BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1058
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1058 (Leno)
As Amended June 4, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-9
PUBLIC SAFETY 5-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Ammiano, Jones-Sawyer, |
| |Quirk, Skinner, Stone, |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Includes within the definition of "false evidence,"
for purposes of prosecuting a writ of habeas corpus, opinions of
experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who
originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that
have been undermined by later scientific research or
technological advances. This bill also clarifies that these
provisions shall not be construed to create additional
liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for experts who
repudiate his or her own original opinion or whose basis has
been repudiated by later scientific or technological
advancements.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that every person who is unlawfully imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty, under any pretense whatever, to
prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause
of such imprisonment or restraint
2)Provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for,
but not limited to, the following reasons:
a) False evidence that is substantially material or
probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was
introduced against a person at any hearing or trial
relating to his incarceration; or,
b) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be
factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt,
which was known by the person at the time of entering a
SB 1058
Page 2
plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly
related to the plea of guilty by the person.
3)States that nothing in the provisions authorizing a writ of
habeas corpus shall be construed as limiting the grounds for
which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or as
precluding the use of any other remedies.
4)Provides that the application for the writ is made by
petition, signed either by the party for whose relief it is
intended, or by some person in his behalf, and must specify:
a) That the person in whose behalf the writ is applied for
is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty, the officer or
person by whom he is so confined or restrained, and the
place where, naming all the parties, if they are known, or
describing them, if they are not known;
b) If the imprisonment is alleged to be illegal, the
petition must also state in what the alleged illegality
consists; and,
c) The petition must be verified by the oath or affirmation
of the party making the application.
5)States that the writ must be directed to the person having
custody of or restraining the person on whose behalf the
application is made, and must command him to have the body of
such person before the court or judge before whom the writ is
returnable, at a time and place therein specified.
6)Requires the court or judge before whom the writ is returned,
immediately after the return, to proceed to hear and examine
the return, and such other matters as may be properly
submitted to their hearing and consideration.
7)States if no legal cause is shown for such imprisonment or
restraint, or for the continuation thereof, such court or
judge must discharge such party from the custody or restraint
under which he is held.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
SB 1058
Page 3
COMMENTS : According to the author, "SB 1058 would clarify that
'false evidence' includes repudiated and recanted expert
testimony that served as the primary basis for an incarcerated
individual's conviction.
"California's false testimony statutes are intended to protect
an individual from wrongful incarceration due to the false
testimony of a witness. Unfortunately, a recent court decision
created an unjust distinction between the false testimony of
laypersons - which a court may consider in overturning a
wrongful conviction - and that of "expert witnesses", which must
now meet a higher bar before being considered in overturning a
wrongful conviction. This contradictory interpretation is
unreasonable and exacerbates the problem of wrongful
convictions.
"This bill will allow a judge to determine when wrongful
incarceration has taken place due to a conviction that was based
on evidence that has been disproven by scientific and
technological advances.
"Quite simply, this bill will keep innocent people out of
prison."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0003927