May 27, 2026 · Judiciary Committee · 8,959 words · 10 speakers · 61 segments
Good morning. The House Judiciary Committee will come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Thomas? Here. Vice Chair Swaringen? Ranking Member Sutherford? Here. Representative Pickle-Antonio? Representative Callender is excused. Representative Matthews? Here. Representative Muhammad is excused. Representative Orioso? Here. Representative Olseiger? Representative Plummer? Here. Representative Stewart? Representative Timms? Here. Representative Williams? Here. We have a quorum present. We'll proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the last meeting. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. As a reminder, if any of you would like to take audio or video of the committee, you must fill out one of those forms there and have it signed by me before you do any audio or video recording. we are going to skip the first one. We're going to start with number two on the agenda. We're going to start with House Bill 556. And for its first hearing, I invite Representative Williams
and Representative Matthews for sponsor testimony. Thank you, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengin, Ranking Member Sittenberg, and fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 556. I would also like to thank my joint sponsor, Representative Matthews, for help to advance this important legislation. When I review how courts sentence defendants, including community control sanctions, one of the main things I look at is does this sentence decrease the likelihood of that defendant will re-offend in the future? Needless to say, there are plenty of ways to achieve this goal. For example, providing the defendant with adequate quality mental health and substance abuse treatment, keeping violent and repeat offenders off the streets for longer periods of time, or ensuring offenders who have been successfully rehabilitated have the resources upon release and the direction on how to rebuild their lives. These methods and solutions are endless. Right now, however, when judges believe an offender is fit for community control, the law provides a court with a range of options that can be assigned, but some courts take that to the extreme, using community control sanctions as a form of punishment, when it is truly intended to be a guide towards rehabilitation without incarceration. House Bill 556 aims to tackle both those problems head on. First, this bill disincentivizes offenders from breaking the terms of their community control. To start off, it does this by allowing courts to extend community control sanctions by up to a year if an offender violates the conditions of their community control sanctions or when that extra time is needed to complete specialized programs like drug court or halfway houses or even pay restitution. Second, the bill allows courts to extend community control by up to a year if the offender refuses or fails to complete mandated mental or behavioral health treatment. Third, this bill allows courts to adjust and escalate penalties for an offender repeatedly engaging in technical violations of their community control sanctions. Finally, this bill allows courts to extend community control sanctions beyond the original term, up to the total of five years if an offender willingly refuses to pay ordered civil restitution. In summary, this section of the bill empowers courts to punish offenders who are blatantly abusing their privilege of community control sanctions, while simultaneously incentivizing offenders out of their antisocial behavior and incentivizing them to undergo treatment required by their community control provisions. While discouraging violations of community control sanctions, this bill simultaneously gives judges the flexibility to break from the rigid allotted time per felony system, which currently governs community control sanctions. Put simply, this bill would allow judges to extend an offender's community control sanctions so long as they are less than five years in total, should a judge see it necessary for the offender's rehabilitation or completion of sanction related programs or restitution. As it currently stands, all misdemeanors and felony convictions can receive the same community control sanction, up to five years of probation. Under this bill for misdemeanors and felonies of the third degree or below, a judge could extend that period if it is necessary to complete aforementioned programs. Essentially, while the previous section disincentivizes offenders from reoffending, this section incentivizes judges to encourage rehabilitation for offenders under community control sanctions. Friends and legislators, we are tasked with a simple yet monumental task of figuring out how to make crime happen less frequently in our communities. By disincentivizing offenders to shriek off rehabilitation and disobey their community control sanction while simultaneously empower judges to encourage rehabilitation for offenders who desperately need it, we take a ginormous step in a positive direction to make our state safer. Once offenders become productive members of society, not only do we reunite families, keep more law enforcement officers out of harm's way, and promote a sense of security across Ohio, but we save money, we safeguard state resources, and we wind up more prosperous for it. Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengen, Ranking Member Sendenberg, and fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee. I again thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 556, and I'll turn it over to my joint sponsor.
