Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Committee this Thursday morning, the January 8, and we're continuing with testimony on H five. We have the honorable judge Zone Zumiezin in to weigh in on H five. Over to you, judge.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Thank you. Good morning. Tom Sone, Chief Superior Judge. I was waiting for the first time I get to say this within your committee because I know representative Goslant has been he couldn't wait since the end of the session last year. This bill is a policy bill.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: And here we go.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: A number of jurisdictions across the country have different ages. This is consistent with some and it is a policy determination. This policy would lead potentially to more cases where courts would have to analyze the 804A criteria and address them for the hearsay statements to be introduced at trial and insofar as the impact upon the courts, I think it would work fine. In other words, I don't think that this is a bill that would cause any significant burdens on the court. It is a bill that we would be able to effectuate the legislature's policy in the same way that we do now where the bill has the age of 12.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alright. So that's what I was hoping to get on the record, something along those lines to address those couple issues. Are there any questions for Judge Zonet? Yeah, don't know who the question is for, but I don't even know why the question came up in my mind. Why is it under 16 or 15 and under not and the age 16 not included. Don't know that that's for the judge's solution.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No. That's why

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I said I'm not sure who it's for. I didn't know if there was a reason for, you know, not to include the

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: six year olds.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I can tell you that. And that's because last biennium we dealt with depositions, and that is 15 and under. And we wanted to be consistent with that. Okay. Wanted to add that for Whether that's the right one or if it should be 16 for all those, but that seems to be where Jennifer Pullman and advocates are. They're happy with the 15 and under. They were happy with that for the deposition and they asked us to make it consistent. That's what's perfect. Yeah, Ian. Hey, judge. Thank

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: you very much for being here. My question is away from policy and more on the procedural side. As a new legislator, I don't think we've had before us a proposed change to a judicial rule like in the Rules of Evidence. And I understand that there are multiple paths for changing a rule like this, one being the path that we see here, another being going through the rules committees or the rules of evidence committee. Can you speak from your perspective the positives and negatives to going through these different paths and why we would go through this path versus the other path? And if you know anything about sort of the history on this particular rule on these two paths?

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: Well first, when we have rules, does, from a philosophical point of view, if they're court rules, we do have a process in place where the court is the one that has a we have the rules committees who address these matters where the rules committees then bring them to the supreme court. There's comment. There's the opportunity for the bar to weigh in. And then we if the supreme court adopts them, then they have to go over to the joint legislative rules committee. And so that process provides a broad ability for people, practitioners, stakeholders, anyone to to weigh in. And so when you go around that and do it just legislatively, it can sometimes lead to other issues that can almost go back and forth. There are statutes which address that too. This particular bill is a little bit different though because my understanding is that in March 2019, there was a discussion in the evidence committee about 804A. The committee reporter had actually done some research and the evidence rules committee took the view that when we look at rule 804A, it's a legislatively created, apparently historically it was legislatively created, rule of evidence, and that the rules committee therefore was looking at it, I think from a deference point of view that the legislative determinations about these substantive amendments or expansions to the rule, that's where it came from. And so based on that, my understanding is that the Rules Committee felt that it was appropriate for the legislature to make these types of changes. That's not to say that the Rules Committee couldn't dive in, but I think that on certain aspects of it, Rules Committee may not be as aggressive, if you will, to start getting into it when you get to these particular issues. Because again, these were legislatively created ages and things like that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Judge Ziland? Thank you very much, Judge. We'll see you briefly at 01:00 when we start after lunch.

[Hon. Thomas A. Zonay (Chief Superior Judge of Vermont)]: We'll be there, thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thanks. Yes. Thank you for being here, Kim.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you. Sorry. Those are all for me. Good morning. For the record, my name is Kim McManus. I'm with the Department of State's Attorneys and Chairs. I listened in on the testimony yesterday that was provided, and I want to be conscious of your time and not reiterate too much. I did just want to start my testimony by pointing out we have a reporter's note under the rule, that I think just has a wonderful quote that just reminds us all why, as the judge said, the legislature created this rule in the first place. And that is that this exception evinces a strong legislative intention

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to safeguard the right of confrontation while at the

