Gender and Justice Commission

November 2, 2007

Supreme Court Gender and Justice Commission

November 2, 2007

Meeting Minutes

Members In Attendance:  Justice Barbara Madsen, Barbara Carr, Judge Sara Derr, Judge Joan Dubuque, Lisa Hayes, Grace Huang, Judge Cynthia Jordan, Michael Killian, Judge Craig Matheson, Leslie Owen, Yvonne Pettus, Bernard Ryan, Justice Jane Smith and Myra Downing, Commission Coordinator

Guests:  Dirk Marler, Carla Lee, and Catherine Carroll.

Members Absent:  Jeri Costa, Natasha Martin, Judge James Riehl, Judge John Schultheis, Daniel Thieme, Judge Linda Tompkins, and Judge Chris Wickham.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

Minutes were approved.

Gender and Justice Commission Budget Report.

Expenditures are within the expected range for this quarter. 

STOP Grants to the Courts (FFY 05, 06, and 07)

FFY 05:  Funds have been expended and the grant is being closed.

FFY 06:  Each of the Managers for a funded project sent in their quarterly reports.  Projects are proceeding as expected.  One project was delayed due to some administrative issues but those have been resolved. 

FFY 07:  RFP has been distributed to all Presiding Judges, Court Administrators, and County Clerks.  Applications are due January 4, 2008. 

Internet Publication of Information

Background information provided by Justice Madsen

The concern started with the passage of HR 3402-Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005.  The Gender and Justice Commission asked the Judicial Information System Data Dissemination Committee to assess if Washington was in compliance with HR 3402.  The review by the Committee determined that Washington was in compliance because the restriction on Internet publication was included in the section on full faith and credit, thus meaning the restriction only applied to foreign orders.  Since no foreign orders are available to the public on the Courts’ website, Washington State was in compliance with the intent of the law. 

An amendment to the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) 2005 was enacted in 2006.  Grace Huang, a Commission member, believed two new concerns arose:

1. By expanding the restriction to “the registration, filing of a petition for, or issuance of a protection order, restraining order or injunction” Congress clarified that law enforcement and courts have a statutory obligation to enforce all protection orders issued intrastate and interstate.
2. The new definition of protection order was changed and it now covers any form of injunctive relief provided to protect the safety of survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

A letter was sent on behalf of the Commission to the Superior Court Judges’ Association (SCJA) and the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association (DMCJA) asking for their support in requesting that the Board for Judicial Administration conduct a review of GR 31 and its possible negative impact on victims of domestic violence.

The letter expressed two concerns about a perceived conflict between Washington General Rule (GR) 31(d)1 Access to Court Records and Title 18, United States Code Section (USCS) 2265, Full Faith and Credit given to protection orders, (d)(3) Limits on internet publication of [protection order] registration information.  The two concerns were: 

1. Allowing public access to protection order information may negatively impact victims’ safety and increase opportunities for discrimination in housing and employment.
2. Future STOP grant funding to the Courts may be jeopardized if Washington State is not in compliance with the federal law.

The SCJA and the DMCJA have supported the request by the Commission for further review by the Board of Judicial Administration (BJA). 

Justice Madsen, Judge Dubuque, Judge Derr, and Grace Huang provided an overview of the concerns and questions raised during the BJA meeting:

• If information is not provided on the internet, then it would need to be sealed.
• Records are to be open but remain mindful of the needs of victim safety. 
• Would a two-tiered system work?  If not, why not?  If so, how would it work?
• Is the new C-TRAC compatible with this type of adjustment?  If not, what would need to be done to make it compatible?
• Is Washington in compliance with the Federal law?  Why or why not?

The BJA agreed to form a subcommittee to explore the issue further. 

Commission meeting discussion

Several additional questions and concerns were added to the list generated from the BJA meeting:

• Should there be a special category of information that is not sealed and is not on the internet?
• What would be the positive and negative results of sealing the records if that was the final decision? 
• How responsive would JIS be if the rule changes.  How difficult would it be to work it into the new system? 
• Sealing records has become a political issue with the media paying close attention.

There was a consensus that the Commission members needed to come to agreement on their position on this issue. 