Thank you so much, Rep. Williams, Chair Thomas, Ranking Member Sindenburg, fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide joint sponsored testimony. My colleague Rep. Williams has already walked you through the core framework of this bill, and I want to build on that by highlighting several provisions that I believe deserve specific attention from this committee. The first is what the bill does for judges. At every turn, House Bill 556 empowers judicial discretion to enable law and order. Where the bill establishes presumptions or default timelines, it also clearly defines findings that a judge can make to depart from them. A judge who believes an offender poses a genuine risk to the community has the tools to keep that offender under supervision. A judge who sees a path to rehabilitation has the flexibility to take it. The second provision I want to highlight is the treatment suspension option for technical violations. When an offender commits a technical violation, a judge can, again, permissive, now suspend the associated jail sanction entirely if the offender knowingly and voluntarily agrees to either inpatient or outpatient mental or behavioral health treatment for between 30 and 180 days. If the offender successfully completes that treatment, the sanction is terminated. If they fail to complete it, the sanction is reimposed. The judge decides at every step. This is a meaningful tool for courts that want to respond to violations in a way that actually addresses the underlying behavior behind them. Closely related is the bill's intermittent confinement option. For technical violation jail sanctions, the bill allows the court to schedule that jail time on nights, weekends, or any other arrangement from the judge that allows the offender to keep their job or care for their family. Accountability and stability are not mutually exclusive, and this provision recognizes that. A person who loses their job or housing because of a technical violation is a person who is harder to rehabilitate, not easier. Third, I want to call attention to the mandatory two-year review requirement. Under this bill, when an offender serving community control for a misdemeanor or lower-level felony has gone two years without a violation and has completed all required programming, the court must review their case and shall terminate their supervision unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination would prevent a serious risk of physical harm to persons. That standard is intentionally high. A judge with a genuine, articulable safety concern retains the authority to continue supervision. But a compliant offender, going through what the judge has already said two years prior, should not be left indefinitely under supervision simply because no one reviewed their file. That provision closes that gap. Finally, I want to briefly address the conforming changes this bill makes to Ohio's Good Samaritan protections under 29 to 25 11. Those protections allow individuals to call for help during a drug overdose without fear of prosecution, including individuals who are already serving under community control sanctions. This bill does not alter that policy whatsoever. It just updates the cross references so when you see that through the bill this is an update making sure we're cleaning up the code as we go along. I want to clearly state for the record that Good Samaritan protections are preserved in full and fortified with this bill. We want people to call for help. We want people to live, and this bill does nothing to change that. Taken together, these provisions reflect a simple conviction. Community control that works is community control that is proportionate, responsive, and focused on outcomes with control from the judge that's overseeing the case. This bill moves us in that direction without removing a single tool from the hands of our judges. Chair Thomas, members of committee, thank you for your time. I ask for favorable consideration of House Bill 556, and we are happy to answer any questions. Thanks for your attention.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Ranking Member Sinningberg has a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for bringing this forward today. My question is, my understanding, the intent here is to ultimately lower the amount of time for community control sanctions for defendants if they follow their plan, court order plan. And so now judges have the discretion to make it three years instead of five. But when there's a violation, a year is increased for each year. One year is added for each violation. So can it go beyond five years if there's violations every year? Through the chair, it's the ranking member.
No, it would be capped at five years, which is the current provision of a maximum of five years of community control. Currently under Ohio State law, for a F1 and a misdemeanor 4, you can face the same community control sanction up to five years. What we say is for low-level felonies and misdemeanors, it will be capped at three years with a mandatory two-year review. If there is evidence that justifies an extension, the court can extend your probation from that three-year cap to four years and then to five years under certain situations when you refuse to undergo your mental health treatment. We've seen it before where defendants will refuse to take their medication even though it's ordered by their community control sanctions or they won't go into the therapy sessions that are necessary. They'll do minimal employment options. So now if you reoffend, if you violate your probation conditions, anything above what's called a technical violation or you need extended time to complete certain type of specialized dockets like drug court, CBCF time, community-based correctional facility time, halfway house time, ankle monitor time, or if you haven't paid your court order restitution to the victim, there are options for the court to extend that probationary period to get us back up to the five-year maximum that we currently have under Ohio law.
Follow-up? Yeah, follow-up. Thank you. So the goal ultimately is if defendants comply with community control sanctions, This will have more defendants facing less time in community control.
Through the chair, it's the ranking member, yes. It's to incentivize good behavior while you're on a community control, but not just doing minimal, not offending, but actually being proactive in taking classes, doing workforce development in an effort to show the judge that you should be released from probation earlier. What we did in the last General Assembly, I worked on this legislation with Representative Bill Seitz, and we had heard a large number of complaints. I practice as a criminal defense attorney. I've heard it from offenders. I've heard it from probation officers. I've heard it from many people that are in the industry that there are judges out there that if you, let's say you have a felony and you take a plea to a misdemeanor one, the judge gives you five years of probation. You never get off early. And I have literally had clients that would rather do six months in jail than five years of probation. And that means they're giving up their job. They're giving up their house. Their family is going to be without them for six months. But they didn't want five years of probation. So this gives an incentive for people to actually do well. It's similar to what we do in Reagan talks where you have this tail end sentence if you misbehave while you're in prison. We're saying, hey, do that for low level offenders. Give them this tail end of probation saying, hey, if you don't act right, it's going to be extended. It's going to be extended. But right now, when you give them five years maximum and that's already the order of the court and they commit a violation. One of one of the there's two real things that judges do. They either give you more strict sanctions, day reporting, you know, things of that nature, or they can extend your probation. Well, they're already capped out at five years. So they can't give them any more time. So I've had offenders that in their fourth year will commit a new violation, and the court will say, well, I have no other time that I can give you. I'm putting you in prison. And that just disincentivizes people from behaving the right way, and we want to make sure the people that are doing it the right way get off early, and the ones that are not doing what they need to stay no longer.
