July 12, 2026 · JUDICIARY · 5,547 words · 5 speakers · 41 segments
Good morning. I'd like to call the recess meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order for the purposes of establishing a quorum. Carol, will you please call roll?
Bartolotta? Here. Brown? Here. Capoletti? Proxy. Proxy. Collette? Here. Here. Dush? Here. Here. Haywood? Here. Here, Langerholtz. Proxy. Proxy, Mastriano. Proxy. Proxy, Pennycook. Here. Here, Sanacero. Here. Here, Saval. Here. Here, Yaw. Here. Here, Kim Ward. Proxy. Proxy, Baker. Here.
Quorum having been established, we will take up the business before the committee today. The first nomination before us is Attorney Suzanne Estrella to serve as a member of the Pennsylvania Parole Board. Do I have a motion to consider the nomination?
So moved by Senator Collette, seconded by Senator Bartolotta.
Will you please come forward, Attorney Estrella and Senator Kim? And before you take your seat, will you raise your right hand to be sworn in? Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
You may be seated. Please, for those in the audience, if you'll make sure you press your microphone. We will begin with the introduction. She's Senator Kim is here from the 15th District, and Attorney Estrella is a constituent. So if you would like to begin.
Good morning, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. It's an honor to introduce my constituent, Suzanne Estrella, before the committee today. Ms. Estrella is an attorney with over three decades of legal experience, many of which have been spent working on behalf of crime victims and their families. For the past five years, she served as the Commonwealth Victim Advocate, leading the OVA and its team of employees who are dedicated to fighting for the individual and collective rights of all crime survivors. Prior to her experience in service as Victim Advocate, Ms. Estrella worked extensively with the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect. As their legal director, she established PCAR's Sexual Violence Legal Assistance Project, which provides comprehensive, short-term legal services to victims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault. In addition to her legal work and service to some of our Commonwealth's most vulnerable, Ms. Estrella has also served on a number of statewide committees and commissions, including the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, the Behavioral Health Council Advisory Committee, the County Adult Probation and Parole Advisory Committee, Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, and many more. After getting to know Ms. Estrella and learning about the impactful work she's done over the span of her career, I found her to be highly qualified for this position and would encourage all members of this committee to support her nomination. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Senator Kim.
And Attorney Estrella, if you would like to make some opening comments, and then we will open it to questions from members of the committee.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator Kim. I appreciate your support. And to all of you being here today on a Sunday, thank you for the work that you have been doing this weekend for the Commonwealth. It is much appreciated. I'm really honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity. and do feel that my experience with Crime Victim Services and my love for justice and my passion for that people have the ability to change makes me a prime candidate for success on the parole board. I look forward to opportunities to engage not just with the dedicated members of the board but with other state agencies and community service providers to find ways where we can plant seeds of hope and strength and encouragement into children across the Commonwealth so that they never engage with the Pennsylvania Parole Board. Thank you so much for this opportunity to serve.
Thank you, Attorney Estrella. I think all of us would agree we were at a critical juncture in criminal justice today, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Commonwealth v. Lee, where the court declared mandatory life without parole for second-degree murder as unconstitutional. So we have to continue our efforts to address the system. The committee has worked in a bipartisan way over the years on a body of reforms that have been championed by other members of this committee, looking at aspects of the system and continuing our efforts as we've spoken in the past about community safety and holding people accountable. So I want to commend you for coming forward to put your qualifications before us to carry out your duties. We have some questions. And I would like to begin with a question about something that you know has been very important to me, and that has been protecting vulnerable populations, including victims of crime. I was proud to author the legislation that gives victims the ability to have in-person testimony before the parole board. And I'd just like to get a little more from you on how you would balance the interests of a victim and a defendant seeking to come to the community in making a parole decision.
Certainly. I think it's important that we always recognize that people don't live in silos. and that people are parts of more than one system. So whether it's a victim engaging the system or an offender engaging the system, it is a system in its entirety that is responsible for benefiting the community. So my love for justice and the idea that all people should be treated fairly provides space for the fact that this victim has the right to be heard and we have the responsibility to hear them, as well as that an offender has the possibility to determine whether or not they are parole eligible. And that's something that can be looked into together without demeaning either person's right. So I think that whole idea of the humanity of the person, that people have the right to be treated fairly no matter which side of the spectrum they stand on is important. So I plan to approach it that way and to kind of make sure that I listen to each person for what they are saying in that moment, not making assumptions, but really taking the time to hear what's being said, to understand what's being said, and to finding out are there ways to provide appropriate tools where someone could be released back into society and make a contribution that will benefit the community.