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: same time curing the frequent problem of lack of corroboration caused by the traditional hearsay rules in these particular cases for this age group. And as you heard yesterday repeatedly, folks this were explaining that balance of this allows us to bring in evidence that otherwise we would not be able to bring in, but for this age and for these cases, and that it is incredibly helpful in this type of case, the sexual assault cases and abuse of children. As the judge said, it's a decision for this body whether you wish to raise that age to include the 13, 14, and 15 year olds. My department supports still. Highly support it. It is one of our 10 priorities of this bill. And Attorney Padula, I think, did an excellent job yesterday running through how this helps our cases. And she used the metaphor of a ladder. We'll often also use the metaphor of a brick wall that a prosecutor, creating a case, when building a case at trial, every piece of evidence is a brick. And we're trying to build the strongest wall possible to get over that presumption sorry, the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. And then, of course, the defense attorney's job is to try and poke holes in those bricks. And in these cases, when we often only have a child's testimony, that's one very lone brick. And so when we're able if the child has made disclosures prior to legal proceeding and the other requirements necessary, we're able to bring in that testimony through these other persons who have heard the disclosure. And that just allows us to add bricks to the wall. So it strengthens our case. As Attorney Padula said yesterday, it takes the weight off of the child, that the child is not holding the entire case. And I apologize. The rule also includes another group of individuals. And I know Wilde White is here, so I will leave it to her expertise. But this yeah, it just takes the weight off the child. So the question for you all is, do you wish to raise that and include another subset of individuals? And again, we support that. I'm happy to talk through the practical steps of this. Again, I feel like you heard that yesterday. But if there were any questions or if you'd like me to run through what this looks like as far as when a prosecutor is going to use this evidence, how we use it, I'm happy to do that. But I also don't want to repeat what you've already heard.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think it would be helpful, actually, if you could run through a scenario of how this would play out to speak. But Angela, go ahead.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Can I ask you to include in that scenario When the when or how, under what circumstances the child would be compelled to testify? I know that's required that they're available. So when is that utilized and what is that replaced? Sure.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And I'll focus on the one example that many but of a child who is being sexually touched by an adult. So often, as we stated yesterday, a child might disclose this to a friend first or a teacher. I'll go through a particular case that I had. A child was at school. The school was doing a segment. The class was doing something about inappropriate touch. There was education going on. And after the presentation, the child said something to a friend about something that was going on at home involving her stepfather. The friend said, You need to tell this teacher. Child didn't want to. Friend was like, I really think you should tell the teacher. Child told the teacher. Teacher said, let's go to the guidance counselor. Guidance counselor talked to the child. Then the counselor called DCF. DCF talked to the child with a police officer present. And then after that, the investigation continued on. So each of those statements potentially could come in under this rule the statement to the friend, the statement to the teacher, guidance counselor. And the way so before we get to court. So we have that evidence. We see that. We see all these statements. We would talk to those witnesses if they're available to testify, run through that. If we decide that these are good bricks for our case, thirty days before the trial, we have to file a motion with the court to inform the court that we wish to use these statements. It also informs the defense that we wish to use these statements. If the defense objects to these statements, the court holds a hearing. And that's when we present what evidence we wish to present and the argument for why. And that's when we run through what's needed to allow these statements. There's four steps laid out. So the first one being, is this a victim of the certain crimes that are listed? And are these statements being offered for that proceeding? Check. Were these statements not taken in preparation for legal proceedings? For this one and this wasn't mentioned yesterday. I think a lot of folks were mentioning the friend and the teacher. Statements given to a DCF investigator or a police officer are possibly allowed if it's in the investigatory stage, not the prep for legal proceeding. And there's a difference there, and we have a lot of case law on that because that is a part that often gets challenged. And our court has repeatedly, If they find that it's the initial investigation, that they're still gathering information, that that statement, which could include a recording, can be used at trial. And then is the child available to testify? That also would come up at the hearing, that the child will be there and not sitting in the courtroom the whole time, but out in the hallway. And either that the prosecution will have the child be a witness or if the child is available if the defense moves to have the child take the SAM. And then the last part, which is where the judges spend the most amount of

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: time Is this only available piece? I'm curious, how would you determine a child is not available? What does that look like? They're just refusing outright? Right.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: If there's evidence that the parents of the child out of state. If the defense said, I believe the child's living in Colorado, can you assure me they will be here? Something like that. Or if the witness was hospitalized, again potentially Is there any evidence that the child might not be available? Now, life happens, so circumstances change. But at that moment of the hearing, is the state representing that the child, that they talk to the child, talk to the child's family, the child will be available to testify. Go

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: ahead, go ahead. I also was under the impression, and maybe falsely, that young children sometimes are in a different room and it's on video rather than physically in the courtroom?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yep. And so available doesn't have to mean in the courtroom with the defendant with everyone. There's another rule that we would into if we wanted to have the child be available but have certain protections. And that you could do a video it's through a video screen so that the child doesn't have to be looking at the jury or in the same room as the defendant. And that is, again, something pretrial that if the prosecutor wanted to advocate for that, would do that at that time. Defense attorney would have their opportunity if they didn't agree with that, and Is you go from

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: that used a lot? Is that used more often than not? I mean, I'm just trying to think of how scary it is for a kid to be in a courtroom.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It really depends. It depends very much on the age of the child. Just between the child and the parent and the prosecutor, that's a conversation.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But it's always a fail. It's not like, oh, we only have that in certain courtrooms or certain counties.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No. And I'd have to double check the rule. I believe that is still 12 and under, but I would need to check. There's an age restriction?

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But not a geographic restriction.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I don't believe so. I believe if the judge decides that that's appropriate, then they would take care of the AV part of it. So then the fourth criteria that the judge is going through and again, this was discussed yesterday this gatekeeping of initial, does this statement have some indicia of trust worthiness. And when you read appeals for these types of cases when this testimony is allowed, that's the largest part of the analysis. The first few are check marks. But there's a whole list of factors that judges consider when deciding whether these disclosures have trustworthiness built into them, so to speak. So if the judge decides, yes, all these statements can come in, or it might be this one and this one, but not this one, then at trial, the prosecutor is able to call Ms. Dolan, the teacher. And when we come to, did Susie come and talk to you after the class? Yes. What did she say? And this is the important moment. She said, stepdad is touching her under her pants. That statement is what we otherwise wouldn't be able to get in. And now we can have Ms. Dolan say that statement. And then with the DCF investigators and the police officers, again, often those are recorded. And so often the reporting can be played so the jury can see that interview with that child. So when the child, if the prosecutor decides to put the child on as a witness in their section of the case, their direct examination, all of what this child has said has been said. And so there might be just less testimony that they need to ask the child, or the child knows that some groundwork's been laid. And again, it's not all of them. And the biggest part is it's a child, and maybe they don't do well that day. Maybe the words are having a tough time coming out. The words have been able to come out in another way. And as Attorney Padula said, the jury still needs to assess the credibility of the child, assess the credibility of the other witnesses. And the defense attorney has the right to confront the other witnesses and the child. So back to your question, if the prosecutor was like, you know what? This is going great. And depending on the case, I think I have all my tricks. I don't need to directly examine the child. The defense attorney can move. They wouldn't do this in front of the jury. But they could move and say, we would like to question the child. And then they would be able to cross examine.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Just before the recording, the police and DCF, the defense counsel could call the police officer and the DCF person if it's a recording,