Okay, thank you.
Representative Timms with a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for bringing this bill forward. I just have a quick question about the technical versus non Can you give an example of a non Yes So through the chair to the member so a technical violation is like you ordered to have gainful employment
and you fail to turn your paycheck step to your probation officer. That's a technical violation. You forget to show up to a meeting with your probation officer. That's a technical violation. An actual violation is committing new offenses. You know, violating temporary protection orders against the victim in the actual domestic violence or felony, felonies, assault, or things of that nature. So there's a distinction under the law between technical and non-technical violations. And what we're saying is, for technical violations, the current statute, it gives the same penalty for every technical violation. And we're saying rampant that up to show the defendant that if they continue to not meet with their probation officer, you are required to get this much amount of time. is gonna continue to escalate similar to our OVI offenses, that after the first one it gets tougher, third one it gets tougher, fourth one it gets tougher. So that's what we're trying to show for technical violations.
Follow up? Yes, did you mean in your initial response non-technical when you were saying the paycheck stubs, you said technical, did you mean non-technical?
So, yes, I'm sorry, non-technical, yeah.
Okay, okay, thanks.
Representative Plummer with a question.
Thanks, Chair. Thanks, guys, for this policy. You stand up there and you say, we're going to give somebody a sixth year if they're not doing what they're saying. That sounds very tough on crime, which we like, but unfortunately what you're doing is you're saying felonies in the third, fourth, and fifth degree are going to get three years probation. That's laughable. Probation is laughable in my communities. Do your judges terminate probation whenever they feel like it, like they do in my community?
Through the Chair to the Representative, it depends on the judge, and it depends on the probation officer. So I've had probation officers recommend early termination of probation. And in Lucas County, we have several judges. One judge will grant yes. The other judge will say no. If I give you a probation, you're doing every day of the probationary term. And then I have other judges in more rural counties that if they give you probation, you do not file for early termination of probation. So it just depends. We're trying to give some guidance here. But also remember that this probationary term holds back an individual who truly has been rehabilitated from reentering into society. So for these low-level felony offenses, the General Assembly has said these are syllable, unless they are violent offenses. So you can get an ag assault, which is an F4. That's not a syllable felony offense. But you can get an F4 drug possession. That's a syllable offense. If you give a defendant five years of probation, they then have to wait one year after they get off probation and seal their record. For six years, they are a recorded felon in the state of Ohio. But I've had that same defendant tell me, I want to go do six months, because the maximum time is 18 months. I'll go do six months right now, and when I get out, I don't have any probation. I'd rather do six months and then a year from now seal my record, 18 months from the time I was sentenced, compared to six years after the time I was sentenced. So this is guided towards people that are actually rehabilitated. They've committed a crime. They've paid their due to society. They've done everything possible to rehabilitate themselves, and we're recognizing that they've made those efforts and given them a chance to reenter into society.
Follow-up? So would you be opposed to mandating in three years instead of letting a judge say, oh, he did what he was supposed to do after six months and lets him off? If we're going to cut him a break, a two-year break on probation, we've got to take the latitude of the judge letting everybody off probation when they feel like it, because this isn't working in my community.
Through the chair to the representative, I'm more than willing to have a conversation. We could say not that three years is mandatory on every offense, but if you give a person a probationary term, term. They shall not terminate it before two years. I'm reasonable about that. I do have judges that will release people from probation after one year. I've seen that a lot, especially on misdemeanors. I mean, you did a misdemeanor offense. The maximum penalty for some of these misdemeanors is 30 days in jail, but you're getting five years of probation. And what happens is, as soon as you violate probation, you actually get more time for the probation violation than the penalty you were looking at. So it starts to add on and keep people in the system. And our goal is that, hey, when you offend, be rehabilitated and reenter into society, and we don't want to hold you back anymore. So I'm open to that conversation, absolutely. And I've even had conversations about extending the F1s and F2 probationary terms beyond five years, because right now judges don't give probationary terms for F1s and F2s. There's a presumption of prison. So we want to give judges an alternative. So we're willing to even extend that.
Follow-up?
Representative Odioso with a question.
Thank you, Chair. I like what you're doing here. I just have a fact question. This might be based on a situation with one of my constituents. Breaking and entering on their home, convicted, probation, community control, several other technical or non-technical violations, reoffending two or three times. I think one of which was a breaking entering again. And the case keeps rolling to the same judge, I assume because of the probation. This judge is telling them, in effect, that this person cannot incarcerate this felony five conviction. Is there truth in that? And does your bill address that?