Thank you very much. We will open it to questions. Serving as Minority Chair this morning is Senator Collette. Senator Haywood. Followed by Senator Bartolotta.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much for being willing to take on this role, critical role in our criminal justice system. Now, as you may know, our Commonwealth has suffered from the lock them up approach for many decades with mandatory minimums. Senator Greenleaf, after many years of proposing these near the end of his career, announced they were all a mistake and was a tremendous damage to communities. African-Americans were particularly victims of these mandatory minimums and the lock them up approach. Now, after decades of these bad policies, we also come to my attention that over half of the individuals in our state prisons are nonviolent offenders. Nonviolent. And a significant share have been a victim of drug abuse and other substance abuse now being housed in our prisons. So my question to you is, I'd like to get an understanding of how you see public safety, because we really want to make sure that the decisions of the parole board do and comport with public safety but also in light of this really historic injustice to particularly folks from the African American community Sure I see public safety as the need for everyone to feel safe in their
community. Looking at it as terms of parole release, I'm looking at would I want this person to live next door to me? And am I comfortable with that? And so that to me is just kind of like an underlying factor to look at, to consider, is this ready? Now, when we talk about the injustice faced by black and brown people, it cannot be ignored. I mean, I've had the opportunity to visit several SCIs and just standing there looking at the mass of black and brown faces, It's disturbing and it's very sad. So with the lead decision and other court rulings determining what we can do is critical and important. And I think it goes beyond just the day-to-day task of being a parole board member is looking into this. What are we doing to make systemic change so that these problems don't continue to occur and that we can do something that should be done for the people who are locked up that should not be locked up? Now, I'm not saying that no one should be locked up. Accountability is important. And where safety is a concern, that is super important. If people are refusing to do what they need to do to show that they are ready to be a vital member of the community, then they're not parole eligible. But when people are, then we need to be doing what we need to do to make sure that they can make that safe return back into the community. I've had the privilege as the Commonwealth victim advocate to work with a juvenile lifer who was then released and is doing phenomenal work in the area of restorative justice, particularly with juveniles. I've worked with another person who's out on parole who's done some filming videos that are up on the Office of Victim website that you can see about how he's now able to work with survivors to share stories. that redemption is clearly possible. I'm a strong believer that you can overcome evil with good. So finding out ways that we as a community can do these things, it's vitally important, and I think it is a very important part of the job.
Thank you, Senator Haywood. Senator Bartolotta?
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good to see you again. And we had a wonderful talk when you and I spoke via Zoom. but one of the things that you had mentioned and that I would like to have you share a little bit about is the victim awareness education that you spoke to me about, the VAE that's available in some institutions, and that is where the victims, the stories of the effect of a crime on the victims impact those that are incarcerated and created this issue. Can you tell us a little bit about that? and what that effect would have, that programming and other programming on decisions for parole.
Sure. There are two programs that are offered by the Office of Victim Advocate, or in conjunction with the Office of Victim Advocate, we have designed the programs. One is called Victim Awareness, and I believe every offender takes the Victim Awareness class. The Impact of Crime class is a little bit longer, and it usually happens when they're further along in their sentencing so that they kind of have more time to kind of sit with the fact that they're incarcerated and kind of work through some of that. So it's something that it's not mandated that everyone take it. They can request to take it. And in that course, in both courses, they actually hear a victim's story so that they can see how your actions actually impact another person and even another community. And what I was speaking with the senator about is in our Impact of Crime course, we do evaluations where the people who take the course do an evaluation and they don't put their name on it or anything like that, so they write to us and tell us what they felt about the course. And most often what we see in those evaluations is people who have caused harm saying that they had no idea that their actions impacted people the way that they did. And for me, it kind of seemed like it was so obvious. How could you do something so violent and not think that that was going to have a major impact? But that's what people were saying, that they had no idea that the impact that they caused by what they did. So I think those types of programs, you know, working in collaboration with the different systems providers, so that we have more of those types of programs and that people are engaging with one another kind of helps to make people parole eligible, helps them to get to that space where they're ready to kind of sit with what they've done, take accountability, and then think about, hey, what's my pathway to move forward? How do we show this person that you're a person that still has value beyond what you did and what you were on the worst day of your life? Like, what is a future for that person?
