January 6, 2012

EYEWITNESS ID & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TOP
 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE’S 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

By State Rep. Gerry Fox III

Connecticut’s General Assembly alternates between a short session that runs from early February to early May in even-numbered years, and a long session that runs from early January to early June in odd-numbered years. The 2012 legislative session is a short session which means that individual legislators may only introduce proposed bills that relate to budgetary and revenue matters. However, the Judiciary Committee, like other committees has authority to introduce other proposals and we are again planning to tackle a number of difficult issues ranging from our court system to eyewitness identification and domestic violence.

One of the issues that the Judiciary Committee is likely to raise next session is the use of eyewitness identification by law enforcement. Last year the legislature established the Eyewitness Identification Task Force, which is charged with studying issues concerning eyewitness identification in criminal investigations and the use of sequential and simultaneous lineups. The Task Force is chaired by Justice David Borden and includes legislators, prosecutors, public defenders, legal scholars and members of the law enforcement community. Together, we have worked to determine the best practices in our state and around the country in areas of sequential vs. simultaneous lineup methods. We have also heard expert testimony regarding blind and double-blind administration of lineups, instructions to the eyewitnesses and procedures for show-ups, among the many important topics in the growing body of science in eyewitness identification. There has been a tremendous consensus on many of these issues among our task force members and I look forward to the group’s recommendations. I anticipate that we will introduce legislation that will increase confidence in our criminal justice system, ensuring that more of those who are guilty are getting caught and, of course, doing what we can to ensure that no innocent people are sent to prison.

Another task force created during the last session deals with law enforcement’s response to family violence. This group has been meeting since early fall and is the process of formulating their recommendations to the Judiciary Committee. The Task Force is considering statutory and policy changes in the areas of dual arrests, protective orders and bail bonds. One proposal would allow a victim to file a complaint reporting an alleged violation (through electronic, telephonic, or U.S. mail) of a protective or restraining order not only in the town in which such person resides, but also in the town where the contact is received by the protected party, or where such contact was initiated. The need for better victims’ support services and a more effective law enforcement and legal system have only grown in recent years and I believe that our committee will again introduce legislation on domestic violence.

The Judiciary Committee is also likely to consider proposals from the Connecticut Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission was established to review criminal justice and sentencing policies in the state and has been busy developing its recommendation for the 2012 legislative session. One of the proposals comes from the classification working group of the Commission and aims to classify over 750 statutory misdemeanors that are not currently classified under the state’s criminal code.

Another issue that our committee may deal with has to do with a recent State Supreme Court decision, Commissioner of Public Safety et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, which creates an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for a certain protected class of state and municipal employees. It has been argued that without a legislative remedy to this decision, many public agencies may not be able to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

One issue that I hope the legislature would address in the 2012 legislative session is the state police crime lab’s ability to respond to the backlog of forensic DNA testing. The Crime Lab Working Group was established by Governor Malloy for that purpose and tasked OPM Under-Secretary Mike Lawlor to lead a team of key stakeholders and experts to develop a strategy to tackle the lab’s backlog. The issues are complicated, but I am confident that the working group, which includes legislators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, scientists and members of law enforcement, can recommend short-term and long-term solutions to deal with an unprecedented increase in the crime lab’s workload in recent years.

Of course, there are many other ideas that are coming to the Judiciary Committee for consideration from legislators, attorneys, advocates and other interested parties. We are only beginning to receive their proposals and even though it is a short session, there will be hundreds of bills to consider. I again look forward to a productive session.

State Representative Gerry Fox III serves Stamford’s 146th Assembly District. He is the House Chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.