Like I said, that's a big concern of mine. Thanks. So through the chair to the representative, absolutely a judge can incarcerate an individual, one for probation violation, two for the new felony. Typically when you get a probation violation, let's say that's a F-5. You get sentenced, most judges will sentence you to the max 12 months in jail. They will suspend that sentence, give you three years of probation. If you violate probation, they can give you your sanction. They can give you the time remaining on your sentence at any time on a violation that is non-technical. So a new offense, like a new break in the entering, not only can they get those 12 months, they can get it stacked with the next offense as well. So that judge is just using their discretion to be soft on crime, and that's what the ballot box is for.
Any other questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Good job. Good job. Get the subbell. into the sub bill. This concludes the first hearing for House Bill 556. I'd now like to call up House Bill 314 for its fourth hearing.
I call on Representative Swearengin for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to accept sub bill 136-3295-2 for House Bill 314.
The sub bill is in order and can be found on your iPads.
please can you explain the sub bill yeah thanks mr. chair the sub bill was submitted requested by both the sponsors after a number of meetings and conversations with the interested parties to reflect where the current status of the bill is at it's a working document that's going to allow everyone to be on the same page moving forward with future steps in the bill in the committee process the main changes allow and you'll see on the comp doc to allow confidentiality of private people such as emails of families at public schools be kept from public records as well as helping smooth over and establish new provisions regarding the amount of time to reasonably fulfill public records requests and giving more recourse in the legal system for those deemed as vexatious records requesters.
Thank you for the explanation. The question is shall the motion to amend be agreed to. Hearing no objection the motion is agreed to. This concludes the fourth hearing for House Bill 314. I call up House Bill 501 for its first hearing, and I invite Representative Williams and Rogers
for sponsor testimony.
Gentlemen, welcome, and please proceed when you're ready.
Good morning, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member of Sinningberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on this important legislation addressing wrongful convictions in Ohio. Like those who this bill is aimed to support, I am proud to stand before you today alongside my joint sponsor, Rep. Joshua Williams, to advocate for a bill rooted in fairness, accountability, and human dignity. You all have my submitted testimony, but last night I was up late. I was waiting, I was thinking about coming before you all, and I had to update my testimony. I'll be happy to share with the chair's office. When I received notice of this bill's hearing, I was excited and shared the news with some of those interested parties. Ironically, the news was not received or was received with a lukewarm reception. We talked about this for the past 18 to 24 months since the 135th General Assembly. The response was very sobering to me and made me pause to think. Why did they not have the same excitement that I had that the legislative process is moving and is working? Then it dawned on me. I've never been to prison. I've never been wrongfully convicted. Then a question emerged that I would like you all to consider. Have you ever cheated death just to serve a life sentence? Think about that. For many Ohioans, this is not hypothetical. This is a reality. Since 1989, more than 38,000 Americans have been exonerated after wrongful convictions, losing over 35,000 years of their lives to crimes they did not commit. That is not months. That is not days. That is generations of birthdays missed, careers erased, families separated, and futures stolen. The average exoneree loses more than nine years of their lives behind bars before justice is finally restored. Think about that for a moment. Nine years. Nine years is enough time for a child to grow from kindergarten to high school, enough time to bury parents, miss graduations, lose marriages, and watch the world move on without you. And for some, the sentence is not nine years. It is decades. Some Americans have spent 30, 40, even nearly 50 years incarcerated before being exonerated. And what causes these miscarriages of justice? In documented exoneration cases, 62 percent involved eyewitness misidentification. 52 percent involved flawed or misapplied forensic science. And nearly 30 percent involved false confessions. Nearly 30% involve false confessions. These are not isolated mistakes. These are systematic failures with human consequences. In Ohio, we know that this is not abstract. Ohio has repeatedly updated laws surrounding exoneree compensation, post-conviction DNA testing and eyewitness reform because we recognize one difficult truth. systems are created by human beings and human beings sometimes get it wrong. That is why House Bill 501 matters. Imagine surviving violence, surviving hopelessness, surviving years behind bars knowing that the system meant to protect justice got it wrong. Imagine missing birthdays, funerals, graduations, holidays, opportunities, and decades of your life. losing your youth, your reputation, your relationships, and in many cases, your health. Not because you were guilty, but because the system failed. House Bill 501 modernizes Ohio's wrongful incarceration law to better reflect justice as it should be administered in the 21st century. First, this bill updates outdated language from wrongfully imprisoned to wrongful incarceration, recognizing that injustice occurs not only in prison settings, but also in local correctional, excuse me, correctional facilities and youth detention facilities. Words matters because policy matters. Second, this legislation expands eligibility to ensure individuals who are wrongfully adjudicated as juveniles, incarcerated in local correctional facilities or the Department of Youth Services, or ultimately pardoned after wrongful convictions are not excluded from seeking justice simply because of a technicality in statute. Justice should not depend on where someone was confined or at what age the injustice occurred Third, House Bill 501 strengthens access to relief by clarifying pathways for civil action and recognizing the importance of counsel and procedural fairness for people trying to rebuild, people trying to rebuild their lives that