thank you senator dash thank you madam chair and i'm sorry i didn't get to uh get some time with you earlier and i do want to ask you a couple questions the uh it's called the department of corrections for a reason we're trying to correct the the behavior of the incarcerated individual and we have a lot of people who are in there again they're they're in there for non-violent crimes, a lot of them, and as Senator Haywood had pointed out, but those people are generally what inside the institutions are having 16 years working in there were called slow learners. They had numerous opportunities at the county to correct the behavior before they were sent upstate. When it comes to making a determination as to whether an individual is fit to be back out on the street, not just for public safety, but for the property crimes and stuff like that. What tools are you aware of that are available regarding the institutional adjustment of the individual, and how do you balance those? Well, from my understanding, and this is without me having formal parole board training at this point, there's lots of information that is shared between the Department of Corrections and the parole board on what the person has done since they have been incarcerated to make improvements, to learn, and to grow. So reviewing all of that information as well as the personal interview with the person I think is a way to determine, you know, what's that going to look like. I mean, most people are not spending their life in prison. So they're going to get out, either they're going to max out or they're going to max out on parole. So when it's to the community's benefit that this person possibly might want to be paroled so that we can kind of keep an eye on them, help structure what that release is going to look like, then that's something that also has to be factored in and considered.
Sure. And I've seen a lot of people make some serious changes while they've been incarcerated and that deserve, well, have earned the ability to back out on the street.
one of the things I would just encourage you there are some tools that are available that don't always make it to the parole board for consideration such as the block cards for where the inmate is down on the block themselves and they get write-ups for various things and the institutions will sometimes dismiss stuff without prejudice or whatever it would behoove you to take a look at the block cards just to get past any bias that might be present to help or to encourage somebody to be back out on the street because the guys who came back as parole violators, I was not at all surprised to see that they were coming back as parole violators because not everything was submitted to the board. So I would request that you ask for the block cards as well as the whole DC-15, the inmates' jacket, It's good to take a look at the whole concept for the inmate. But the block cards are not kept up there. They're down on the block. It would be good to request those. Thank you so much.
I appreciate that tip.
Thank you.
Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments from members of the committee, we will proceed with a vote. on the options relative to an executive nomination to report out of committee are with favorable, no recommendation, or negative. I would like to make the motion for a favorable recommendation for Suzanne V. Estrella. Do I have a second? So seconded by Senator Collette. Are there any negative votes from members of the committee Seeing none hearing none your nomination will advance from committee with a favorable recommendation Thank you for appearing Congratulations We look forward to your service to the Commonwealth. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kim, for joining us as well. The next nomination is a resident of the 34th senatorial district attorney Stephen R. Zawiski to the parole board. Do I have a motion to consider? So moved by Senator Dush, seconded by Senator Penny Cook. We have attorney Zawiski with us via Zoom. Attorney Zawiski, will you please rise and raise your right hand?
technical challenges, but
do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Absolutely. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. So Senator Rothman could not be with us to introduce you. So on his behalf, I will introduce attorney Stephen Sawiski, his nomination to the parole board. Senator Rothman offers his full support of the nomination. Since graduating from Temple University Beasley School of Law, Steve has dedicated over two decades to public service. He served as deputy district attorney with Dauphin County District Attorney's Office from 2002 to 2011. He's been a senior prosecutor there since 2012 and currently serves as the chief deputy district attorney. In addition to his experience as a prosecutor, Steve served as an instructor at the Harrisburg Area Community College Municipal Police Academy from 2004 to 2021, where he has taught constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure courses to the academy cadets. He has also served as a criminal defense attorney in private practice with ABOM and Kudalakis from 2011 and 2012. His extensive legal background, commitment to public service, and deep understanding of the criminal justice system make him well qualified to the parole board. Senator Rothman sends his full support for the nomination and encourages a favorable vote. At this time, Mr. Zawiski, Attorney Zawiski, we will offer the floor to you to make some comments to members of the committee.