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, it would come in through like the DCF. They

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: would be on the stand to introduce it.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Play the video. We'd have to lay the foundation for when it happened, where it happened. All the sudden.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: They would on the stand as well.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: They would be on the stand while that was playing, and that's when they would be able to cross examine. But I just did think that was an important thing to note because it's a very powerful piece of testimony when it's able to come in. And again, judges go through this weighing the factors very carefully. They do not always allow these statements in. This is not a check. You said it to a friend. Okay. They really examine how it was said, what was said beforehand. Most likely one of the scenarios that comes up a lot when judges will not allow a statement in is if a well meaning adult or parent starts questioning the child a lot after an initial disclosure and is asking, well, what about this? What about this? What about this? And then goes to the DCF investigator, and this is everything that happened. Tell the officer this end kind of is and that's when you look into the factors that the judge is looking at, that's a lot of leading questions. It's not this spontaneous first person account. There's now a tainting of that. And that's where judges will draw lines. So I think that's important to know. This doesn't all automatically come in. This vetting that happens before trial.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Barbara, then Karen, then Angela.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I'm wondering about, and I realize I'm asking you for hearsay here, but your opinion of how the cross examination ends up going for the kids. Know cross examination can be intense, and I'm assuming defense attorneys try to be sensitive. I also know a lot of people are pro se, and I'm just trying to think if it's the stepparent in your scenario that's cross examining. My experience is that kids have been warned a lot, like, if you ever share this, I'm going to hurt your mother. I don't are there protections? I mean, I guess the I don't know if the questions are need to be submitted ahead of time for cross exam or the judge we're just relying the judge needs to I mean, does.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: One of your things.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It is difficult. Again, that's why this is so helpful, because it is quite difficult for anyone to be cross and single, to be an adult. I was deposed once and I was sweating bullets. And I'm usually the one asking the questions, I was like, did I say the right thing? What did I do? I didn't mean that. So it varies. I have watched defense attorneys so deftly and carefully and compassionately ask the hard questions that do it just so well. Truly, it's an art form to very carefully ask these really tough questions to a child witness. And some are remarkable, and while still zealously advocating for their client. There are others who are not, who just aren't, and it's painful to watch. Child witness is always told part of our prep is how to manage this, when to ask if they need a break, where to look in the courtroom. We give them spots to look in so they don't have to look at the person. There's things that we try to do. And then the judge is in charge of the courtroom. So if the questioning, like any questioning, crosses the lines of what you're allowed to do, the prosecutor's objecting, the judge is weighing in on that. So the prosecutors are doing what they can. But it is very difficult. And again, this is what's helpful about allowing this evidence in. Yes, no, I get that. And I get that

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: one of the reasons we can do that is the ability to face your accusers, but how tricky that is when it's a six year old.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thanks, Karen and then Angela.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I'm sharing the background of how this could all play out and what a judge considers with it. And so I'm very supportive of those. I could see this going to adults. Like, it just makes sense that there's all these checks and balances of does it make sense to include this? And I feel like it's also this piece of, for me, when somebody shares something, they feel safe in one moment and like, we'll share it and then start thinking through all the things so I can see how things can shift. I guess what I've also heard from folks of like, well, the reality is that sometimes people lie, sometimes people don't have the right information and that we are potentially going to convict people based on lies that are again, I don't agree with this. I feel like there are proper checks and balances, but I'm trying to get information to be able to counter that. And I appreciate your brick example. So how often is hearsay the only brick you're presenting, and that's what's going to potentially be the evidence to convict somebody? I'm guessing my assumption is there's many bricks and many pieces to it, but I would like to know from you, how often is this the only one?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah, I'm sure someone could come up with an example of it, but it'd be highly unlikely. Attorney Padula yesterday was providing the view from the internet crimes. So again, you may not meet the witness on the stand, but you would have other evidence, video evidence, text messages, phone calls, something. And again, a witness needs to bring all of that in. It's not like you can just throw a list of text messages out there and be like, here you go, jury, take a look at these. There's someone who's presenting that information and is being challenged on it. And again, the child can be questioned in this. So that's always there in these cases. I do want to just say that my previous experience as a prosecutor was in sexual assault cases and domestic violence, but sexual assault, child and adult. And it's really important to remember that the false report rate for these types of crimes is the same as all the other crimes. And I believe, and I'll double check these numbers for you, it falls 5% or lower. It's not that this area has a higher likelihood of lying. So I think that's just really important to remember. And if I could just clear.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: That's great to know.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah. It's often put out there, these lies are made and false accusations, and it's the same, or even less probably, as we know it's underreported. But the evidence of false allegations is the same as other crimes. And just to come right away, I like

