Judiciary Committee

JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT

Bill No.:

SB-1033

Title:

AN ACT CONCERNING COURT OPERATIONS.

Vote Date:

4/6/2015

Vote Action:

Joint Favorable Substitute

PH Date:

4/1/2015

File No.:

738

SPONSORS OF BILL:

Judiciary Committee

REASONS FOR BILL:

To implement recommendations submitted by the Judicial Branch.

Proposed Substitute: In lines 193 and 194, strike”, court reporters and court recording monitors: This allows the judges of the Superior Court to appoint official Court Reporters not Court Reporters and Court Recording monitors for the Court as the judges or an authorized Committee determines the Court requires.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, External Affairs Division, Hon. Patrick L. Carroll III. Supports this bill. This is one of three bills that the Judicial Branch has submitted as part of our legislative package this year, and it makes a variety of changes that are intended to enhance the operations of the Judicial Branch. A fact sheet was submitted to explain these changes.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Connecticut Bar Assoc., Keith Ainsworth, Chair: Supports this bill. This bill is offered by the Judicial Branch, specifically we support authorizing judges of the Superior Court considering land use appeals under Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-8(1) to remand cases back to the agency where the agency has failed to consider an issue. It is the section's position that the authority to remand is a tool necessary to the efficient administration of justice as well as public and private resources. Under current law, the Superior Court does not have the express statutory authority to remand a case back to an agency to consider issues that it may have neglected to consider in its deliberations.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

State Marshal AFSCME Local 2193, Mark D'Angelis, President. Opposes this bill. State marshals do not just serve legal process, they also attest to the fact that the copy matches the original document. State Marshal's sign an attested affidavit to this. Serving multiple copies of a legal document (a capias) is troubling. Having more than one copy of a capias circulating to be served can lead to problems for the state and public. If a copy is served in a courthouse, then it would be very easy for the first copy to be served again to an individual at his house or on the street. This could lead to a second arrest or a false arrest because the marshal serving the original capias may not know that a copy has already been served.

Thus, we request that you remove section 6 from this bill. We have no problem with the rest of the bill.

Reported by: George Marinelli

Date: 4-30-15