Thank you. Well, first of all, thank you very much for accommodating me. I'm actually currently in Montana, in the middle of nowhere, Montana, in many Glacier, Glacier National Park. So I appreciate you accommodating me under these circumstances. Secondly, I'd also like to apologize for my casual address. I did not foresee doing a Zoom hearing in the middle of Montana. And I certainly would have a suit coat and a tie on because I'm an extremely professional individual. But I don't think there's a suit shop within five hours of where I'm located. So I do apologize for that. I mean, no disrespect about that. I've been a lawyer for 24 years, a prosecutor for 22 years. It's a little cliched, but my philosophy in my job was always to do the right thing for the right reasons. Oftentimes that is to punish somebody and to prosecute somebody. And unfortunately, I prosecuted some horrific crimes. I am currently one of the chief homicide prosecutors in Dauphin County. I've handled countless homicide investigations. I've been to countless homicide scenes. I've seen the horrors of what violence can do. Unfortunately, it does occur. I was a defense attorney for a year. And what frustrated me with being a defense attorney is that what I wanted to see occur with the case, maybe the DA that I was working with wouldn't necessarily agree with me. And I would think, well, what would I do if I was the prosecutor? And that frustrated me that I couldn't accomplish what I really wanted to accomplish in a case representing my clients. And I think I went back to the DA's office because of that, because as a prosecutor, you can do the right thing. Oftentimes it is to prosecute, but sometimes it is to choose to not to prosecute an individual. I take great pride in sitting down with victims and victims' families. I've cried with victims' families. I've hugged victims' families. the crime scenes that I've encountered and the cases that I've prosecuted are ingrained in my mind. And I wish I could forget some of them. But there are often times where I would arrive to a hearing and there'd be a mom there with an 18 year old kid. And I would think, well, this is this is kind of like when I was a young kid, my mom would be at the hearing as well. And she'd be anxious and worried and concerned about the future. And when a DA shows up to a hearing like that, where the defendant's possibly young, made a minor mistake. They're 18. They're not taking it too seriously, but the mom certainly is. As the prosecutor, you put a different hat on and you can advise that person because oftentimes they unfortunately don't qualify for the public defender because they make too much money, but they can't afford $2,000, $3,000 to pay an attorney. In that circumstance, you would actually sit down and put a different cap on because you're representing the Commonwealth. And your goal in that circumstance is to help those individuals through the process and explain what the options are. You can certainly be a bully and say, hey, you can either take a hearing, waive it, and I'm really not concerned that you have an attorney or not. But that's not the right approach to take. The right approach would be to show compassion. In my career, there's been a lot of passion in opening statements, in the middle of jury trials and closing arguments, you know, like we see on television. But what's even more important in my career was to show compassion, compassion for victims, compassion for victims' families, and sometimes for defendants and defendants' families, depending on the facts and circumstances. My whole career has been, has involved analyzing people, analyzing cases, analyzing exactly what happened and why it happened. Part of my job currently is to review parole applications. So if I've prosecuted an individual and they went to state prison, which unfortunately I've handled a lot of those cases, when they are up for parole, I do get that application and I review it. And I look at, well, what have they done to improve themselves? And I look at their educational status. What classes have they taken? Have they finished them? The other thing, I look at their behavior. Have they been cited with various things? And of course, I look at the facts and circumstances of the case that I prosecuted originally. And then I ultimately make a recommendation. And sometimes it's to say, hey, this person shot somebody or they had guns and drugs and they need a little more time because they haven't finished the classes. They haven't shown that they have been rehabilitated. But oftentimes I see somebody who's made the improvements and taken the steps. And that's something to be proud of and happy of, that the system worked and that they've changed. They've been rehabilitated. And when they come out, they're going to be a productive member of society. So what you're going to get from me is somebody who's going to do the right thing for the right reasons. I'm going to look at as much data as possible that I can collect because I did that as a prosecutor. And I believe in second chances, chances if the facts and circumstances support that.
Thank you, Attorney Zawiski. For the record, you are the second nomination that we have done remotely. So we appreciate your ability to have telecommunications link from Montana to join us today and certainly understand that you were not planning a public hearing on your vacation. But I have been impressed with your background, your experience, and your resume. And I think what you just described in terms of the role on the board is very crucial, that you will apply balance, you will apply a factual assessment, and you will take into consideration, as I mentioned to the prior nominee, the voice and the input of the victim and that I believe is crucial In terms of lessons from your time in the district attorney office that can be applied to this are there any other things that you would like to offer to us before I open it to questions from other members?
No. I mean, I think my career pretty much is self-explanatory. One thing that I'm quite proud of is I've handled a lot of homicide cases, a lot of murder cases. And to date, I've never had one that's come back on appeal. And the reason is I do it by the book. I follow the rules. I don't try to introduce evidence that's improper. And when you do it by the book, you provide discovery and you play by the rules. Cases don't come back and they don't get reversed. So that's something, you know, my 20, I think 26 homicide trial convictions, you know, not one has come back. That's something that I'm very proud of. So that's about it. Thank you.
Senator Haywood, a question?
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I think you may have heard the questions I raised before. I do have an additional one. But my core framework has been that there's been a long lock-em-up history, mandatory minimums, and the consequences, particularly for nonviolence, has been incarcerations of generations of African-American men. And obviously, I shared earlier that over half of the individuals in prison are nonviolent offenders. So given this framework, my question is the same to you as to the other nominee. How do you view community safety?
