BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 980|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 980
Author: Lieu (D), et al.
Amended: 5/27/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 4/22/14
AYES: Hancock, De León, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Knight
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SUBJECT : Prisoners: DNA testing
SOURCE : California Innocence Project
Loyola Project for the Innocent
Northern California Innocence Project
DIGEST : This bill makes a number of changes to the statute
providing for post-conviction forensic deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) testing.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Provides that a person who was convicted of a felony, and is
currently serving a term of imprisonment may make a written
motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
2
conviction in his/her case for performance of DNA testing
under specified circumstances.
2.Provides a person may request appointment of counsel by
sending a written request to the court stating that he/she was
not the perpetrator and that DNA testing is relevant to
his/her assertion of innocence and that the court shall
appoint counsel to investigate and, if appropriate file a
motion for DNA testing.
3.Provides that the motion for DNA testing shall be verified by
the convicted person under penalty of perjury and shall, among
other things explain in light of all evidence how DNA testing
would raise a reasonable probability that the convicted
person's verdict or sentence would be more favorable if the
results of DNA testing had been available at the time of
conviction.
4.Provides that the court shall grant the motion for DNA testing
if it determines all of the following have been established:
A. The evidence to be tested is available and in a
condition that would permit DNA testing requested in the
motion;
B. The evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of
custody sufficient to establish it has not be substituted,
tampered with, replaced or altered in any material aspect;
C. The identity of the perpetrator of the crime was or
should have been, a significant issue in the case;
D. The convicted person has made a prima facie showing that
the evidence sought to be tested is material to the issue
of the convicted person's identity as the perpetrator of,
or accomplice to, the crime, special circumstance or
enhancement allegation that resulted in the conviction or
sentence;
E. The requested DNA testing results would raise a
reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence,
the convicted person's verdict or sentence would have been
more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been
available at the time of conviction. The court in its
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
3
discretion may consider any evidence whether or not it was
introduced at trial;
F. The evidence to be tested was not tested previously or
the evidence was tested previously but the requested DNA
test would provide results that are reasonably more
discriminating and probative of the identity of the
perpetrator or accomplice or have a reasonable probability
of contradicting prior test results; and
G. The testing requested employs a method generally
accepted within the relevant scientific community, as
specified.
1.Provides that if the court grants the motion for DNA testing,
the court order shall identify the specific evidence to be
tested and the DNA technology to be used.
2.Provides that the testing shall be conducted by a laboratory
mutually agreed upon by the district attorney in a noncapital
case, or the Attorney General in a capital case, and the
person filing the motion. If the parties cannot agree, the
court shall designate the laboratory to conduct the testing
and shall consider designating a laboratory accredited by the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board.
3.Provides that the cost of DNA testing shall be borne by the
state or the applicant as the court may order in the interests
of justice, if it is shown that the applicant is not indigent
and possesses the ability to pay. However, the cost of any
additional testing to be conducted by the district attorney or
Attorney General shall not be borne by the convicted person.
4.Requires the appropriate governmental entity to retain all
biological material that is secured in connection with a
criminal case for the period of time that any person is
incarcerated, as specified.
This bill makes the following revisions to provisions of law
regarding post-conviction DNA testing:
1.Provides that before a grant of a motion for DNA testing, the
defendant is not required to show that a favorable test would
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
4
conclusively establish his/her innocence.
2.Provides that upon appointment or retention of counsel to
investigate and, if appropriate, to file a motion for DNA
testing, a court may order the appropriate governmental agency
to locate and provide counsel with any documents or reports
relating to items of physical evidence collected in connection
with the case or to otherwise assist the defendant in locating
items of biological evidence that the entity contends have
been lost or destroyed; take reasonable measures to locate
biological evidence that may be in its custody; assist counsel
in locating relevant evidence that may be in the custody of a
public or private hospital, laboratory, or other facility.