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I hear you say that hearsay piece of evidence is very unlikely to be the only piece of evidence that would be to somebody going through this process.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. Great.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Good luck. And then, to you.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So thank you for pointing out that rule eight zero seven currently only applies to 12 and under. That's the Video? Yeah. The option, process that ensues if there is a motion to have the person testify not in the courtroom. I'm looking at rule eight zero seven, and it was changed in effective 01/09/2023 to align with some constitutional deficiencies. But it looks to me like those changes actually raised the bar in terms of, like, it says, for instance, the state must show that the witness would be traumatized not by the courtroom or other aspects of providing testimony, but by the presence of the defendant or the defendant's image. The state must also show that the witness would suffer a level of emotional trauma that is more than mere nervousness, excitement, or some reluctance to testify. That makes me wonder if and in the spirit of consistency, which is part of the reason this bill exists if it would also make sense to increase the age limit for rule eight zero seven.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: From our perspective, it would make sense. To make it the same as what's in H5. That would make sense from our perspective. And again, it's not an easy check to get that and to go through a fairly rigorous process. But yes, again, this would go back to what you're considering a child to be. And so if you're moving that age up in this context, it would make sense.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Ian?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, Kim, my question is just so I appreciate the point on you're not trying to build a case only on hearsay. But I could see that you would have an incentive to try to put on as much evidence as possible to avoid having to put a child witness on the stand. My question is, when you have the circumstances you described where, let's say, you line the witnesses up, you've got the DCF reporter, you've got the police, you've got a counselor, a teacher, friend, nine, ten witnesses, all of these different hearsay disclosures that all get in. You've gone through all things. State rests, and the defense files the motion under B here to call the child witness. Is the cross examination limited to only the disclosures and not the actual underlying action or alleged conduct?

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That was a good question. I would want to double check that. I would think it would be fairly broad, but it's a good question. And I've never had the scenario come up where I have not put the child witness on. But I would want to double check that.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think I just asked because I'm hearing two separate things. One is you have a lone brick, which is the child's testimony. That's all you've got. Or you've got a bunch of bricks, are all the hearsay disclosures that you get in under this rule. So, think I could see you really would want to try to load up as many bricks as possible so you don't have to use that brick because every

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: time Or rely on it.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Or rely on it entirely. But if you didn't have to use it at all, I think that that would be like you don't every time you have to put a child in front of go through this again is a risk to the child. So I just want to know how that impacts the defense.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That's a great question as far as the scope of their questioning, and I will double check that, because I feel like I would horribly answer that question right now. But I will say, if you remember, the defense is going to make the argument. Hey, we never heard from Susie. And this whole case is based on what Susie said two years ago. So is that a strong case for the state? It really depends. The jury is still going to decide whether that is enough evidence.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Or they would hear from Susie, but they wouldn't be able to ask Susie about the

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah, and that's where my gut is

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: that it

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I think it's going to be than that. But I'll double check.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That would seem counterintuitive, but it's a great question. And then, Dependor General might know that right off the top of their That's a

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: double check.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Other questions for Kim? Do you have anything else? No. Thank you very much. That was very helpful. So we've heard from a lot of folks that are very much in favor. I'm hoping that Wilder will bring us some different wisdom. Happy and delighted that Wilder that you're here to testify. The Defender General, I don't know that we have him scheduled yet. Or he apparently hasn't gotten back to us. He has, but we are not going to Okay. So we're going be rescheduling the defender general for another time on this. So, Wilde, you have all the time you want, really, because we don't have another thing going until 11:00. But these folks will probably need a break at some time.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I'm taking my mask off at my funeral. The last time I took my mask off, I got COVID. No. Well, so far, your first and only time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: This is good to be here early in the session before the state house bug has gone around yet. So so you're coming at the at the right moment. So

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: Don't breathe.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hold our breath. We won't if you won't. You can identify yourself for the record and proceed.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: Yeah, my

