Legislature Passes Bill Ensuring Future Payments In Change Of Venue Trials

SACRAMENTO – The Legislature has unanimously passed AB 27, jointly authored by Assembly Members Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco) and Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City), which makes various changes to the law regarding payment of claims when a change of venue has been ordered in a trial. This bill is sponsored by the County of San Mateo.

"AB 27 addresses discrepancies in the law which enabled the delay in payments from the Peterson trial," Assembly Member Mullin said. "Ultimately, the new procedures in AB 27 will prevent a chilling effect that could occur if courts/counties were to refuse to take high-profile cases to avoid a fight over reimbursement of costs.”

AB 27 provides an effective remedy to avoid lawsuits between counties and courts involved in change of venue trials, by requiring requires the Judicial Council to develop policies and procedures to ensure timely reimbursement of court costs, and a process for the Administrative Office of the Courts to mediate any disputes between trial courts about reimbursable costs. Also, this bill requires counties to approve a budget and timeline for payments prior to the beginning of a trial.

In January 2004, the judge in the Peterson trial ordered the case moved from Stanislaus to San Mateo County. Since then, Asm. Mullin has proposed legislation and budget language to ensure reimbursement to San Mateo County for costs incurred during the prosecution of the Scott Peterson. In January 2005, Asm. Mullin, in cooperation with the offices of Asm. Cogdill and Senator Denham, brought together representatives from both San Mateo and Stanislaus to discuss the issues related to outstanding bills related to county costs. This discussion has spurred additional discussions and San Mateo has now been paid in full.

The Administrative Office of the Courts has acknowledged there have been other disputes between courts in change of venue trials which necessitate the establishment of regulations in this area. Another notable dispute between courts and counties include Santa Clara and Sonoma for the People v. Davis. The extreme actions taken by all of the affected entities could have been avoided if parameters for payments were established at the outset of the trial.

###

Capitol Office: State Capitol, Room 2170 -- Sacramento, CA 95814 -- Phone: 916.319.2019-- Fax: 916.319.2119
District Office: 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 302 -- San Mateo, CA 94402 -- Phone: 650.341.4319 -- Fax: 650.341.4676