Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6594
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.
Vote Date: 4/5/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/10/2021
File No.: 580
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Judiciary Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
The purpose of this legislation is to address many aspects of laws of our criminal codes. The
purpose of the bill is to improve the fairness and accessibility of our criminal justice system.
This bill was a collaboration of the Division of Criminal Justice and the Office of the Chief
Public Defender.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
State of CT Division of Public Defender Services, Chief Public Defender, Christine Perra
Rapillo The testimony submitted supports the passage of this bill. The bill is a result of a
collaboration between the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) and the Office of the Chief
Public Defender (OCPD) Sections 1-12 of the bill are proposals from the DCJ. The testimony
notes that these sections have been discussed and vetted and are supported as part of the
omnibus bill. The testimony reviews sections 13-25 in detail and notes they are OCPDs
contribution to the bill. Overall, this bill improves the fairness and accessibility of the criminal
justice system.
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch The Branch's response addresses sections 12 and 28 of
the proposed legislation. In section 12, the Branch suggests creating a new subsection to
clarify the classes of crime relating to the unlawful dissemination of an intimate image. If the
dissemination of an intimate image is to one person, the crime should be a class A
misdemeanor; unlawful dissemination of intimate images to more than one person should be
a class D felony. The Branch requests an effective date change in section 28(c) regarding
requirement changes to sentence modification. The new sentence modification requirements
may require changes to the Criminal Record Information Manager (CRIM). The Branch
requests the effective date be pushed out to accommodate additional time to make such
changes to the CRIM program.
Division of Criminal Justice The submitted testimony supports sections 1 12 of the
proposed legislation. The testimony reviews sections 1-12 of the bill in detail and why they
support each section.
State of Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Appellate Court Judge, Judge Robert Devlin;
Executive Director, Alex Tsarkov The testimony submitted supports sections 25-28 of the
proposed legislation, with some changes. The sections supported are based on the
recommendations of the Sentencing Committee. Sections 25-27 are related to Drug Free
Zones. The testimony would like to see the school zone provision in the states drug free
zone statutes decreased from 1,500 feet to 200 feet. Currently most of our larger urban areas
are designated as drug free zones. An unintended consequence of the 1,500-foot drug free
zone is a disparate impact on the residents of these urban areas. Section 28 of the proposed
legislation deals with sentencing modifications. This section would allow the court, without an
agreement between the defendant and the state, to modify any plea-bargained sentence
which includes seven years or less of actual incarceration after a hearing and a showing of
good cause.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Director of Policy and Public Relations, Lucy
Nolan The testimony suggests changes to sections 11 and 12 of the legislation regarding
the unlawful dissemination of an intimate image without the consent of the individual. The
testimony suggests changing the crime from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony,
which will align the crime with other like crimes.
Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, President, Frank J. Riccio The
Association is a statewide organization of over 350 criminal defense attorneys and supports
the passage of HB 6594 and describes its support of sections 13-28 in detail.
American Civil Liberties Union of CT Interim Senior Policy Council, Kelly McConney Moore
The submitted testimony supports a portion of the legislation and opposes other portions of
the proposal. The testimony supports sections (9, 13 21 and 23 27) that seek to decrease
unnecessary criminalization, over penalization and punishment of poverty, as well as those
directed at misconduct of governmental employees. The ACLU opposes sections 2, 3, 11, 12
and 28 that create new or greater penalties. Decriminalizing sex work makes both sex
workers & communities safer. Mass incarceration has been driven by longer prison
sentences.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Former Constituent, Douglas M. Isleib He opposes section 28. Mr. Isleibs wife Gayle was
shot to death on April 30, 1996. Her killer was sentenced to a total of sixty-five years in
prison, without the possibility of release. Section 28 would allow the killer to apply for a
sentence modification without an agreement of the states attorney and would allow the killer
to re-apply every five years until either the original sentence was reduced or the killer was
Page 2 of 4 HB-6594
discharged. This legislation re-victimizes the victims family and friends. Justice will not be
served if the victims killer serves anything less than the original sentence of sixty-five years.