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: name is Wilda White,

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: and I'm here on behalf of an organization called Mad Freedom. And we are a civil and human rights advocacy organization with a mission to end the oppression and discrimination of people based on their perceived mental states. I've testified in this committee before on bills that are somewhat related to this one. I think back in 2020, I testified asking this committee to remove from the law a provision that presumed that people with mental illnesses could not consent to SET. And you did. I explained this as a civil rights violation, and contributes to the marginalization and oppression. Next, I asked you to remove from the law a provision that prohibited people with so called severe psychiatric illnesses from marrying. And today, I'm asking you to remove from the law a provision that treats people with mental illnesses as children. I am an attorney. I'm licensed to practice law in New York, California, Massachusetts. I hold an MBA from Harvard Business School, but I graduated with distinction. I've been an international management consultant with McKinsey and Company. I was a named partner in the San Francisco law firm. I was assistant city editor at the Miami Herald when the paper won a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. I'm also a person that meets the definition of a mental illness in your statute. I've been diagnosed at various times with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, all of which meet the definition of mental illness. I am not a child. I don't want to be treated like a child. And I don't think that I would want the so called benefits of rule 804A, and I don't think I should be entitled to them. I think this statute perpetuates the discrimination and oppression of people with mental illnesses. I think it's based on an outdated conception of mental illness. And I think it leads to the marginalization and oppression that leads to employers saying they won't hire people with mental illnesses, employees not wanting to work with people with mental illnesses, families not wanting people to marry people with mental illnesses, and the over incarceration of people with mental illnesses. And so I'm asking you to remove that provision from the law. I'm also, I will say, opposed to the expansion of Rule 804A to expand it to age 16 and up, excuse me, bill under 16, because I think it's fundamentally unfair. If we assume that the defendant is guilty, yeah, have at it. And I think the bill actually does assume that the defendant is guilty. I think when you read the bill, it says, the bill proposes to extend the hearsay exception to children who are 13 to 15 years of age in which the child is a victim of abuse. Doesn't say alleged. Doesn't say punitive. It says is a victim. And I think that's a fundamental problem with the bill is that it puts a brick on the scales of justice. It doesn't have a presumption that the defendant is not guilty.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Not good.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I came to this decision quite with a lot of difficulty, actually, because I actually was assaulted sexually assaulted when I was 14 years old. And so I'm not insensitive to being sexually assaulted. I'm not insensitive to, especially at age I didn't tell anybody. And so I didn't have to decide whether I was going to testify at trial or go through that. I just didn't tell anybody. But this bill does not protect people from testifying. It does not protect people from cross examination. It does not protect people from young people from being disbelieved. What this bill does is make it increases the odds of conviction. It makes it easier to get a conviction. And when I think of a defendant who's on trial who hasn't committed a crime, that just seems fundamentally unjust to me to put that brick on the scale of justice when the defendant is presumed guilty, particularly when that defendant may turn out to be innocent. I also think the bill was arbitrary in the fact that it's raising the age to 16 and under. We You started in 1985 when this bill was into became law. It was at it was 10. Then it was raised to 12, and now we're proposing raising it to 16. Why? There's no principled reason, there's no science based reason. It's just for convenience. And all of you know, as well as I do, that there have been many bills before committee, that and we've used age for convenience. When we wanna make it easier to convict young people who've committed serious crimes, then we can try kids who are 14 years old as adults. When we want to make it easier to convict those who have tried to harm young people, we say they're children. So on the one hand, we treat them as children when we want to increase their conviction. And on other hand, we treat them as adults when we want to inflict punishment. I think this committee needs to decide a principled reason or science based reason to use age and not to use it just as a convenience to get convictions or to inflict punishment.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Can I ask you a question while you're Yes? I definitely want to ask a little bit more about the mental illness component of this. But just to point out, in the bill, it doesn't say is a victim. It says a putative victim.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No, that's what the bill says. But I'm just talking about the framing at the top. Okay. The statement of purpose of the bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So that doesn't actually get into the law.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: It doesn't get into the law, but I think it's telling. I think

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: it speaks volumes. No, that's it says that I didn't look at it closely enough when she said, said. But I got your point. Okay, so go ahead, and then I'll ask the other questions. Okay, go ahead.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So what hearing and backing up on all this, what you're saying, going back to 2005?

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: What was 2005?

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Your knowledge in dealing with all this stuff, I forgot what year.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You said

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: in 1985, the bill became law.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: 1985,

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: rule 804A was introduced to allow hearsay evidence for children 10 and for, and the bill said, mentally retarded and mentally ill people.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay, so is this, your testimony on this is all the experiences that you've had dealing with the kids with these issues and and these ages and all that stuff? I mean

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: My testimony is twofold. My testimony is that you should remove mental illness from the bill because you should not be equating mental illness with children. Right? With mental illness not children. Other point in the bill is that you should not expand it, because I think it's fundamentally unfair to allow the prosecution to put a brick on the scales of justice when we have a system that's based on the presumption of innocence. This type of evidence is not allowed in any other case, and for two reasons. One, because it's hearsay, and second, because it will be deemed cumulative. Cumulative evidence is typically not allowed in trials, because the jury gets the impression that, Oh, there's so much of it, so it must be true. But remember, it's all just one person's testimony. So this bill actually Rule eight zero four actually does two things that the law does not permit, because we have a system based on presumption of innocence, no hearsay, and no cumulative evidence. It says, no, we're gonna allow cumulative testimony and we're gonna allow hearsay. Now, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but this exception is very different from the typical exceptions to the hearsay rule. The typical exceptions to the hearsay rule exist because we believe that they are inherently reliable. When someone does a dying declaration, we believe that that's inherently reliable. When someone does an excited utterance, we believe that that's inherently reliable. We think that business records are inherently reliable. And we think that when doctors record information in medical records, that's inherent reliable. But what we've said, our rationale for hearsay exceptions is that there's built in reliability. This is a completely different structure of a hearsay exception, because it's not based on reliability, it's based on the status of the declarant. We're just saying, if these are the declarants, if they're under this age, if they have a mental illness, if they have an intellectual disability, we're going to allow hearsay evidence because we want it to corroborate. We want to use it for corroboration purposes. So

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I get I understand what you're saying, but my question is, is I think what I've heard from other witnesses is they have direct experience working with these cases, not just their their their feelings on their mental health and all that stuff. It's just direct stuff. Have you done that same?