were taken from them. Members of this illustrious committee, this bill is not about politics. It is about principle. We often say that our justice system is built on accountability. Accountability cannot stop at the door of the courthouse. If the government has the power to take someone's liberty, then the government also has a responsibility to respond when liberty has been wrongfully taken. No amount of money, and I repeat, no amount of money can restore stolen years. no legislation can give someone back a childhood spent in detention, the missed moments with family, or the trauma of incarceration for a crime they did not commit. But what we can do is acknowledge harm, remove unnecessary barriers, and say through law that Ohio recognizes both justice and responsibility. That Ohio recognizes justice and responsibility. The question before us is simple. When the state gets it wrong, what obligation do we have to make it right? I believe the answer is clear. House Bill 501 says that in Ohio, justice is not only about punishment, it is also about correction, compassion, and accountability. because no person should have to cheat death only to serve a life sentence of undue penance for a crime they did not commit. I yield to your legislative prudence. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of House Bill 501, and I'll turn it over to my joint sponsor, Representative Williams.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Thomas. Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sendenberg, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 501 today. As it stands today, Ohio law allows people who are wrongfully incarcerated, had their convictions overturned, and had their charges dismissed to apply for compensation from the state of Ohio. When the justice system gets it wrong, we owe it to those individuals to try to make it right. But under current law, three groups of people are excluded from even applying for that compensation. Young people who were convicted as juveniles and their convictions were overturned. Adults who were pardoned by the governor and adults who entered an Alfred plea but later had their convictions overturned. House Bill 501 would fix that. It simply says that these individuals should be allowed to apply for compensation like everyone else. This bill doesn't guarantee them money. It just gives them the chance to make their case through the same legal process already in place for other individuals. Under current law, that young person who was sent to a juvenile facility and later had their case overturned has no right to apply for compensation. That's not justice, that's a gap in the law and it needs to be closed. People who take an Alfred plea often do so because they feel trapped. They may be maintaining their innocence, but believe pleading is the only way to avoid a harsher sentence if they are convicted. If their conviction is later thrown out and the charges are dismissed, they shouldn't be barred from seeking compensation simply because they entered an Elford plea where they maintained their innocence. Finally, individuals who receive a pardon from the governor are often those who were convicted wrongfully and have spent years trying to clear their names. Once they're pardoned, Ohio law currently tells them they can't apply for compensation either. Other states from across the political spectrum, such as Georgia or Virginia, have already updated their laws to fix this. House Bill 501 brings Ohio in line with best practices across the country. It's a simple change, but it means a lot to those whose lives have been turned upside down by a wrongful conviction. I hope you agree that justice should apply to everyone equally and that every wrongful convicted person deserves a chance to be heard in court. I would like to thank my co-sponsor, Representative Rogers, for his willingness to help with his bipartisan issue. Thank you again, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Stenberg, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, and we welcome any and all questions.
Are there any questions from the committee? Thank you for your testimony. Representative Stewart with a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your testimony. I will admit that the hardened power in states and the federal government has gotten a little murky in recent years. but for a substantial chunk of our history, it's generally been understood. Part of the prerequisites for getting a pardon is that you accept responsibility. You say, you know, I acknowledge and repent of my crimes.
I understand your point. Some people don't do that, and they have been fighting for their innocence, and then they're later pardoned, and that's the mechanism. But should we not have some way to distinguish between somebody who has been pardoned and protested their innocence forever, and we determine that we got it wrong versus somebody who says, yes, I did it, and perhaps for political reasons, the executive branch decides we're going to turn them loose. I mean, are we not going to just open up the floodgates for a bunch of people who did the crime, got pardoned for who knows why, and now they get to go get paid for it too? Through the chair, it's a member. Great question. I respect that. So the way our current system in Ohio works is there's actually a hearing that you have to go to and prove that you didn't commit the crime in order to get compensation. It's not that I got pardoned by the governor, now give me money, or my conviction was overturned on evidentiary grounds. The prosecutor failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, so therefore I get a new trial, give me compensation. No, it's actually you apply for compensation. You have to go to a hearing. There's actual due process. you have a clear line of evidence you must establish in order to get compensation. These three categories can't even apply and get that hearing. That's all they're asking for, is the right to go in front of the court and say, I still maintain my innocence. I have evidence of my innocence. Let me establish to the court that I actually was wrongfully incarcerated because I am innocent. Because of that, give me compensation. So it doesn't just open the floodgates for everybody to get a government check. What it says is, and this is Representative Rogers will tell you, we have an individual in our community that was pardoned by the governor. He maintained his innocence the entire time. He was fighting for a new trial. The evidence was overwhelming that there was misconduct. He was going to get a new trial. He was offered a pardon by the governor. But even though you get a new trial, you still sit in prison.