Constituent, Bolton, CT, Merit Lajoie The testimony submitted opposes Section 28 of HB
6594. Ms. Lajoie is the daughter of Gayle Isleib and agrees will all the points that were
addressed in Douglas Isleib's testimony. The testimony states that the new proposed
legislation would re-traumatize her every five years in this most horrific and evil event of her
life.
Constituent, Vernon, CT, Kaylee McAvoy The testimony opposes Section 28 of HB6594.
She is the granddaughter of Gayle Isleib and supports the testimony that was submitted by
Douglas Isleib. The testimony also re-iterates the point that Section 28 may allow families of
those individuals who have been victims of violent crimes be re-victimized not once, but every
five years.
Constituent, Enfield, CT, Kristy McAvoy The testimony submitted opposes Section 28 of HB
6594. Ms. McAvoy is the step-granddaughter of Gayle Isleib and agrees with the testimony
submitted by other members of her family. Many members of the family (listed below) speak
out in strong opposition to any leniency to the offender who murdered their loved one.
Constituent, Cassandra Gomes The testimony submitted opposes HB 6594. The testimony
indicates that Ms. Gomes husband was shot by a man on probation. She is now raising a
family on her own and her daughter misses her father and best friend every day. The
testimony further states that HB 6594 shows no value or respect to those who were hurt by
someones choice to commit a violent and/or deadly crime.
Constituent, Bridgeport, CT, Delia Marie Gonzalez The testimony opposes HB 6594. It
states that her son was killed by a group of teens in Bridgeport and it is an outrage that her
sons killers may serve only 40% of the time they were sentenced to at the trial. The leniency
that is potentially being offered to killers only goes to illustrate to youth that they may only get
a slap on the wrist after killing another human being and devastating a family.
Constituent, Eileen Green The submitted testimony opposes Section 28(a) of the proposed
legislation. This section is damaging to the Judicial system, victims of crimes and their
families and the citizens of the state of Connecticut. Any early release must be accompanied
by well defined specific conditions. Ms. Green included ideas for conditional release criteria.
Constituents, Plainville, CT, Ken and Michelle Kerski The testimony submitted opposes
Section 28 of HB 6594. They feel section 28(a) is too broad and open for interpretation.
Legislation should be created that meets the needs of the problems of today without
sacrificing the Judicial system.
Constituent, Mystic, CT, Christopher Lake He strongly opposes Section 28 of HB 6594. He
is vey close to a family who are victims of a horrific, violent crime. They are all serving a life
sentence without their loved one. Many endured the pain of trial and accepted the sentence
equivalent to life on the offender. To allow this offender be considered for one day less on his
sentence is a horrific injustice
Page 3 of 4 HB-6594
Citizen, Bradford, ME, Patrick Murray Mr. Murray states he was a law enforcement officer
for ten years and he feels the most important part of any trial is the sentencing. For the state
to have the ability to change the decision without due cause is offensive to our entire legal
system. HB 6594 will make the victims families relive the trauma every five years.
The following individuals recanted their personal stories as victims in opposition to 6594:
Erin Bon Dan Bouchard Deanne Carter A. Fernandez
Denise Gill Douglas Gill Tamera Green David Janty
Sydney Lake Jason Lingner Becca Locke Lauryn K. McAvoy-Orszulak
Sean McLaughlin Leann Morse Patrick Murray Christopher McLaughlin
Ryan Orszulak Nichole Rowley David W. Rezende Kathy McLaughlin
Beth Schultz Elaina Schultz Sam Rooney Ashley McLaughlin
Deborah Soares Scott Soares Spencer Soares Heather Soucy
Danny Tu Charlene Valley Natasha Watson Ryan Watson
Alexa Yankus Kathleen Gill
Reported by: Richard E,.ONeil Date: April 15, 2021
Page 4 of 4 HB-6594


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 7-22, 7-81, 51-279b, 54-72, 54-73, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r
JUD Joint Favorable Substitute: 7-22, 7-81, 51-279b, 54-72, 54-73, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r
File No. 580: 7-22, 7-81, 51-279b, 54-72, 54-73, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r
APP Joint Favorable: 7-22, 7-81, 51-279b, 54-72, 54-73, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r
File No. 707: 7-22, 7-81, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r
Public Act No. 21-102: 7-22, 7-81, 54-56e, 54-56g, 54-56i, 51-164r