After there is agreement among Commission members, the legislative chairs of the SCJA and DMCJA may be contacted to seek their input.  It was stated that the stronger argument is that Washington State should follow the law and the weaker argument is that Washington would get less money for not following it.  It was pointed out that Washington State has already been affected by a 10% reduction because of our DNA testing policies. 

Justice Madsen pointed out that any change to GR 31 would be made by the Supreme Court.  The request for modification would come from the Judicial Information Systems Committee (JISC) which advises the Supreme Court.  One of the values of this approach is that public opinion would be sought which could be eye opening. 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND CONFERENCES

DV and Ethics September 15 workshop for court Interpreters

Twenty four people attended the training and left requesting more information on Domestic Violence. 

Scholarships for Enhancing and Continuing Skills in Domestic Violence

Scholarships were granted to following Judicial Officers for the “Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases” class:

·         Commissioner Sidney Ottem – Yakima County Superior Court

·         Commissioner Gary Bashor – Cowlitz County Superior Court

·         Commissioner Daniel Stahnke – Clark County Superior Court

·         Commissioner Indu Thomas – Thurston County Superior Court

·         Judge Craddock Verser – Jefferson County Superior Court

·         Judge John Cooney – Spokane County District Court

·         Judge Jill Landes – Jefferson County District Court

·         Judge Alicia Nakata – Chelan County District Court

·         Judge Mary Roberts – King County Superior Court

·         Judge Michael Sullivan – Pacific/Wahkiakum County Superior Court

Scholarships were granted to the following Judicial Officers for the “Continuing Skills in Domestic Violence” class:

·         Judge Brian Altman – Klickitat County District Court

·         Commissioner Tracy Mitchell – Lewis County Superior Court

Scholarships for Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases

Scholarships were granted to the following Judicial Officers for the “Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases” class:

·         Commissioner Joseph Valente – Spokane County Superior Court

·         Commissioner Eric Watness – King County Superior Court

·         Judge Diane Woolard – Clark County Superior Court

SCJA 2008 Education Program

Catherine Carroll, Washington State Sexual Assault Program Legal Director was present to review the proposed program. 

There was a conference call on Monday, October 29 with Judge Leslie Allen, SCJA Conference co-chair, Judge Carol Schapira, Equality and Justice Subcommittee, Catherine Carroll, Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs Legal Director, Justice Madsen and Myra Downing.

The purpose of the call was to create a session that would be of interest to superior court judicial officers.  One of the first decisions was to make the session eligible for ethic credits. 

The session would address the topic of sexual violence and begin with a controversial scenario that judicial officers will be asked to give their opinion using the responder unit and then explored in more detail throughout the session. 

It is proposed that the session would consist of three primary presenters and 2 judicial officers:  The primary presenters would be:

·         Dr. Lisak – dynamics associated with the perpetrator

·         Jennifer Long – dynamics associated with the victim

·         Catherine Carroll – what has been seen in Washington State and discuss the legal issues and issues that arise that are more prevalent in these types of cases.  Some of the issues mentioned were privacy, individual ownership over decisions, intoxification and how these things play out for the judge.

Then, using the information presented by the 3 presenters, pose ethical dilemmas a judicial officer could face and ask participants to decide their course of action using the responder units.  The scenarios will be created to address the gray areas in making decisions in these types of cases.  The judicial officers would be available to provide opinions and respond to questions.  Some of the topic areas mentioned on the call were:  pre-trial publicity, Motion in Limine, restrictions on the media, public disclosure, and sexual history. 

Katherine mentioned that a few high profile cases might be used for discussion: Kobe Bryant, David Copperfield and the case that was discussed by David Ross, the radio announcer. 

It was requested that one scenario include a component dealing with ethnicity and one that deals with a sentencing situation.  In addition, it was mentioned that part of the information covered should address the practice by some defense attorneys of requesting the victim witness statement as part of discovery.  Another area that was requested was answering the question - Do the rules of evidence apply in regards to the rape shield?

DMCJA 2008 Education Program

Justice Madsen and Judge Derr introduced this discussion.  Catherine Carroll and Myra Downing reviewed the proposed session for the DMCJA conference entitled “The War and the Courts.”

