Monday, Monday
by Rob Miller
Yesterday, after spending my morning watching the Georgia House of Representatives conduct absolutely ZERO business on the floor, I sat in on a House Judicial Non-Civil Committee’s afternoon meeting. Its a good thing the full committee was unable to attend, as there are 21 members and the capacity of the room is a mere 32. Those who did bother to show up were present to hear 3 bills:
H. B. 219 – Antifreeze; include aversive agent to render it unpalatable; provisions (Benton), H. B. 859 – Probationer duties; tolling of probated sentences; clarify provisions (Setzler), and H. B. 392 – Plea discussions; guilty or nolo contendere; certain requirements; provisions (Levitas)
The Committee began with the feel-good Antfreeze bill, HB 219.
According to the advocates, somewhere in the order of 30 states already have provisions requiring the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze. There are only 2 manufacturers of this product in the entire US, the west coast manufacturer is already adding the agent to meet the market needs, and the East Coast manufacturer, from whence Georgia gets our antifreeze, is not.
My best understanding is that the east coast plant would like to add this agent, but needed a State Mandate (forcing the market to buy) and Full Protection (from any criminal and civil penalties) should any problems someday arise from this change.
This all, despite the assertions that it would mean only a $.03 per gallon increase, and that the product was completely safe.
Although there were many questions and concerns from Committee members Franklin and Byrd (the only dissenting votes), noone bothered to ask why this bill was in a criminal law committee instead of the Agriculture and Consumer Affairs or Industrial Relations committees…
—-
Secondly, Setzler’s bill, which would stop the clock on a probationer should he or she fail to appear before their probation officer.
Setzler sits on this committee.
Pretty cut and dry, and fitting neatly on 2 pages! It passed through committee without a single dissent and very few questions.
—-
Lastly, HB 392, by Kevin Levitas.
This bill gives the state prosecutor the ability to back out of a plea deal if the Judge modifies the agreement. Someone asked how frequently a Judge has modified a sentence down, which would be the only foreseeable reason for such an issue. Levitas said he had, but noone else raised their hands.
There was much discussion among the many advocates for this bill that these provisions would “level the playing field” for the poor, disadvantaged state.
The State, who cannot be sued, who exercises the ability to take its citizens life, liberty, and property; needs to be able to back out of a plea deal and force a trial.
Sandy Michaels, of the GA Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, was the lone voice of the People. She said that the State should always defer to the rights of the citizens. She tried, but really saw the writing on the wall. Her testimony fell flat on the room to all but Ed Setzler, Bobby Franklin, and Stacy Abrams.
Everyone seemed to agree that this bill will raise the tendency of prosecutors to “over” charge and expect to bargain down, and Setzler really did ask questions of the witness, seeking unintended consequences, while Abrams did manage to get some technical language changed to allow some protection to a defendant. A small protection, before the bill passed, with only 2 dissenting votes: Abrams and Franklin.
Levitas, like Setzler, sits on this committee.
Franklin said after the meeting “It is interesting that all the people speaking for the bill were [civil] government employees, and the people speaking against it were representing the people; and “the People’s” representatives sided with the State!”
Setzler offered that he had hoped for a more compelling argument from the people. He seemed to be sad that he, somehow, had to vote in favor of this bill.
Sphere: Related Content
