BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 694 Hearing Date: April 21, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: New Evidence: Habeas Corpus: Motion to Vacate
Judgment: Indemnity
HISTORY
Source: California Innocence Project
Northern California Innocence Project
Prior Legislation:SB 1058 (Leno) Chapter 623, Stats. 2014
SB 618 (Leno) Chapter 800, Stats. 2013
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defender's Association; Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights; Friends Committee on Legislation of
California; American Civil Liberties Union; Drug
Policy Alliance; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children; The Innocence Project
Opposition:California District Attorneys Association; Crime
Victims Action Alliance
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow the granting of a habeas
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
2 of ?
corpus petition based on new evidence which "raises a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if a new trial were granted."
Existing law provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or
restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever,
may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause
of such imprisonment or restraint. (Penal Code § 1473(a).)
Existing law states that a writ of habeas corpus may be
prosecuted for, but not limited to, the following reasons:
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;
False physical evidence believed by a person to be
factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which
was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of
guilty and which was a material factor directly related to
the plea of guilty by the person. (Penal Code § 1473 (b))
Existing law provides that any allegation that the prosecution
knew or should have known of the false nature of the evidence is
immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus.
(Penal Code § 1473(c).)
Existing law states that nothing in this section 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. (Penal Code § 1473(d).)
This bill would add, as grounds for a writ of habeas corpus, new
evidence exists which would raise a reasonable probability of a
different outcome if a new trial were granted.
Existing law provides that in a contested proceeding, if a court
grans a writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is
unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, the court vacates a
judgment on the basis of new evidence concerning a person who is
no longer unlawfully imprisoned or restrained and if the court
finds that the new evidence on the petition points unerringly to
innocence, that finding shall be binding on the California Crime
Victims Compensation and Government Claims board for acclaim
presented to the board, and upon application by the person, the
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
3 of ?
board shall, without a hearing, recommend to the legislation
that an appropriation be made. (Penal Code § 148.55(a))
This bill changes that standard from "points unerringly to
innocence' to "raises a possibility of a different outcome if a
new trial were granted."
Existing law provides that "new evidence" means evidence that
was not available or knows at the time of trial that completely
undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to
innocence. (Penal Code § 148.55(b))
This bill changes that standard from "undermines the prosecution
case and points unerringly to innocence' to "raises a
possibility of a different outcome if a new trial were granted."
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
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
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
4 of ?
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:
Under existing California law, an inmate who has been
convicted of committing a crime for which he or she
claims that s/he has new evidence that points to
innocence may file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. The burden for proving that newly discovered
evidence entitles an individual to a new trial is not
currently defined by statute, but has evolved from
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
5 of ?
appellate court opinions. In order to prevail on a
new evidence claim, a petitioner must undermine the
prosecution's entire case and "point unerringly to
innocence with evidence no reasonable jury could
reject" (In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1239).
The California Supreme Court has stated that this
standard is very high, much higher than the
preponderance of the evidence standard that governs
other habeas claims. (Ibid.)
This standard is nearly impossible to meet absent DNA
evidence, which exists only in a tiny portion of
prosecutions and exonerations. For example, if a
petitioner has newly discovered evidence that
completely undermines all evidence of guilt and shows
that the original jury would likely not have
convicted, but the new evidence does not "point
unerringly to innocence" the petitioner will not have
met the standard and will have no chance at a new
trial. Thus, someone who would likely never have been
convicted if the newly discovered evidence had been
available in their original trial is almost guaranteed
to remain in prison under the status quo in
California. The proposed new standard in SB 694
addresses this anomaly. Our criminal justice system
was built on the understanding that even innocent
people cannot always affirmatively prove innocence,
which is why the burden is on the prosecution to prove
guilt when a charge is brought to trial, and absent
evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence
is presumed. The new standard contained in this bill
ensures that innocent men and women do not remain in
prison even after new evidence shows that a conviction
never would have occurred had it been available.
SB 694 seeks to bring California's innocence standard
into line with the vast majority of other states'
standards, thirty-nine in total, and to make it
consistent with other post-conviction standards for
relief such as ineffective assistance of counsel, or
prosecutorial misconduct. There is no justification
for a different standard to govern these types of
claims, as opposed to those brought on the basis of
newly discovered evidence. Our laws must recognize
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
6 of ?
that if evidence exists that a jury did not hear
(regardless of whether it is the fault of a mistaken
or lying witness, an ineffective attorney, or the
misconduct of law enforcement) creates a reasonable
probability of a different outcome, the conviction
should be reversed.
As a result of the onerously high standard governing
new evidence claims, individuals often choose to
re-package evidence of innocence into other types of
claims, such as infective assistance of counsel for
example. The impact of this is not just a dearth in
case law on new evidence claims but it also means that
some exonerees may never receive legal recognition of
their innocence. To illustrate, consider the case of
Maurice Caldwell. Caldwell was convicted of murder in
1991 based on the mistaken identification of a single
eyewitness. It was later established that it was
scientifically impossible for the witness to have
identified the perpetrator from her vantage point,
thus rendering his conviction invalid. It was not for
the fact that there was new evidence available,
however, that the conviction was overturned. It was a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that
ultimately ended Caldwell's wrongful incarceration.
While Caldwell no longer suffers from the immediate
harm of a wrongful conviction he still has no legal
recognition of his innocence, which may limit his
ability to continue to recover from the long-lasting
and difficult burdens of a wrongful conviction. A
finding of innocence is a crucial component of
recovery for many people who have been wrongfully
convicted in California and without justification for
such a high standard, there is no basis for requiring
the victims of wrongful incarceration to meet it.
2. Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ", is a process
guaranteed by both the federal and state Constitutions to obtain
prompt judicial relief from illegal restraint. The functions of
the writ is set forth in Penal Code section 1473(a): "Every
person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her
liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
7 of ?
habeas corpus, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or
restraint." A writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but
not limited to, the following reasons:
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;
False physical evidence believed by a person to be
factual, material or probative on the issue of guilt, which
was known by the person at the time of entering a plea of
guilty and which was a material factor directly related to
the plea of guilty by the person; and,
Any allegation that the prosecution knew or should have
known of the false nature of the evidence is immaterial to
the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus.
3. Reasonable Probability Standard
In California, there is no codified standard of proof for a writ
of habeas corpus brought on the basis of new evidence. The
current standard is based on case law. In re Lawley (2008) 42
Cal. 4th 1231, 1239 found that newly discovered evidence "must
undermine the entire prosecution case and point unerringly to
innocence or reduced culpability;" and " if 'a reasonable jury
could have rejected' the evidence presented, a petition has not
satisfied his burden." This bill would instead set the standard
for the granting of a writ of habeas corpus as "new evidence
exists which would raise a reasonable probability of a different
outcome if a new trial were granted. The reasonable probability
standard the same standard that is used in most other states
and in California is used for cases of: ineffective assistance
of counsel; false evidence; and, prosecutorial misconduct.
In support the ACLU notes that:
SB 694 would incorporate into California law a
standard of proof that is in alignment with almost all
other states. SB 694 will allow a wrongfully convicted
person to receive a new trial if he or she presents
the reviewing court with evidence that is of such a
decisive value and force that there is a reasonable
probability of a different outcome if a new trial were
granted. This standard brings the actual innocence
claim into alignment with other post-conviction
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
8 of ?
remedies for established constitutional violations,
including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,
prosecutorial misconduct, and false evidence.
This bill also makes conforming changes, making it clear the
standard is a "reasonable probability of a different outcome if
a new trial were grated" in the section requiring the Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board to make a
recommendation for an appropriation when the court has granted a
writ of habeas corpus on the basis of new evidence.
4. Opposition
The California District Attorneys Association opposes this bill
stating:
The proposed standard allows for a new trial when
there is merely a reasonable probability that the
outcome would be different because of newly discovered
evidence. This standard is even less than a
preponderance of the evidence, and thus is
ridiculously low in this context. The proposed
standard is currently mandated by the United States
Constitution only when there is a constitutionality
defective trial because of ineffective assistance of
counsel or Brady error for example. (emphasis in
original)
In contrast, SB 694 proposes to use the standard for
relief designed to remedy a constitutionally defective
trial, even though the trial was fair. Simply put, the
finality of judgments is sacrificed, and the meaning
of a guilty verdict is redefined for the public,
victims, and the justice system to mean guilty unless
the defendant can produce newly discovered evidence
with less than fifty percent chance of changing the
outcome. The standard is no longer that the defendant
appears to be innocent, but rather, even though the
defendant is more likely guilty than not, the
defendant gets a new trial.
When habeas relief is granted years after a conviction
by trial, it is frequently not possible to retry the
defendant due to passage of time. Thus the effect of
SB 694 (Leno ) Page
9 of ?
SB 694 is to "exonerate" convicted individuals who
have less than fifty percent chance of winning a new
trial.
-- END -