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No. I have never been a criminal defense criminal attorney or prosecuting attorney.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So the experience of that matter actually with what is actually going on in individual cases, you've never dealt with, I'm I'm gonna say lack of better words, one on one with them.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I have never prosecuted a case of child abuse, and I have never defended a case of child abuse.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: But you've been involved in a lot of them. I've been

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: sexually assaulted as a child.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yes. I I heard that. I'm sorry about that. I'm I'm just trying to weigh the horrific experiences and and what's going on and all that stuff. All the witnesses so far, I think what I've heard are are, like, dealing with this all the time. Not Well, yeah.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I mean, they are prosecutors, and and this this is a brick for prosecutors. And so, yeah, it does benefit prosecutors. I can't it doesn't I'm not a prosecutor.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I wanna think

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I'm thinking more as a citizen of or or resident of Vermont.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Right. I know I

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: like fair trials. And And

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: and and I don't wanna be misunderstood. I wanna speak on behalf or I want to make sure the victims are taken care of, and you're a victim yourself. And it's like, okay. So how do I, my head, make the right decision? That's what I'm trying to do.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: Yeah. I I've I've gone through the same thing. Last year, actually, I wrote this I I last year, I wrote a letter in opposition to this bill, and I didn't oppose 804A, I just opposed taking the mental illness out of it. After listening to the testimony yesterday, I thought, I think it's fair. I don't think it's just. If I were a defendant, I wouldn't want this, because I would assume I'm innocent. It's hard to overcome a bunch of people coming into court saying, this is what I heard, because of what a child, especially in preparing for my testimony, was reading a lot of the case law about how this has been applied or tried to be applied. And I've just read so many times where parents are coaching their children to say stuff to get custody of the child. And and and, you know, kids are impressionable wanting to please their their family, you know, parents and stuff. I'm not saying that I don't wanna make it seem like I I don't disbelieve children. Right? I don't but I don't think that they are any less capable of being truthful. And I actually think we have a lying epidemic in this country.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: And just for the record, I don't think we're dealing near enough with mental health. We don't have facilities, don't have anything near what I would like. So I'm on board with your way of thinking with mental health. Just for the record, I'm a big advocate for we need a lot of help in mental health.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So before care, are you good? Yeah. Thank you. So on the cumulative evidence issue, I would assume that would be the defender general would be arguing that pretty heavily that that don't keep on adding additional hearsay. So that can be sorted out already in the courts.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I believe that it's just admissible. I think rule 804A, the way I read the case law, makes that admissible.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Well, yeah, I'll ask the Defender General as well, just because it would seem to me that that would be an objection I would pretty quickly raise. But as a past defense attorney, am I off base on that?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Well, think just because evidence is admissible doesn't mean you couldn't object to it for cumulative. So I'm assuming, I'd be actually kind of curious to hear how it would go in the procedure that we kind of heard laid out by the last witness. Know, goes through, does the check. Okay. So we can we can submit this as evidence. We can call this witness, but then maybe defense could make an objection. Okay. Honor, we understand you could. This could be admissible, but we're gonna make an objection that's cumulative. We've heard it. We know. We understand. We understand what she's gonna testify to. There were three people in the room. She made the disclosure to all three of them. We don't need to hear from all three of them, your honor. Right. All those disclosures could be admissible under this rule, but it's too much. It's prejudicial. Yeah, that kind of thing.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, we'll hear a little bit more from how practice works for gift deeds. I'd be curious to hear it, yeah. So the others, the status of the declarant, isn't that kind of the same for the dying declaration? The status is the person's dying? Is that or is it a little bit I guess it's a little Yeah. Think it's see. It is.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: This is based on age and mental illness or intellectual difficulty without the added reliability, trustworthiness built in. So Karen and then Angela.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yes. Thank you for being here today and sharing. And I think this is a perspective that I hadn't really thought through, so I appreciate you sharing this. And I'm also curious because I would think that there might be some that do see it as a benefit. And so in a way that there's likely different perspectives in the world of folks who are navigating mental illness, mental health. So I'm wondering if you have ideas of other folks that we should hear from who advocate under mental health issues so that we can bring those voices to the table too and get a comprehensive or robust perspective. I do not have anybody to recommend who would testify contrary to me.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No, I don't know.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay, so you think I'm not

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: a mental health advocate. I'm a human rights and civil rights advocate. That's not me. I don't have anything to offer there

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: That's for the piece I feel like I would like to I appreciate this, and I feel like I would also want to hear from folks in mental health advocacy that would make sure works from all different perspectives. So I'm just sharing. I appreciate this one, and I want to hear more to kind of get the full picture.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I did have one other point I wanted to make before I'm finished.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We have questions. I have a couple of questions, and then definitely we'll give you the time to finish your other points as well. Think we have plenty of time. Angela?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So, thank you. Just to clarify, I wanted to make sure that I'm hearing you correctly, that your request or wishes to remove a person with a mental illness, but not an intellectual developmental disability. Is that correct?