So you're going to continue to sit incarcerated for years while you fight this new case. Or you accept the governor's pardon and you can continue to maintain your innocence. He chose to accept the pardon. He cannot get compensation for the over 20 years he spent behind bars. And that's a miscarriage of justice. We've seen it time and time again. We saw it with the, I think they're called the Memphis Three, those young men that were convicted, and they got offers at the very last minute when they were facing new trials to accept responsibility but get out of jail that day. Why? Because they wanted to avoid tens of millions of dollars going to those defendants who were clearly innocent. I would love to have you watch the documentary since you love movies. Central Park 5, another example. So we're simply saying these individuals shouldn't be having the doors of the courthouse closed to them because they entered an Alfred plea, but their conviction was later overturned. They were a juvenile convicted, and their conviction was later overturned. Or there was a pardon where they have to go to court and establish that they didn't commit the crime in order to get compensation. We're saying at least allow them the right to go into the courthouse is what we're asking for.
Quick follow-up. Thank you for that. And I have no issue with the juveniles or the offered pleas. Just have the question about the pardon, but that's a good answer. I am usually a little iffy on where we're just going through the code and changing language to account for preferences of the day. What is the difference between a wrongfully imprisoned individual and a wrongfully incarcerated individual, and why do we need to update that?
Through the chair to the member. So the term imprisoned means that you spent time in prison. Typically, that's our state institutions. Juveniles don't spend time in prison. They spend time in either a local facility or in DYS, the Department of Youth Services. So they technically will not be in prison. They will be incarcerated. There's also individuals that could spend time in local facilities, like if you're convicted of a misdemeanor or even a felony, and you're sentenced to local jail time, you can be sentenced up to six months at local jail time. Technically, you're not imprisoned. You're incarcerated. So that's just a term that's been changed over the years to make sure that we're not just talking about people that actually went to, you know, ODRC, to prison in the state of Ohio, but people that were incarcerated for any period of time, whether it was in a youth detention center, a local facility, or in our actual prisons, that they're all qualified. A ranking member, Senator Byrd, with a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you both for bringing this forward today. I did notice in the analysis that a wrongfully incarcerated individual will get a letter in the mail six months after they're released, and then every three months subsequent, informing them of their right to sue the state. Now, I'm assuming in reality there are plenty of plaintiff's lawyers that will be contacting that individual, so this wouldn't be an issue. But, you know, it's very likely that if we can't assume that the plaintiff's attorneys are going to seek individuals out, and I'm glad there is this notice requirement. I'll just relate it to Representative Williams, your other bill, about text and email notifications, because it's likely that when somebody leaves prison, they're moving in the first six months, potentially multiple times. So that letter might not get to them, whereas the email and text notification is going to get to them, and this is a better system, I believe. So not really a question, just a statement that your other bill on this relates to this, I think, and I support this bill and your other bill as well, of course.
Thank you.
Through the chair to the ranking member, I appreciate that comment. We can look at technology alternatives. We could also look at the formerly incarcerated individual updating their address with the court or with the Department of Public Safety to have the availability of an updated address so we could send letters to their updated address. But the intention is to get notice to the individual of what their rights are under the law.
Follow up?
Representative Tim for the question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, representatives, for bringing this bill forward. I just have a couple questions as it relates to the type of people who have previously been excluded and now included. Do you have any insight as to why these groups were previously or currently disallowed from receiving compensation?
Through the chair to the member, one was that juveniles, with the term being imprisoned individuals, were never imprisoned, and that juveniles get more due process through the juvenile justice system than adults do. So before they're incarcerated, and they have limits when they're incarceration to the age of 21, many of the incarcerated juveniles spend little time in DYS. We can debate whether or not that's appropriate or not. But also the individuals with Alfred pleas, the idea is they entered into a plea. But Alfred is a very unique plea. It's, yes, you admit guilt, but you also do so by maintaining your innocence. So that came from North Carolina v. Alfred, where an individual decided that the risk of going to trial and losing was too great. And he took an Alfred plea. And the court acknowledged that he had the right to take an Alfred plea. So these are individuals that maintain their innocence. So I think they should be eligible if later on their conviction are overturned. The only reason they entered a plea is because there was this risk. And, you know, I've talked about this before publicly. You know, I previously was accused of a felony and had that same plea offer offered to me. And I maintained my innocence. But they said, what's the big deal? You're not going to go to prison. You're going to get probation. Well, I would be a felon. And I rejected that. And I cleared my name. And my case was dismissed and sealed. But I've also defended people that have taken that choice and said, I would rather be a felon than risk two to four years away from my family. So I'm going to be a felon for the next X amount of years until I can get my records sealed, even though I'm innocent. I think those individuals should be entitled to compensation if their case has been overturned, if their conviction has been overturned, their case has been dismissed. those individuals and when it comes to the part and we don't want an individual deciding between accepting a government governor's pardon and maintaining their innocence and sitting in prison where they could be harmed at a later date they could be forced to engage in all type of activity that we see at our prisons we want individuals to be able to accept the governor olive branch of a pardon while maintaining their innocence and they shouldn have the doors of the courthouse closed on those either
Paula? Thank you, Chair. And my last question is, are there any groups that will continue to be ineligible for compensation that you consider including in this bill?