I think you have to take each and every case individually. What motivated it? Was it a drug issue? Was it a mental health issue? Was this person motivated out of greed, or were they motivated out of necessity to feed their family? You want to take each and every case and look at it by itself. You can't lump them up and say, oh, well, all drug cases deserve this and all robberies deserve that and all homicides deserve this because each and every one of those cases is different. I've probably been involved in 100 homicide investigations and prosecutions, and they're all different. The motivations, what motivated the person, that sometimes the decedent is involved in some sort of criminal activity that causes or that leads up to the actual homicide. So I like to treat each case by itself, really delve into the facts and circumstances of it, analyze what the witness is saying, what they've observed, analyze what the victim can say, what they've observed, and look at what the defendant was doing and why they were doing it. And then ultimately you come up with what you believe is a just result under all the circumstances because you have a lot of people coming at you and giving their take. The victims, and I taught a class on this, I've seen some victims who've encountered and who've experienced horrific, horrific things. And they are going to be dominated by emotion, as they should be, whereas the prosecutor can approach it a little emotions. a little emotional aspect, but you're also going to look at the legal aspects. You're going to look at what the other side also has to present. What are the mitigating circumstances here? So my approach as a prosecutor and as on the parole board will be to collect as much data as possible that we're given and really look at, you know, what happened and why it happened and what is a just result. I think if you just take, say, oh, all cocaine dealers should get two to five years or all heroin dealers should get this or all, you know, no, that is not just. Thank you.
One follow-up question. So there are four states in the United States where a life sentence means life. All the other 46 states have an opportunity for parole. So we are really on the outlier side, four out of 50. Is there anything that you have seen or with the parole, your experience or observations of the parole board in Pennsylvania that would disqualify them, that would disqualify them from hearing and making decisions on life's sentences?
in other words i don't know maybe you could rephrase that i'm glad to do so so since 46 states allow parole boards to make decisions on those who have received a life sentence is there anything special about pennsylvania where the pennsylvania parole board would not be capable of doing the same thing as other 46 states other than the status of our laws? Well, yeah. Well, in Pennsylvania, life means life. Sometimes that's appropriate. I've had cases where the person certainly needed life. And then there are probably cases where an individual doesn't necessarily mandate a life sentence depending on the facts and circumstances. I know there's going to be a lot of work for the parole board now under the recent case law with second-degree murder. I've handled a lot of second-degree murder cases. Some of the individuals who I prosecuted got life. Some of them I've worked out less than life looking at what their culpability was. Were they the getaway driver? What was their involvement? Did they just supply a gun? I remember a case where the individual was charged with second-degree murder, and he could have been 10 miles away from the actual crime scene. It was a home invasion, but he supplied the gun knowing that they were going to commit a robbery. Now, does that person deserve life when they're 15, 20 miles away? Certainly not under the current state of the law. So we're going to have a lot of work to do based on that case law. We're going to have to dig into those cases to see, does this person truly deserve life? What was their involvement? What was their motive? I can tell you one particular case that I had where an individual did not pull the trigger. However, his actions before, during, and then after the crime are so heinous that even though he didn't pull the trigger, I believe this person still deserves life. And I believe there are circumstances where that's still going to be the case. But the new case law will provide opportunity to truly, you know, give a proper sentence depending on the person's culpability in the case. And I'm looking forward to that, to be honest with you. And Senator, you know, I've taken great pride in my career in analyzing cases and coming up what I think is just. And I think I've done a pretty good job on that. I'm sure there's people out there who disagree with me. But that's one of the best parts about being a prosecutor. It's that you can make the right decision. And not everybody's going to agree with you, but making the right decision is worth something to me. So hopefully I answered your question. I'm sorry. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Senator Haywood, obviously I respect your question to the nominee. The policy decision about whether Pennsylvania changes life is life is up to the General Assembly, and it would be the parole board's responsibility to execute a policy change that we would perhaps review or consider down the road. So while I respect the question to the nominee, it's difficult for someone to answer that when they're expected to execute the policy that we put forward. And I appreciate Attorney Zawiski's comments and his response. He is used to calling balls and strikes. He is an umpire, so we appreciate that as well. I will make a favorable recommendation to advance the nomination of Stephen R. Zawiski Esquire. Do I have a motion to second? So moved by Senator Bartolotta. Are there any negative votes on the nomination? Seeing none, hearing none, the nomination will advance from committee with a unanimous vote. Congratulations, Mr. Zawiski.
Enjoy your vacation, and we will put you to work very shortly. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate the accommodations. And I again apologize for my capital address.
We were recessed to the call of the chair.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.