BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 635 Hearing Date: April 21, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nielsen |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Erroneous Conviction and Imprisonment: Compensation
HISTORY
Source: California Innocence Project
Prior Legislation:SB 618 (Leno) - Ch. 800, Stats. 2013
AB 316 (Solorio) - Ch. 432, Stats. 2009
AB 2937 (Solorio) - vetoed, 2008,
AB 1799 (Baugh) - Ch. 630, Stats. 2000\
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; California Public Defenders
Association; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to raise the compensation for
innocent persons who were wrongly convicted from $100 per day to
$136.98, or $50,000 per year, to reflect the effect of inflation
on the amount originally set in 2000.
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageB
of?
Existing law includes procedures for the filing and hearing of a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which allows a person to
challenge his or her incarceration or related restraint as
unlawful. (Pen. Code §§1474-1508.)
Existing law describes specific grounds for a writ of habeas
corpus, including:
False evidence that was material or substantially
probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was
introduced against the person at a trial or hearing related
to the petitioner's incarceration.
A person entered a guilty plea based on false physical
evidence that the person entering the plea believed to be
true.
The specified grounds for a writ of habeas corpus do not
limit any other valid grounds for the writ or other
available remedies. (Pen. Code §1473.)
Existing law provides that a person who is no longer unlawfully
imprisoned or restrained as a result of a criminal conviction
may file a motion to vacate the judgment for the following
reasons:
Newly discovered evidence of fraud by a government
official completely and conclusively undermines the
prosecution's case and points unerringly to innocence.
Newly discovered evidence that a government official
testified falsely at trial and the testimony was
substantially material and probative on the issue of guilt.
(Pen. Code §1474.6.)
Existing law provides that any person who, having been convicted
of a crime and imprisoned in the state prison, is granted a
pardon by the Governor because the crime with which he or she
was charged either did not occur; or if it did occur, was not
committed by him or her; or who is innocent of the charges for
either of the foregoing reasons, and who has served any part of
the term for which imprisoned may present a claim against the
State to the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board
(board) for the pecuniary injury sustained through the wrongful
conviction and imprisonment. (Pen. Code § 4900.)
Existing law provides that an unlawfully imprisoned person
(exonoree) shall be entitled to a recommendation by the board
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageC
of?
for compensation without a hearing under the following
circumstances:
A court in a contested habeas corpus proceeding or
motion to vacate a judgment finds that the evidence
unerringly points to the innocence of the exonoree. (Pen.
Code § 1485.55, subd. (a).)
The court grants a habeas corpus petition or motion to
vacate judgment on any ground other than the evidence
unerringly points to innocence and the petitioner proves by
a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is innocent.
(Pen Code § 1485.55, subds. (b)-(d).)
A federal court in a habeas corpus matter grants the
petitioner's motion for a finding of factual innocence.
(Pen Code § 1485.55, subds. (b)-(d).)
A court issues a certificate of innocence upon the
stipulation by the prosecutor or a hearing. (Pen. Code §§
861.8, 861.86 and 861.865.
Existing law provides that factual findings, including witness
credibility determinations, made by a court in a hearing on a
habeas corpus petition, a motion to vacate a judgment or a
petition for a certificate of factual innocence shall be binding
on the board, the fact finder and the Attorney General in a
proceeding to consider a claim filed by a person who alleges
that he or she is entitled to compensation despite his or her
innocence. (Pen. Code § 1485.5, subd. (c).)
Existing law provides that where the district attorney of
Attorney stipulates to or does not contest the factual
allegations underlying one or more of the grounds for granting a
writ of habeas corpus or motion to vacate a judgment, the facts
underlying the courts ruling or order shall be binding on the
board, the fact finder and the Attorney General in a proceeding
to consider a claim filed by a person who alleges that he or she
is entitled to compensation despite his or her innocence. (Pen.
Code § 1485.5, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires a district attorney to notify the Attorney
General before stipulating to facts that will be basis for
granting a habeas corpus petition or motion to vacate a
judgment. (Pen. Code § 1485.5, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that an innocent person who has served an
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageD
of?
executed felony sentence in a jail may be entitled to
compensation. (Pen. Code § 4900.)
Existing law provides that the Attorney General shall have 60
days to respond to a claim for compensation filed with the
board, and that extensions of time may be granted for good
cause.
Existing law provides that the board shall deny a claim for
compensation if the board finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the claimant pled guilty with the specific intent
to shield another from prosecution in the underlying conviction
for which the claimant seeks compensation. (Pen. Code § 4903,
subd. (c).)
This bill raises the daily compensation rate for an exonoree
from $100 to $136.98, but not to exceed $50,000 per year for
each full year of incarceration.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageE
of?
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has
contributed to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public
safety or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which
there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Senate Bill 635 is a long overdue effort to help
address perhaps the greatest nightmare that can occur
in the American justice system: the wrongful
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageF
of?
conviction and incarceration of an innocent person.
This bill would modestly increase the amount an
exonerated person receives in restitution
compensation, which has not been adjusted for
inflation in nearly two decades.
Following release, exonerees are faced with the
overwhelming task of reintegrating back into society.
While even rightfully convicted parolees receive a
nominal amount of cash and counseling that facilitate
their re-entry into the public, the fully exonerated
are given very limited resources.
In 2000, the Legislature passed AB 1799 (Baugh) with
overwhelming support. The bill increased potential
compensation for wrongful incarceration from a maximum
of $10,000 to a sum of $100 per day spent
incarcerated. That level of compensation remains
unchanged 15 years later.
As a former chairman of the Board of Prison Terms, I
have seen many people who deserve to spend the rest of
their lives behind bars because of their vicious
crimes against society. However, in cases where an
innocent person has been wrongly incarcerated, we have
a responsibility to acknowledge that our system is not
perfect and they deserve compensation to get their
lives back in order.
SB 635 increases the amount of compensation that an
exoneree can receive following the finding of his or
her factual innocence. Recompense would be $136.98 per
day spent incarcerated. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, this increase corresponds to
inflation.
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageG
of?
2.Author's Proposed Amendment to Include Jail Custody Pending
Trial and Sentencing in the Calculation of an Exonorees
Compensation.
The author has informed committee staff of his intention to
amend the bill to "include any time spent in custody, including
in county jail, that is considered to be part of the term of
incarceration" in the calculation of an exonoree's compensation.
When a person is charged with a serious crime, bail is
typically set in a high amount. If the person cannot afford
bail, he or she remains in jail through the trial process. At
the time of sentencing, the jail custody time attributable to
the case for which the defendant is being sentenced is
essentially made part of the person's sentence.
The time an innocent person spends in custody during the trial
process is clearly a time of extreme anxiety, as he or she faces
a long prison term for a crime he or she did not commit. The
person would not typically be involved in any programs and would
often be transported from his or her cell to court and back.
Arguably, whatever harm is suffered by a person who is wrongly
imprisoned extends to the time in jail custody prior to
sentencing.
SHOULD THE AUTHOR'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE JAIL CUSTODY
TIME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CHARGES FOR WHICH AN EXONOREE WAS
WRONGLY IMPRISONED BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE
EXONOREE'S COMPENSATION?
3.Statutory Compensation for a "Pecuniary Injury" suffered by an
Exonoree and the Experiences of Exonorees after Release.
Existing law states that an innocent person who has been wrongly
imprisoned is entitled to compensation for his or her "pecuniary
injury." The term "pecuniary injury" appears to be an
unfortunate and unsound description of the unique harm suffered
by innocent persons who are wrongly imprisoned. Pecuniary
injury would best be applied to a commercial dispute or a tort
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageH
of?
for negligence that results in loss of income or financial
position. Strict application of the term would allow little or
no compensation to a person who was initially imprisoned at a
young age - before he or she had an opportunity to develop
earning power - and then held for decades.<1> A person who
served substantially less time in prison, but who lost income
from an established career, could receive much greater
compensation. Further, if compensation is measured by pecuniary
injury, imprisonment of a person with a high income should
require the state to pay substantially more than the current
limit of $100 per day of imprisonment.
Perhaps the only comparable harm to that suffered by a person
who was unjustly imprisoned is that experienced by somebody who
was kidnapped and held against her or his will for many years.
A kidnapped person might have been subject to physical or sexual
abuse not experienced by an exonoree. However, an exonoree
experienced years of being considered - perhaps even by loved
ones - as a perpetrator of a heinous crime.
An exonerated person is released into a society that is very
unlike the society they left when he or she was initially
imprisoned. They must learn to provide the requirements of
daily living after being held in a rigid, institutional
structure where they occupied the lowest level.
An article by Ariel Levy about exonorees in the April 13, 2015
issue of the New Yorker profiles a number of exonorees. The
title of the article - The Price of a Life - illustrates the
difficulty of adequately or accurately describing the harm
suffered by an innocent person who served a lengthy prison
---------------------------
<1> In a recent case, an exonoree was denied compensation
because he had been homeless and unemployed at the time of his
arrest and conviction. Thus, the board concluded, he suffered
no pecuniary injury.
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageI
of?
term.<2> The histories and struggles of the exonorees are often
remarkably similar. Most cases involved law enforcement
investigations in which the detectives and officers concluded
that the eventual exonoree was guilty and built a case to match
that conclusion. In many cases, heinous serial crimes had gone
unsolved and pressure to solve the crimes built in the
community. The most disturbing cases involved confessions that
were secured by particularly abusive interrogation, or where it
appears that evidence was manufactured or planted to conform the
evidence to the assumptions of investigators.
Virtually all the exonorees profiled in the article suffered
from post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD). They often developed
an overwhelming sense of helplessness while imprisoned. Upon
release, they typically had no marketable job skills and few or
no resources. They had to depend on others for the basic
necessities of life. As noted by the author, exonorees are not
eligible for the services provided to parolees - housing, job
placement and drug treatment, for example. Many exonorees have
never used a computer, let alone the Internet. One exonoree was
extremely puzzled about why "everyone was walking around holding
their heads like they had an earache." He knew nothing about
cell phones.
4.Compensation for Exonorees is not Consistent across the United
States
Statutory compensation for exonoress varies widely. The New
Yorker article reported that Missouri gives exonorees $50 per
day of incarceration. Wisconsin pays no more than $25,000.
There are caps of $500,000 in Massachusetts, $300,000 in Maine
and $2 million in Florida. Compensation in a lawsuit for
violation of civil rights is typically much higher than
statutory payments, but cities, counties and states often fight
the suits and appeal judgments, delaying payment for many years.
---------------------------
<2>
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/13/the-price-of-a-life
SB 635 (Nielsen ) PageJ
of?
Prosecutors and government officials may continue to claim that
exonoree is guilty, even after innocence is conclusively
established.
-- END -