I HAVE A BIAS
ON RETO ACTIVELY BECAUSE I HAVE WRITTEN
ON THAT ISSUE. WHEN IT CAME UP
TO THE COURT I SAID THE LAW
APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AND IN
THE MINORY ON THE
SUPREME COURT SAID NO IT IS RETROACTIVE. I
BELIEVE THAT IT IS RETROACTIVE;
BUT UNDERSTAND I COME FROM A
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] POINT OF
VIEW. I THINK IT SHOULD BE
RETROACTIVE BUT THAT'S A
POLICY DECISION THAT WILL BE WORKED
OTBY YOU IN CONTEXT WHAT
THE BIG GUYS ON THE SUPREME COURT
SAY.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM: THANK
YOU. >> REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: THANK
YOU MR. CHAIR AND THIS COULD BE
TO YOU JUSTICE
ANDERSON- >> BY THE WAY SIR; YOU DID
THE RIGHT THING ON THE
STATE OFFICE IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ASKING
ABOUT. >> REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: YOU
MEAN THE SENATE
OFFICE BUILDING. THEY ARE ENJOY ING
IT. >> I KNOW THEY ARE. BOTH
PARTIES. >> REPRESENTATIVE DEAN: WHEN I
AM CONSIDERING THIS I HAVE A
LENS; WE ALL SL LAENS WE
LOOK THROUGH AND ONE THING I TRY TO
DO IS REALLY
SEPARATE MY LENS FROM WHAT IS RIGHT BECAUSE I
THINK THEY ARE NOT EQUALLY THE
SAME; AND I THINK OUR JOB
HERE IS FIRST AND FOREMOST
PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT'S A HARD THING TO
SPEAK TO WHEN WE ARE TALK
ABOUT HEINOUS CRIME BECAUSE THE
PUBLIC PERCEIVES THEM AS
VERY DIFFERENT. I THINK THE VICTIMS
OF THOSE CRIMES ALSO PERCEIVE
THESE CRIMES VERY DIFFERENT
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN
PERSONALLY IMPACTED. SO; THERE
IS COMPONENT OF
PENLALTY; RETRIBUTION AND ALL
THOSE THINGS; THAT OFTEN
TIMES DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
ISSUE OF PUBLIC SAFETY; SO WHEN
I THINK ABOUT THIS AND HEAR 25;
30; ALL THOSE TYPESF OTHINGS; I
THINK ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT ACTUALLY SERVICE TIME.
IF I SERVE 30 YEARS AND COME OUT;
AM I A LOT SAFER THAN IF I
SERVICEED 25 YEARS AND
COME OUT? THOSE ARE THE
TYPES OF THINGS I TRY TO CONSIDER AND
I'M KBLAD GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP
MINNESOTA DOES IT RIGHT IN OUR
CORRECTIONS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE DO; I THINK OVER THE
PAST DECADE WE REDUCED A LOT OF
THE PROGRAMMING FOR INMATES
INSIDE; I THINK FORTUNATELY WE
HAVE BEGIN TO INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR CHEMCALLY
DEPENDENCY AND OTHER TREATMENT
FOR INDIVIDUALS INSIDE SO
GETTING SOME BACK BUT STILL
HAVE A LONG LONG WAY TO GO AND
WHY I BRINK THIS UP IS THIS IS
A COMPLEX QUESTION AND WHEN I
THINK ABOUT THE YOUNG BRAIN IN
ITS DEVELOPMENT A COMMENT WAS
MADE 16; 17; THEY KNOW
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT
AND WRONG. WHEN THEY KILL SOMEBODY
THEY KNOW THAT'S WRONG. WELL;
THEY MIGHT KNOW IT IS WRONG BUT
DONT UNDERSTAND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT AND THINK
THAT IS THE KEY PIECE IN ALL OF
THE CONVERSATION. WE