The purpose of this session is to discuss the impact of the war on returning women and men soldiers and what types of situations or behaviors a judicial officer may likely see in their court.  Specific topic areas are PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury, and issues that have arisen for women soldiers in combat. 

The Veteran’s Administration, Judge Jack Nevin, and Rick Coplen have agreed to work with Commission members on crafting this session.  It was recommended that the King County Women Lawyers Committee be contacted because they have done some work in this area and would be a good resource.  It was also recommended that information be gathered from the work done by the legislative group that was investigating traumatic brain injuries. 

One of the concerns expressed was to be sure that the session did not give an excuse for an act of sexual violence.

CLE Human Trafficking

Carla Lee introduced this discussion and is the lead for this project. 

There was a conference call on Wednesday, October 24 to discuss the class being developed on Human Trafficking.  Carla Lee is taking the lead on this venture. 

Lawyers are the target audience for this class.  The purpose of the class will be to explore the criminal, civil and international issues associated with human trafficking.  One of the legal questions that will be answered is “how do our laws conflict with international law?”

It is proposed that the session begin with an overview by Justice Madsen including “Pretty Dirty Things.”  Then a presentation by David Martin “What is the Law.”  This would be followed up with a presenter(s) who would define trafficking, provide information on recognizing victims, identifying possible courses of actions, and providing resources and tools for serving this population. 

There was an interest in having a victim panel so that real experiences are shared with participants. 

Several people were mentioned as possible presenters:

• US Attorney Yi Ting Woo
• Professor Mamoud
• Professor Ramasastry
• Christina Entrekin

Domestic trafficking, transporting juveniles across state lines for prostitution, victim impact panels and mail order brides were mentioned as topics to be included during the CLE presentation.  There was some discussion about mail order brides.  Bernie Ryan mentioned that the law regulates mail order brides so care would need to be taken to address how it is regulated and permitted. 

Firearms and DV 50^th Washington Judicial Conference

Justice Madsen and Judge Dubuque provided a review of the session and pointed out the session received very high evaluations.  They pointed out one of the main points discussed during the session--Federal law still stands even if something is crossed out.  Judge Derr shared that their courts have been contacted by the FBI requesting clarification and records, indicating that attention is being paid to ensuring the law is followed. 

It was stressed that the Commission should provide follow-up information to the court activities

Proposed Topic for Annual Conference

Judge Derr reviewed the proposed session for the Annual Judicial Conference.  This was a session she witnessed at the National Association of Women Judges’ Southwestern Conference earlier this year.  The session is entitled “Racial and Gender Bias in Judicial Selection.”  The presenters are Professor Cheryl Harris and Professor Jerry Kang from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and Professor Sylvia R. Lazos, from William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  The session would cover explicit beliefs vs. implicit bias; the attorney ratings of judges, tension between judicial independence and judicial accountability, gender stereotypes, racial stereotypes, etc.

Justice Madsen also noted another session that covers similar material entitled “Mind Bugs.”  She explained the format for the presentations that are very interactive.  It was proposed that the two programs be merged and that it be a 3-hour plenary session. 

The session would be co-sponsored with the SCJA Equality and Fairness Committee.  The Commission is exploring possible funding sources that could assist in defraying some of the costs. 

Grace Huang asked about a possible session on 5470.  It was mentioned that the SCJA 2008 conference is spending nearly an entire day on these issues. 

Request for Funding – WomenSpirit

Justice Madsen reviewed a letter sent to the Commission from WomenSpirit requesting financial support for a statewide Native American Sexual Assault Summit they are planning for April 2008.  It was moved by Judge Dubuque and seconded by Yvonne Pettus that the Commission allocate $1500 toward speaker costs and conference materials.  The motion passed.

Human Trafficking Task Force

Myra Downing provided a report of the work of the task force.  She attended a meeting in October and was given an outline that provided the areas of interest of the task force and for the report to the governor.  She reviewed the seven components:  prevention; training and technical assistance; victim identification; comprehensive victim services; understanding human trafficking operations in Washington State; coalitions and task forces; and grassroots community mobilization and organizing.  Grace Huang pointed out that the task force was focusing on first responders.  It was also noted that Washington has not had a trafficking case filed yet. 