Thank you. Thank you. Through the chair, through the representative, thank you for that question. Not that I'm aware of my joint sponsors, but I did want to go back. Representative Williams talked about the Alfred plea. And a lot of times people find themselves in a situation where they're maintaining their innocence, but the level of evidence or the circumstances are against them. And they take these pleas. And we know you all are attorneys. You know that people take pleas because they want the lesser of the consequences that are put on the table to them. So I just thank you all for bringing this forward today. And my testimony was real. I was very shocked, like I said, about the reception that I received. And I thought about it. Again, I thought about it. These folks have been going through these processes without hope. And now you all have an opportunity to give them the hope and the light that they need and that they desperately deserve. So I just want to thank you, Chair, for bringing this, allowing this to come forward, and we hope that we get more hearings and that you hear from some of the witnesses. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Good job, Martin. Appreciate you. This concludes the first hearing for House Bill 501. I'd now like to call up House Bill 527.
Representative Williams, please proceed when you're ready. Good morning, Chair. It's good to see you again. Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sendenberg, and fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 527. I'll be honest, this bill is unique. It's an outlier. But to me, it's straightforward. It's an important bill that addresses a growing due process gap and how felony cases are handled in Ohio's major metropolitan counties. Under current law, when a prosecutor chooses to file a felony complaint in municipal court, the defendant gains a statutory right to a preliminary hearing. That hearing is designed to serve as an adversarial check on the state. It requires prosecutors to demonstrate probable cause that a felony was committed and that the defendant committed the felony. At that hearing, the defendant may appear with counsel, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and build a record that helps ensure fairness in the early stages of a felony case. Prosecutors are not required to begin a felony case in municipal court. They have the option to bypass that process entirely and seek a direct indictment in the Court of Common Pleas. Why, or when they choose that path, a preliminary hearing is never triggered. That is a lawful and acceptable charging decision by a prosecutor. However, what we increasingly see, especially in my hometown of Toledo, and particularly in our large metropolitan cities where they have a large volume of felony cases, it is a charging pattern that undercuts the defendant's rights. Prosecutors will file a complaint in municipal court, thereby creating a right to a preliminary hearing. But when the defendant exercises that right and requests a hearing, the state then will dismiss the municipal court case and instead take the matter to the grand jury. This maneuver is used specifically to avoid the adversarial nature of a preliminary hearing. The result is that defendants are effectively punished for asserting their right the state itself created by choosing to file the case in the municipal court. When they invoke that right, the prosecutor simply changes forms to bypass it. This practice deprives the defendant of the opportunity to confront witnesses, challenge the evidence, or test the state's case at the critical stage. This creates an uneven application of due process protections depending on the geographical location and the prosecutorial preference rather than the law. This legislation provides a fair and balanced solution. Under the bill, when a felony charge is filed in the municipal court, the defendant may elect to waive the preliminary hearing and instead have an open grand jury proceeding where he or she can participate. This selection preserves the defendant's due process rights and creates a meaningful adversarial opportunity. Under an open grand jury proceeding, a defendant can be represented by counsel, can testify and may even cross-examine witnesses and introduce evidence. It guarantees transparency, it creates a record, and it ensures that probable cause is properly tested in some form, either at the preliminary hearing or in an open grand jury setting. To be clear, this bill does not restrict prosecutors from pursuing direct indictments, nor does it interfere with their discretion to charge offenses. What it does is prevent the dismiss, then re-indict workaround that has become common in major metropolitan counties and cities, and restores fairness to the process that exists today in statute. Thank you again, Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen, Ranking Member Sendenberg, and fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee. This is about ensuring that when the state chooses a charging path that grants the defendant certain rights, those rights cannot be nullified by a prosecutorial tactic. It is about equal treatment across counties, and it is about maintaining the integrity of Ohio's probable cause determinations. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this unique legislation, and I welcome any and all questions the committee may have.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the sponsor?
Ranking Member Sittenberg with a question. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative Williams, for bringing this bill forward. How many other states have the process you're proposing?