LEARNED SO MUCH MORE ABOUT BRAIN
DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT
HAPPENS AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR
MYSELF; I DID THINGS AT THE
AGE OF 15; 16; 17; 18 THAT I
WOULD NOT DO TODAY AND I'M ONE
OF THE FEW PEOPLE IN THE
LEGISLATURE THAT SPENT SEVERAL
YEARS BEHIND BARS; SO I THINK
THAT THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC SAFETY
I THINK SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN THE
FOR FRONT IN WHAT WE ARE
THINKING ABOUT; WHILE STILL
CONSIDERING THE VICTIMS THAT
HAVE BEEN IMPACTED AND THE
SEVERITY OF CRIME IF THAT MAKES
ANY SENSE AT ALL.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE AND
SOCIETY MAKES THAT DECISION ON ITS
OWN. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
GENTLEMEN IN NORWAY WHO
KILLED 67 PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND. HE IS
ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE RIGHT NOW
AND THE NORWEGIAN SYSTEM THEY
SAY THAT YOU CAN-WE WONT GET
PAROLE AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
STUDIES ON INCARCERATION; MOST
THE BENEFIT OF INCARCERATION AS
FAR AS HAVING IMPACT ON THE
OFFENDER OCCURS WITHIN THE
FIRST FEW YEARS OF THE
INCARCERATION. THE LATTER
YEARS ARE DEAD TIME BASICALLY
AND YOU TRITO DO REFORM OR
WHATEVER BUT IT IS NOT
HELPING REFORM. IF YOU LOOK AT FIRST
DEGREE MURDER OFFENDERS THEY
HAVE THE ONE OF THE BETTER
RECORDS OF NON-REOFFENDING AND
SO WHAT YOU COME DOWN TO IS THE
DECISION OF WHAT IS THE PENALTY
THAT WOULD BE PAID BY SOMEONE
WHO HAS DONE SOMETHING BAD. NO
MISTAKE HERE; SOMEBODY HAS
TAKEN A LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN
BEING AND THERE IS A
TERRIBLE PERMANENCE TO THAT EVENT WHEN
SOMEBODY IS REMOVED FROM THIS
EARTH; AND SO WE AS A
SOCIETY-WE HAVE ALL
THESE OTHER FACTORS BUT WHEN YOU DO
SOMETHING THAT HEINOUS IN THE
CONTEXT; YOU ARE GOING TO BE
SEPARATED FROM SOCIETY FOR A
PERIOD OF TIME WHETHER YOU ARE
A DANGER TO SOCIETY OR
NOT. SO; THE QUESTION IS; WHAT DO
YOU MAKE AS A DECISION AS TO
THE PENALTY IN SOCIETY FOR A
VERY BAD CRIME AND THEN;
THE KEY DECISION WILL BE; WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN THE PERIOD OF TIME
ENDS WHEN SOMEBODY PAID
WHAT YOU DEEM TO BE THE PROPER PAY
BACK FOR A BAD ACT AND COMING
BACK INTO SOCIETY AS A FULLY
REEVALUATED AND
FULL CITIZEN. THAT IS A KEY QUESTION. I HATE
TO BRING UP THE [INAUDIBLE
COMMENTS] CASE. THIS IS A
OFFENDER-EVEN HIS FAMILY SAID
DON'T PUT HIM BACK INTO SOCIETY
BECAUSE HE HAS PROBLEMS AND HE
IS DANGEROUS. WHAT YOU NEED TO
THINK ABOUT IS NOT THAT ONE
SOLUTION FITS ALL; AND HAVE TO
HAVE A SYSTEM THAT WILL
UNDERSTAND SOME PEOPLE ARE
FULLY REHABILITATED; SOME
MARGINALLY REHABILITATED AND
SOME THERE IS SOMETHING
INHERENT IN THEIR MIND
THEY STILL MAY BE A DANGER TO
SOCIETY BUT DONT TRY TO MAKE
ONE MOLD
FIT EVERYBODY BECAUSE AGAIN I GO BACK TO UNDERSTAND
THE HUMAN CONDITION AND DONT
TRY TO OVERLY EXERCISE
[INAUDIBLE COMMENTS] WHAT
WILL HAPPEN 25 OR 30 YEARS FROM
NOW.
>> REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE:
PASS.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE LOHMER: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AND
EVERYONE FOR THIS MEETING THIS
MORNING. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY
FANTASTIC. I ACTUALLY AM WORKING ON
LEGISLATION. I HAD A GENTLEMEN
FROM WASHINGTON DC CONTACT ME
AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
THROUGH THIS AND I'M EXCITED TO
BRING THIS FORWARD AND HOPE
QUEE
HAVE A HEARING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AND I GUESS I
JUST WANT REALLY IN TALKING
ABOUT THIS YES; YOU ARE RIGHT; PEOPLE
THAT COMMIT THESE HEINOUS
CRIMES THERE NEEDS TO BE
CONSEQUENCES; BUT THERE ARE
ALSO IT SEEMS TO BE HOPE. IT
IS ALL ABOUT HOPE THAT THEY CAN
HAVE REDEMPEN AND HAVE
THEIR LIFE RESTORED AND IF YOU HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE YOU NEVER
HAVE A CHANCE HOW DO YOU HAVE HOPE?
I LIKE THE IDEA OF 25 YEARS
AND GUESS WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT;
BUT JUST TO RELOOK BUT I THINK
EVERYONE NEEDS TO HAVE HOPE.
>> MAY I ADDRESS
THAT CONCEPT? THERE IS A SCHOLAR WRITES ABOUT
THE HOPEFULNESS OF
UNCERTAINTY AND I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO
BUILD SOME UNCERTAINTY INTO THE
SYSTEM SUCH THAT THERE CAN BE
THE HOPEFULNESS THAT IF I DO
THE RIGHT THING I REFORM
THERE IS SOMETHING I CAN DO TO CHANGE
MY FUTURE. I MAY GET OUT.
THAT'S WHAT THE HOPEFULNESS OF
UNCERTAINTY IS. THE FUTURE IS
UNCERTAIN THAT MEANS YOU HAVE
SOME ABILITY TO EFFECT THE
FUTURE; SO I
VERY MUCH LOVE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
KIND OF HOPE. BUILD
UNCERTAINTY INTO THE SYSTEM SO
THAT THINGS CAN HAPPEN IN THE
FUTURE. WITH RESPECT TO THE
PEOPLE INCARCERATED.
>>
REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: THANK YOU; MR. CHAIR. I WANT
TO THANK YOU TOO
FOR ALLOWING THIS COMMISSION TO COME UP AND
DO THE PRESENTATION AND YOU CAN
SEE NOW THAT THERE WAS AFTER 7
MEETINGS A LOT DISCUSSED. WE
HAD FANTASTIC PEOPLE AT THE
TABLE FROM WIDE VARIETY OF
OPINIONS AS THE JUSTICE WAS
SAYING. BACKSTROM AND PAUL
ANDERSON PROBABLY DIFFERENT
SIDE OF IT SPECTRUM. THE ONE
THING I THINK THAT HASN'T BEEN
SAID AS CLEARLY IS BACK TO THE
MILLER FACTORS; I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT I HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE WITH AT AGE 15; 16; 17
DECLARING SOMEBODY IRREDEEMABLE AND JUST NOT
COMFORTABLE DOING THAT; SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO
BE PART THE CONVERSATION IF WE
DECIDE TO IMPLEMENT THE MILLER
FACTORS; IN ADDITION TO WHAT
JIM BACKSTROM SAID; THEY ARE
EXPENSIVE AND CUMBERSOME AND
LOT OF LITIGATION WE
CAN LEGISLATE THAT; THAT IS A
POSSIBILITY; BUT I THINK THE
GREATER PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION IS; DO WE WANT TO DECLARE
SOMEBODY AT THAT AGE AS
IRREDEEMABLE; THAT THEY WILL
NEVER CHANGE AND MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION-THAT IS WHAT
MILLER FACTORS DOING IS
MAKING THE DETERMINATION WE CAN
SENTENCE TO LIFE; THEY
WILL NEVER GOING CHANGE AND GOING TO
REFORM AND NEV HAVE HOPE; AND I
AM NOT COMFORTABLE AS A
LEGISLATURE DECLARING THAT OVER
SOMEONE'S LIFE. SO; I WOULD
PREFER-I APPRECIATE OUR VICE
CHAIR HAVING A BILL COMING
FORWARD THAT LOOKS AT A
DETERMINATION OF THE
LIFESENTANCE FOR JUVENILE BEING
DIFFERENT THAN ADULTS FOR THE
VERY FACTORS DISCUSSED HERE BUT
THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION BUT I JUST WANTED
TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE ARE SAYING
WITH THE MILLER FACTORS.