State Model Law on Protection for Victims of Human Trafficking

Grace Huang discussed the work being done on establishing a state model law on protection for victims of human trafficking.  The reason it is being proposed in states is that the Federal government is most interested in prosecuting big cases.  This means individual cases of trafficking do not get the attention they may deserve.  The sub committee of the Human Trafficking Task Force working on this issue are attempting to answer some questions such as “Should sex trafficking be specifically identified in the law?” and “Do we consider commercial sex as labor?”

The Commission expressed an interest in staying informed of the work of the subcommittee.  Justice Madsen and Bernie Ryan expressed concern about responding to a draft of a bill, saying that is more difficult to change a draft than to be part of the discussion before the draft is completed. 

Mr. Ryan pointed out that the model law does not include definitions.  Judge Dubuque noted that the law is very broad and would have huge implications for criminal sentencing.  Grace Huang said that defense attorneys and prosecutors are part of the subcommittee. 

Success Inside and Out

Justice Smith provided a review of the Success Inside and Out program.  She traveled to Alaska during the later part of October to view the program on behalf of the Commission.  93 women participated in the program.  Here is a summary of her report.

Purpose of the program:  Helping women get out and stay out of prison.  The Bridge to Success program is a reentry program that helps women finding housing, employment and establishing positive relationships. 

Program Philosophy:  Giving up is never an option.  Start with small steps.

Length of Program:  The program is scheduled from 9am – 3pm. 

There were approximately 10 – 12 classes available to the participants.  A reoccurring theme is drugs and alcohol and how to develop new friends.  Three graduates of the program participated on a panel to share their personal experiences with getting out and staying out. 

Funding:  Provided by the Prison Industry, personal donations, and donations from businesses.  The funding for the program had been cut.  The gap was filled by using volunteers. 

Two Key Factors for Success:

1. A very committed person on the inside to manage the planning within the institution.
2. A person on the outside to find support, presenters, coordinate volunteers and assist in planning. 

Commission members expressed a desire to proceed with creating and delivering a program in Washington State.

• Yvonne Pettus has contacted Washington Center for Women and is waiting for a response from them.
• Judge Jordan and Justice Smith said that there is also a women’s program at Pine Lodge in Spokane.
• The Washington State Bar Association Women Lawyers committee may want to participate. 
• Grace Huang stated that sustaining a job is critical and that her agency had some economic justice curriculum that addresses establishing credit and resume’ writing that could be used. 
• The YWCA, Soroptomists, SCJA Corrections Committee, and the Girl Scouts were also mentioned as possible supporters. 
• The women’s prison superintendent mentioned that there was community support during a site visit by the Commission two years ago. 

Sex Offender Management Board Workgroup

Justice Madsen reviewed the report that was given to the Governor.  She pointed out the recommendations of the committee:

The group produced a report for the Governor with seven recommendations:

·         DNA samples should be collected from all current and future registered sex offenders.

·         State funding should be provided to assist local law enforcement in conducting in-person address verification of all registered sex offenders.

·         Electronic Monitoring should be used as a tool for monitoring sex offenders in appropriate circumstances.

·         Continued services and supports for victims of sexual assault is essential to holding offenders accountable.

·         Information about Level I sex offenders should be added to the statewide notification website if a Level I offender fails to register with law enforcement in a timely manner or gives inaccurate information.

·         District and municipal court conviction records should be electronically available to superior courts in an easily accessible format.

·         The Sentencing Guidelines Commission should continue discussions about the most appropriate framework for sentencing and community supervision of sex offenders into the future.

Some members were concerned about the report.  One concern was that one of the recommendations seemed to address an area that the courts thought was already being done so why did it get mentioned as an action needing to be taken.  The term that was confusing was “easily accessible.”  It is not clear from the report if juveniles were part of the definition of sex offender for this report.  Barbara Carr explained that juvenile sex offenders receive different treatment than adult sex offenders. 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:36.