3.Revises the chain of custody standard to provide that evidence
that has been in the custody of law enforcement, other
governmental officials, or a public or private hospital shall
be presumed to satisfy the chain of custody requirement,
absent specific evidence of material tampering, replacement,
or alteration.
4.Provides that the court requested DNA testing results would
raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the
evidence, the convicted person's verdict or sentence would
have been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had
been available at the time of conviction. The court in its
discretion may consider any evidence whether or not it was
introduced at trial.
5.Requires analysts, technicians, or other agents of the
laboratory conducting the testing, including local or state
governmental laboratories, to communicate directly with and
provide documentation directly to both parties and shall not
communicate with, or take direction from one party
individually, unless the parties agree otherwise.
6.Provides that if the court grants a motion for DNA testing,
testing is performed, and a DNA profile is obtained of
biological material that excludes the convicted person, the
court or defendant may order the relevant governmental agency
to conduct a keyboard search of the Combined DNA Index System
(CODIS) to compare the profile obtained from testing to the
CODIS databank.
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
5
7.Requires governmental entities to retain biological material
for an extended period of time past incarceration, to include
while the person is on parole.
8.Provides that governmental agencies must wait one year,
instead of 90 days, after sending notification of intention to
dispose of biological material, to receive a response from the
individual requesting the material not be destroyed or
disposed of, or a motion for DNA testing is filed.
9.Authorizes the court to consider appropriate remedies if the
court finds that any biological evidence was destroyed in
violation of these provisions of law.
Prior Legislation
SB 1342 (Burton, Chapter 821, Statutes of 2000) requires the
court to grant a motion for the performance of DNA testing under
specified conditions for any person convicted of a felony
currently serving a term of imprisonment, and requires the
appropriate governmental entity to preserve any biological
material secured in a criminal case, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund) annually
to the Department of Justice for increased storage costs due
to the extended evidential retention period required under
this bill.
Unknown, ongoing potentially major state-reimbursable local
costs (General Fund) for mandated activities including
evidence storage to retain biological evidence for an extended
period of time.
Ongoing potentially major non-reimbursable local costs (Local)
for assistance in locating biological evidence upon
discretionary order of the court.
Potentially significant future savings due to reduced state
incarceration costs (General Fund) to the extent inmates are
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
6
released from prison as a result of the additional DNA
testing. The release of five inmates who would have otherwise
served an additional 10 years in prison would result in
cumulative savings of over $1.5 million. Savings will be
offset in part by restitution paid by the state of $100 per
day for wrongful incarceration. Any savings could potentially
be offset or exceeded should the DNA testing result in the
positive identification and conviction of another individual
for the crime.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/25/14)
California Innocence Project (co-source)
Loyola Project for the Innocent (co-source)
Northern California Innocence Project (co-source)
American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
American Civil Liberties Union of California
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
Equal Justice Society
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/25/14)
California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Citizens for Law and Order, Inc.
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department
National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children
Sacramento County District Attorney
San Diego County District Attorney's Office
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"Despite the widespread acceptance of DNA testing as a powerful
and reliable form of forensic evidence that can conclusively
reveal guilt or innocence, many prisoners face insurmountable
hurdles during the legal process and do not have the legal means
to secure testing on evidence in their cases.
CONTINUED
SB 980
Page
7
Senate Bill 980's reforms eliminate hurdles and streamline the
judicial process associated with post-conviction DNA testing
requests. This will help reduce the likelihood of wrongful
convictions and further the cause of justice in California."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California District Attorneys
Association opposes this bill stating:
"SB 980 seeks to use the state's database to improperly fish
around for any other suspects or witnesses, thereby subjecting
innocent persons to unnecessary investigations. Under the new
statute the court could potentially order labs to upload
profiles that have nothing to do with the case. For example, a
cigarette butt found 20 feet away from a dead body on the side
of the road could be uploaded into CODIS upon a court's order."
JG:e 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED