BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 618
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 618 (Leno) - As Amended: June 27, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill streamlines the process for compensating persons for
wrongful incarceration. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides if a person has secured a declaration of factual
innocence from the court after having his or her conviction
set aside, the finding is grounds for payment of a claim
against the state to the California Victim Compensation and
Government Claims Board (board), and that upon application by
the petitioner, the board shall, without a hearing, recommend
to the Legislature an appropriation to cover the claim.
2)States that factual findings made by the court in considering
a petition for habeas corpus, a motion for new trial based on
new evidence, or an application for a certificate of factual
innocence, are binding on the Attorney General (AG), the
factfinder, and the board.
3)States if the court grants a writ of habeas corpus concerning
a person who is unlawfully imprisoned, or when the court
vacates a judgment for a person on the basis of new evidence
concerning a person who is no longer unlawfully imprisoned,
and the court finds the evidence points unerringly to
innocence, the board shall, upon application by the claimant,
without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature an
appropriation to cover the petitioner's claim.
4)States that if the court finds the petitioner has proven his
or her innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, the board
shall, without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature an
appropriation to cover the petitioner's claim.
SB 618
Page 2
5)Authorizes a person incarcerated in county jail for a felony
conviction to file a claim for financial injury due to
erroneous conviction and incarceration, in the same manner as
a person incarcerated in state prison.
6)Provides if the claimant had his or her conviction reversed in
a habeas corpus proceeding or secured a declaration of factual
innocence, the board shall, within 30 days of the presentation
of the claim, calculate the compensation for the claimant and
recommend to the Legislature payment of that sum.
If the claimant has not had his or her conviction reversed or
secured a declaration of factual innocence, the board shall
order the AG to respond to the claim within 60 days of the
order, or to request an extension of time, upon a showing of
good cause. (Current law requires the board to set a time and
place for a hearing and mail notice to the AG at least 15 days
before the hearing.)
7)Deletes the requirement that the claimant must prove he or she
did not intentionally contribute to his or her arrest or
conviction for the crime in question.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, potentially significant, annual GF costs to the
extent streamlining the process for erroneous conviction
claims accelerates payment and increases the frequency of
successful claims.
Since 2001 the board has heard 62 erroneous conviction claims,
approving 11. The Legislature subsequently appropriated $3.5
million for 10 of the claims, based on the statutory $100 per
day of wrongful incarceration. (In 2007 a board-approved claim
for $74,600 failed to receive a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The
claimant had been convicted of rape and murder and it was
subsequently determined the murder conviction was erroneous.
This claimant ultimately prevailed - to a greater degree - in
civil court.) For order of magnitude purposes, based on the
past 12 years, if this bill increased the percentage of
successful claims heard by 30%, the annual cost increase would
be about $500,000.
2)Minor savings to the board as a result of potentially fewer
SB 618
Page 3
hearings, more than offset by the potential increase in
claims.
3)Unknown, potentially moderate GF net costs, potentially in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, for increased DOJ legal
workload as a result of the required 60-day response to a
claim when a claimant has not had a conviction reversed or
secured a declaration of factual innocence. (DOJ could also
request an extension.)
These costs would be offset to an unknown degree by reduced
workload in terms of cases that DOJ would no longer need to
review and process.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to make the indemnification
process for wrongful incarceration as a result of erroneous
conviction more fair and cost-efficient.
According to the author, "Under our current system, an
innocent person must go through the intensely arduous task of
proving their innocence in a full court hearing by completely
dismantling the state's case. And then, he or she must start
again from scratch in a completely new and separate
administrative process - a process in which the innocence that
he or she has previously proven is ignored or discounted and
the rules of evidence of a trial court do not apply?.
"SB 618 addresses this problem by creating a fair and
efficient review process that reduces a number of obstacles
that continue to prevent eligible exonerees from gaining
access to meaningful compensation for their unlawful
imprisonment."
2)Current law provides that a person committed to state prison
who is pardoned because the person did not commit the crime,
or is determined to be innocent, may present a claim against
the state to the board for pecuniary injury. The claim must be
presented to the board within two years of acquittal,
discharge, or pardon granted, or after release from prison.
The board sets a time and place to hear the claim and provides
15 days notice to the claimant and the AG. At the hearing, the
claimant provides evidence in support of the claim, and the AG
SB 618
Page 4
may introduce evidence in opposition. The claimant must prove
the claim, including:
a) That the crime charged was not committed by the
claimant.
b) That the claimant did not intentionally contribute to
the arrest or conviction.
c) The pecuniary injury sustained.
If the evidence proves the claimant's case, the board reports
the conclusion to the Legislature, with a recommendation for
an appropriation to indemnify the claimant at $100 per day.
3)Since 2001, according to DOJ data, the AG and the board agreed
upon every claim but one , a 2006 claim the AG did not contest
but the board denied. This suggests denials are not largely
the result of board process or obstinancy, but more often the
result of insufficient evidence of innocence. A claimant may
be able to show he or she was released or was determined to
have been wrongfully incarcerated as a result of procedural
error, not necessarily innocence, and innocence is required
for indemnification.
4)Supporters include the CA Innocence Project (sponsor), the
ACLU, and the CA Public Defenders Association. According to
the Innocence Project, "Individuals who have established their
actual innocence to the criminal justice system, whose
conviction would not have been reversed unless they proved
their innocence to the judge, have been denied claims by the
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the
administrative agency directed to rule on compensation claims.
Claimants are often required to spend tens of thousands of
dollars to litigate their claims in front of the Board. To add
insult to injury, claimants have had to wait years for their
claims to be decided, providing no meaningful relief in any
way.
"This significant disparity is the result of an inefficient and
overly burdensome compensation review process system that
rarely compensates deserving victims, and takes years to do
so. The claim review process is not bound by the factual
determinations made by the court that originally granted the
claimant's writ of habeas corpus, which requires the innocent
to re-litigate their claim of innocence - an expensive and
laborious process."
SB 618
Page 5
5)Opposition . The CA District Attorneys Association cites
concerns regarding binding court findings and the deletion of
the provision in current law that requires a claimant to show
he or she did not intentionally contribute to his or her
conviction.
6)Amendments . The author will continue working with DOJ to
clarify language while the bill is on the Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081