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I don't feel like I'm the person to speak on that. I would remove it, but I just don't think I should advocate for that because I'm not a member of that community, and I haven't traditionally advocated on behalf of that community. I don't feel I have in the past wanted to remove that from some things because it was clear, but I'm not I just don't know here. Okay. So I'm not overreaching.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: First, thank you very much for your testimony. I try very much not to testify during we're having witnesses on, so I'm going try not to do this too much. I really you shared some very personal things in your testimony, and I think it's really important for this committee to hear that. I think that your testimony explores this issue in a way that I think it can be difficult for us to do. Because when we're talking about children and child sex abuse, that can be a difficult discussion when we're also trying to protect defendants' rights and to preserve a presumption of innocence. And so I really appreciate your testimony in those ways. My question is just more on the definition for mental illness and striking it a full strikeout versus is there a sub definition, some more tightened definition of a subset of people who you think would benefit from this protection?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I was going to ask something very much along that line, but if I could just ask you better. To point to something that is in the statutes right now. That's correct. Mental illness. And taken away, what strikes me, I'll just read it, mental illness means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory, any of which grossly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity, recognize reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, but shall not include intellectual disability. My view is that that might apply to this is to get most of that except grossly impairs judgment, behavior capacity, whatever the rationale is. It could be dementia. It could be any number of things that could make it so that the person has that impairment but has made a statement that should go through this process. I don't know if that's not me. So it's like That's, yeah. Along those lines. It's something else that's trying to supposedly get at, not mental illness part, but the part as far as the impaired judgement.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I don't even understand the reason why we're I don't see the connection between singling out mental illness in the statute and the so called protections of the statute, because the statute doesn't protect you from testifying. It doesn't lower the burden of testifying. It doesn't lower the burden of cross examination. And in fact, when I was doing research on this matter and preparing my testimony, I came across an administrative decision where the person was an adult with a mental illness. And there was a footnote in that decision that said, the hearing officer noted that even if the other requirements, rule eight zero four were met, it would be difficult to accept the testimony of a, quote, mentally confused adult through third party statements unless competency had been well tested. And so I'm just wondering, so how I read that is like, we have this statute that's singling out people with mental illnesses and treating them like children when it may never be able to even be used because if those conditions are met, they would never pass the reliability test that the judge is asked to do under

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the So if they health have those mostly impaired judgment behavior, etcetera, whatever the, you know, dementia, whatever, can

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: you trust that statement as hearsay? Yes. That's what a judge yes. And so my point was that the stigmatizing carve out is written into the law even when it may be narrow and hard to use in practice. And so we're carrying this civil and human rights harm equating adults with children without a clear, consistent benefit.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: In that case sorry. No, no, no. In that case that we just built, so if we're going down the requirements that you have to satisfy to get that hearsay in, would it then fail on the fourth prong so that the prosecutor needs to show the trustworthiness

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the Or also the availability of the person to testify. They're not competent. Yeah. They wouldn't even pass. So,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That wouldn't do the test for all folks.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, well, and so I think I'm wondering if that means that it's actually really not an issue. It's not even going to get to a point where it could be invisible. So it's not even going get past three because they're not available for testifying. So

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: why are we singling out people with mental illnesses and treating them like children in the statute? And it doesn't just end in the courtroom. That carries out throughout society. I face that discrimination daily. Face that marginalization daily, and I'm asking you to take that out of the law.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I know you had other points as well. That was the last point

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I wanted to bring the administrative. Mean,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'm gonna be like, I'm gonna send.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And I'm wondering if you're aware of any To Karen's point, say there is an alleged victim who suffers from depression or panic attacks. They would like to I don't know if that Who knows if that would be what kind of mental illness a prosecutor would even try to I guess this is a sort conversation. The people

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: with mental illness or people who are children are not aware of rule 804A. Is a prosecution benefiting rule.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. So I'll ask my question, even though I'm not sure if there's an answer or if it helps. Is there some other protection available if someone wants and needs it? As someone with a mental illness, understanding that, as you're saying, as you're sitting here proof, not everyone who has suffered from a mental illness would even want this protection. I understand you're

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: thinking I'm it doesn't offer saying there's no protection. I'm saying this this offers a a tool for the prosecutor to increase the odds of conviction. That's not a protection for children, people with mental illnesses or people with intellectual disabilities.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay, what can we call it? For purpose of discussion.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: What it is, it's a corroboration tool that increases the odds of conviction.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. I totally agree with that. But I'm just saying, if we were to remove it from the statute, I'm just wondering if there If for, say, those limited circumstances where it is It would be helpful. Are there other places in the rules of evidence or in process and statute where that precondition Well, could be

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I can't really speak to that because like I said, think the rule is fundamentally unfair. I don't think it's a just rule in a system that is built on the presumption of innocence and putting a brick on the scales of justice. I just just

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. And I guess I'm thinking about it in a system that already has a bunch of bricks on the defendant's side. Really? Yeah. From a victim's perspective. Really? Yeah.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: Yeah. We live in a different world.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah. We do. We live in a different world.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Or just a different perspective.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I know a lot of defendants who are related to me. I don't think they've ever felt that they were bricks on their skin side.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It's admired in innumerable ways. Yeah. But I think one of the main flaws is the failure to protect victims, to care for victims. I wish this bill protected victims.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I wish it cared for victims. I wish we had a more trauma informed court system. I wish we had the supports in the court that would Not even before, it's even before the courts. Why didn't I, as a 14 year old, tell anyone that I was raped? Right. That's where the protection starts. It's giving me a voice. It's giving me the knowledge to even articulate what happened to me. It's letting me know that when I go, if I do tell, it's To be cared for. Yeah, and not just further traumatized by the examinations and questions. So that's protection. This bill doesn't do anything like that. This this bill drags the person through this whole process, and the most that they can help hope for is the conviction. But that doesn't change what's happened to them. Doesn't change the initial assault, which I think is the greatest, and then the retraumatization through the process.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yep, I hear that. And I think my wish with the bill, and you may be right, it may not achieve that, is that it can ameliorate some of the re traumatization, like, knowing that this bill doesn't recreate the system and wishing that's what I wish that's what I too wish that's what we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: could do. I wish we could

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: do that without being so unjust and unfair. I mean, think about the innocent effect. Because I'm thinking about the innocent person. Yeah. You know? I'm fine with the bill if everybody's guilty, but that's just not a reasonable assumption.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. Although we did hear that false accusations in this realm are no greater than don't happen at a greater, you know, rate than all other crimes, and that these types of crimes are underreported. So I'm thinking about all of that too, but acknowledge the shortcomings and challenges and yes. Barbara. So what do you think about

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: how do we accomplish bringing a trauma informed court about? Like, do

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: we Just so they.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Maybe years. I guess that was one of the things

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: when I was questioning our last witness is, like, we're at the mercy of somebody who's a supportive defense attorney or not a supportive, but sensitive defense attorney or the option to not be in the courtroom, which could be incredibly

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: stressful.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So there's the trauma informed part and the protection of victims that I'm wondering how we can get at. Yesterday, was sort of trying to poke holes in the why did we pick this age? Because, again, if we just picked a number out of a hat, that's concerning. Although, as you know, in this building, when we do things incrementally, we're always sort of picking a number out of a hat. And hearing that it was matching up with the other rule, which I'm forgetting the number. Deposition rule. Made some sense to me. But again, having talked to, I mean, it's hard because we are going to have people who are not going to report, or people who are going to report and then go through a really horrible process. And still not have a conviction if there's somebody who really did assault somebody. And I'm just wondering again, do you think there's we were hearing with the age, two things. One is brain development.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: It makes no sense. How about

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: tying in with the other does that make any sense to you?

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: Brain development makes no sense. This bill does not relieve any burden on the No, know. Well, that's That not art is supportive of the bill.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So if there

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: were some trauma informed pieces put in place, would that help? Honestly,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: think this law might just be related to the fact that we don't trust children. And so we're trying to give them, we don't believe children. There's like this epistemic testimonial injustice that goes on, and this is bill trying to overcome that. I frankly understand the bill, other than just we want to try to increase the convictions here, and we don't tend to believe children, and so we're going to put a brick on the scale for children. And we don't believe people with mental illnesses, and we don't believe people with intellectual disabilities. But in these sexual assault cases, we want to have a conviction because the heinousness of the crime.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Well, and in adult cases, sometimes gender and race play a huge role too.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: And we don't do anything in the evidence code for that. We don't believe women when they say they're raped, but we don't change the hearsay rules for that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Interesting. Thanks. Zach, and then

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: And thank you all for being here today. Another point of presenting, which a point that you brought up. And I apologize, I had

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to step up for a phone call,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: but I wasn't sure if that was a point that came up in the the intervening time that I stepped out of the room in terms of addressing the the victim language in the bill. That's right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Go ahead and ask it anyway. Yeah.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No. We talked about it. We talked about You did. Okay. Great.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Not all the details. Yeah.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: No. It it it's it's in the the statement of purpose of the bill, it's not in the statute.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: The statute itself. Okay.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I'm sure. I I just thought it spoke volumes. Yeah. That you come from it from approach that the defendant is guilty, which makes it really easy to pass this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. Right.

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: I come from it from the there's a presumption of innocence. Right. Which makes it very it it it upsets me. Yep. Agree. That you're putting that bridge.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, I agree. You're both part of it. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Ken, could you talk to me both? No. Oh, okay. Else for Will, though? Thank you very much. It's always nice to meet I

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: really appreciate your

[Wilda White (Mad Freedom)]: time, and it is a very difficult decision. I wish you well.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's difficult. Thank

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Thanks, man. So are you able to weigh in from DCS perspective? Okay, please join us and identify yourself for the record.

[Hannah Marble (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services)]: I apologize for the computer. Not having notes.

[Kim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: The record,

[Hannah Marble (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services)]: my name is Hannah Marble. I'm the Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs, new position with the Department for Children and Families under the Family Services Division, so the Child Protection Division. And this can be attributed to Lindsay Barron, who is the director of policy and planning for DCF Family Services.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So this is hearsay then. We can actually accept hearsaying.

[Hannah Marble (Director of Communications & Legislative Affairs, DCF Family Services)]: So the Family Services Division has followed each child hearsay bill that has been introduced over the years. We have not thoroughly reviewed the contents of the current H-five, so we cannot speak to the specific language at this time. But generally speaking, we have been in support of prior efforts and remain in support of such a bill. Alright, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank So

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: with respect to the mental illness component, I would like to get more testimony on this. I would like something up for next, well, we'll see. Karen Ari has some ideas and Barbara has some ideas of some different folks. If anybody else has ideas of who we could hear from, think it's definitely worthy of digging a little deeper. And we still need to hear from Defender General's Office. Is there anybody else we need to hear from? How about the Chalk Advocate? So while we have written testimony, and thank you for reminding me, we have written testimony online. We have a letter from Kids Safe Collaborative, and we have a letter from the 13 child advocacy centers, and that's probably enough. ECLA? Yeah, they may have a different viewpoint on this as well. Yeah, I'll reach out to them as you always see. All right, so with that we have Michelle coming in at eleven. I can see if she can get here a little bit earlier. So we're adjourned until either eleven or for June. We're trying to get her in at quarter 02:11