SO; GET THAT ON THE RECORD AND AS
WE MOVE THIS FORWARD I
HOPE WE DO HAVE A HEARING
WITH REPRESENTATIVE LOHMERS BILL AND
HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. THANK
YOU.
>> MR. CHAIR; MAY I MAKE ONE
THING TO AMEND THE RECORD? I
HAVE BEEN FORMED I WAS LIKE A
BULLDOZER OVER YOUR PROTOCOL.
I SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED
QUESTIONS SAYING MR. CHAIR AND
REPRESENTATIVE; SO THE
ERROR WAS INADVERTENT AND IF THE
RECORD CAN BE CORRECTED.
[LAUGHTER]. >> REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL:
JUST A FINAL COMMENT; I THINK
WE CAN GIVE THE FORMER JUSTICE
LATITUDE. IT IS GREAT TO HAVE HIM HERE AND PART OF THE
COMMISSION AND HE HAS GREAT
WISDOM SO FOR MY PART AND FELT
IT WAS OKAY FOR THIS ONE
INSTANCE. THANK YOU.
>> I CAME BACK UP IN CASE THERE
ARE QUESTIONS BUT OTHER
THAN THAT WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
LISTENING TO US AND
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
>> CHAIR: I WANT TO THANK YOU
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WORK ON
THIS
COMMITTEE. LISTENING HERE YOU CAN SEE IT
A COMPLEX ISSUE AND I THINK THERE IS STILL A
LOT OF UNKNOWNS WE HAVE TO
DEAL WITH; BUT THAT IS SOMETHING AS
THE JUSTICE SAID; IT IS A
POLICY ISSUE WE HAVE TO MAKE.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> CHAIR: THAT CONCLUDE
THE MEETING; WE ARE ADJOURNED.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
For more infomation >> Royal "Fab Four" Make First Public Appearance (2018) - Duration: 2:47. 
For more infomation >> 5 For Good: Boston firefighter, public information officer, retires - Duration: 0:51. 
For more infomation >> Public blocked from Eckerd Connects board meeting amid Hillsborough foster care crisis - Duration: 3:17. 
For more infomation >> San Bernardino Police Hope Public Can Identify Man Who Severely Beat Clerk - Duration: 1:59. 
For more infomation >> Judge Napolitano on Trump's public criticism of Sessions - Duration: 4:32. 
For more infomation >> Donald Trump and Melania Trump this public hand-holding is a first since Trump took office - Duration: 2:36. 
For more infomation >> Wall That Heals opens to public - Duration: 2:09. 
For more infomation >> Fountain Police: 'no threat to public' following double shooting - Duration: 1:37. 
For more infomation >> SCOVI in conversation with Jacq Kelly - Public Speaking with a Vision Impairment - Duration: 1:53. 
For more infomation >> Dany Boon, un aimant à public qui enchaîne les succès populaires - Duration: 9:09. 
For more infomation >> Indianapolis Public Schools hosts transportation input meetings - Duration: 2:26. 
For more infomation >> Greenville to host public information meeting on 'Town Creek Culvert Project' - Duration: 1:26. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét