BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 694| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 694 Author: Leno (D) Introduced:2/27/15 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/21/15 AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning NOES: Anderson, Stone SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15 AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza NOES: Bates, Nielsen SUBJECT: New evidence: habeas corpus: motion to vacate judgment: indemnity SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill allows the granting of a habeas corpus petition based on new evidence which "raises a reasonable probability of a different outcome if a new trial were granted." ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained SB 694 Page 2 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).) 2)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)) 1)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).) 2)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).) 3)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 board shall, without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation be made. (Penal Code § 1485.55(a)) 4)Provides that "new evidence" means evidence that was not available or knows at the time of trial that completely SB 694 Page 3 undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to innocence. (Penal Code § 1485.55(b)) This bill: 1)Adds, 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. 2)Changes that standard from "points unerringly to innocence' to "raises a possibility of a different outcome if a new trial were granted." 3)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." Background 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 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 SB 694 Page 4 prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. 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 instead sets 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. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According the Senate Appropriations Committee: Potential future increase in General Fund appropriations for payment of approved claims for compensation to exonerees potentially in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars in any one year for: 1) new cases granted a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of new evidence, as defined; 2) new cases in which a court vacates judgment on the basis of the revised definition of new evidence; and, 3) claims that otherwise would not have been paid under the higher standard for a court finding and subject to a Board hearing. Annual costs would vary based on the number of claims filed and the duration of unlawful imprisonment specific to each individual. Since 2002, 14 claims have been paid totaling $5.3 million, ranging in amount from $17,000 to $757,000, with an average compensation amount of $379,000. Three claims totaling about $1 million are pending legislative approval. Potentially significant increase in Attorney General workload (General Fund) to the extent a greater number of claims SB 694 Page 5 meeting the lower standard of "reasonable probability" result in additional petitions granted. Resources could potentially be required for post-verdict investigations, and to litigate retrials, appeals, and collateral challenges. No significant workload impact to the Board. Potential increases in the number of claims submitted for review are estimated to be offset in whole or in part by the reduced workload resulting from fewer required hearings in order to recommend an appropriation for claims prospectively. Potential future cost savings (General Fund) in averted incarceration of an unknown, but potentially significant amount to the extent future writs of habeas corpus are granted. SUPPORT: (Verified 5/29/15) ACLU California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Innocence Project California Public Defenders Association Drug Policy Alliance Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Friends Committee on Legislation of California Innocence Project Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Northern California Innocence Project OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/29/15) California District Attorneys Association Crime Victims Action Alliance Judicial Council ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support the ACLU notes that: SB 694 Page 6 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 remedies for established constitutional violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false evidence. ARGUMENTS IN 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. SB 694 Page 7 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 is to "exonerate" convicted individuals who have less than fifty percent chance of winning a new trial. Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. / 5/30/15 17:40:44 **** END ****