Through the chairs and the ranking member, I have not found one. But not many states also allow this workaround that we currently see. So, you know, I practice in Lucas County a lot. I'll tell you how the process goes in Lucas County. My client who's facing an F4 gets an OR bond, own recognizance bond. He walks into courtroom three in Toledo Municipal Court for this felony. They say, hey, we're not going to reduce it. We're not going to offer you a plea. We're going to take it over to the grand jury. I say, well, my client wants his day in court. He wants a preliminary hearing. That prosecutor will look me in the face and say, well, we're going to dismiss and walk over to the grand jury today. He's going to walk out of here, but when we get the indictment, we're not going to issue him a bond. So a week from now, two months from now, grand jury will come back with an indictment for the charge. You will get a warrant issue for your arrest. On a random Friday, you'll get pulled over for speeding. Your car gets impounded. Your kid goes to Children's Services. You sit over the weekend at the county jail, all because you refuse to waive your preliminary hearing right in the state of Ohio. I've also had it for cash bonds, where a defendant will post a $25,000 cash bond in municipal court. If you do not waive your preliminary hearing, that cash bond goes away. And when you get indicted over in the grand jury, you've got to issue a new bond. So you've got to pay twice. And it's a tactic to get defendants to waive their preliminary hearing right now. Now, I have heard from at least one of my prosecutors in a rural county that he uses this tactic sparingly, and the only reason he does it is in sexual assault cases, because the standard of evidence is different in a preliminary hearing versus a grand jury. In a grand jury, you can introduce hearsay. So the detective can go in front of the grand jury and say the victim said this happened, and the victim never has to appear. In a preliminary hearing, the actual witness must appear. You have a right of confrontation. and prosecutors are avoiding that. So I think this is fairness. We need to have an in-depth discussion about the misuse of this redirect here in the state of Ohio.
Follow-up? Thank you. No.
Any other questions? Thank you for your testimony. This concludes the first hearing for House Bill 527. And now it calls House Bill 690 for its third hearing.
First to provide testimony is Chief Chip Pratsman from the Kettering Police Department.
Welcome to committee. Thank you for making the drive. And please proceed when you're ready.
Thank you, Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swearinger, and committee members for providing me this opportunity to testify for House Bill 690. My name is Christopher Protzman, and I do serve as the Kettering Police Chief. I am here today to support House Bill 690 because protecting children and crossing guards in school zones must remain a public safety priority. Every school day across Ohio, children depend on crossing guards to help them safely navigate traffic on the way to school. Unfortunately, law enforcement and school officials continue to see drivers speeding through school zones, failing to yield, driving distracted, and ignoring crossing guards. These are not harmless violations. They create dangerous situations where one mistake can seriously injure or kill a child, a parent, or a crossing guard. Current traffic penalties often do not reflect the seriousness of these violations. Ohio has already recognized we need for enhanced protections around school buses because we know children are vulnerable in traffic environments. House Bill 690 follows the same principle by strengthening accountability in active school zones where children and crossing guards are exposed to moving traffic daily. From a law enforcement perspective, stronger penalties matter because deterrence matters. We have seen traffic laws change behaviors before, whether it's seat belt laws, DUI enforcement, or school bus stop arm violations. When drivers understand there are meaningful consequences, compliance improves. Hospital 690 gives officers another important tool to address dangerous behavior before another tragedy occurs, like the one with Becky Evans in Franklin, Ohio. Last year, while performing her duties as a crossing guard, Becky was seriously injured when struck by a vehicle while protecting schoolchildren. Luckily, she was not killed, but her injuries were serious, and she is still dealing with them today. Her story reminds us how quickly an ordinary school morning can become life-changing when drivers fail to slow down or pay attention. And Becky is just one example of the dangers they face when motorists fail to follow laws. Crossing guards place themselves in harm's way every day in protecting our children. Over the past decade, more than 230 crossing guards were struck by vehicles, and nearly three dozen were killed nationwide. Here in Ohio, they deserve protection under the law. Protecting children and protecting those who protect them should always be a high priority for everybody. House Bill 690 is practical as a preventative measure that improves school zone safety, supports crossing guards, and reinforces the importance of reasonable driving around our schools. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to support House Bill 690. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time and will be happy to answer any questions.
Sir, thanks for making time today and providing testimony. Are there any questions for the witness?
Representative Tim has a question. Thank you so much for being here today and coming to testify in favor of the bill. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of the cross guards and what that means for, frankly, your fellow officers and capacity and what the passage of this bill would mean for you?
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Yeah, they're very important to us. In the city of Kettering, they're important enough that we pay individuals to come out and be those crossing guards. And we have seen a significant reduction in people willing to do those because of the hazards that they face. And we feel a stronger penalty is in being able to show them that we support them, that this will increase. And it does alleviate the duties from some of the officers to be in other areas as well. Thank you for the question.
Paula? Any other questions for the witness? Seeing none, thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. This concludes the third hearing for House Bill 690. Seeing no further business, the committee stands adjourned.