BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 694
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
694 (Leno) - As Amended July 2, 2015
SUMMARY: Codifies a standard for habeas corpus petitions filed
on the basis of new evidence. Specifically, this bill:
1)Permits a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis
of new evidence which would raise a reasonable probability of
a different outcome if a new trial were granted.
SB 694
Page 2
2)Requires the Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board
to recommend payment for incarceration of a person if the
court finds that the person is factually innocent.
3)Makes additional clarifying and technical changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)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. (Pen. Code, § 1473 subd.
(a).)
2)States that a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted for, but
not limited to, the following reasons: (Pen. Code, § 1473
subd. (b).)
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;
b) 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.
3)Provides that any allegation that the prosecution knew or
should have known of the false nature of the evidence is
SB 694
Page 3
immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus.
(Pen. Code, § 1473 subd. (c).)
4)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.
(Pen. Code, § 1473 subd. (d).)
5)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
legislation that an appropriation be made. (Pen. Code, §
1485.55 subd. (a).)
6)Provides that "new evidence" means evidence that was not
available or known at the time of trial that completely
undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to
innocence. (Pen. Code, § 1485.55, subd. (b).)
7)Establishes the Victim Compensation and Government Claims
Board (board). (Gov. Code, § 13950 et. seq.)
8)Provides than an application for compensation shall be filed
with the board in the manner determined by the board. (Gov.
Code, § 13952, subd.(a).)
9)States that, except as provided by specified sections of the
Government Code, a person shall be eligible for compensation
when all of the following requirements are met:
a) The person form whom compensation is being sought any of
the following:
SB 694
Page 4
i) A victim.
ii) A derivative victim.
iii) A person who is entitled to reimbursement for
funeral, burial or crime scene clean-up expenses pursuant
to specified sections of the Government Code.
b) Either of the following conditions is met:
i) The crime occurred within California, whether or not
the victim is a resident of California. This only
applies when the VCGCB determines that there are federal
funds available to the state for the compensation of
crime victims.
ii) Whether or not the crime occurred within the
State of California, the victim was any of the following:
(1) A California resident.
(2) A member of the military stationed in
California.
(3) A family member living with a member of the
military stationed in California.
c) If compensation is being sought for derivative victim,
the derivative victim is a resident of California, or the
resident of another state who is any of the following:
i) At the time of the crimes was the parent,
grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or grandchild of the
victim.
ii) At the time of the crime was living in the
household of the victim.
SB 694
Page 5
iii) At the time of the crime was a person who had
previously lived in the house of the victim for a period
of not less than two years in a relationship
substantially similar to a previously listed
relationship.
iv) Another family member of the victim including,
but not limited to the victim's fiancé or fiancée, and
who witnessed the crime.
v) Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim, but was
not the primary caretaker at the time of the crime.
d) And other specified requirements. (Gov. Code, § 13955.)
10) States that an application shall be denied if the board
finds that the victim failed to reasonably cooperate with law
enforcement in prosecution of the crime. (Gov. Code, § 13956,
subd. (b)(1).)
11) Disqualifies certain individuals from eligibility,
including a participant in the crime for which compensation is
being sought, and persons convicted of a felony who are
currently on probation or parole. (Gov. Code, § 13956.)
12) Authorizes the board to reimburse for pecuniary loss for
the following types of losses (Gov. Code, § 13957, subd. (a)):
a) The amount of medical or medical-related expenses
incurred by the victim, subject to specified limitations.
b) The amount of out-patient psychiatric, psychological or
other mental health counseling-related expenses incurred by
the victim, as specified, including peer counseling
services provided by a rape crisis center.
c) The expenses of non-medical remedial care and treatment
rendered in accordance with a religious method of healing
recognized by state law.
SB 694
Page 6
d) Compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of
support, or both, that a victim or derivative victim incurs
as a direct result of the victim's injury or the victim's
death, subject to specified limitations.
e) Cash payment to, or on behalf of, the victim for job
retraining or similar employment-oriented services.
f) The expense of installing or increasing residential
security, not to exceed $1,000, with respect to a crime
that occurred in the victim's residence, upon verification
by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety
of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider to
be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim.
g) The expense of renovating or retrofitting a victim's
residence or a vehicle to make them accessible or
operational, if it is medically necessary.
h) Expenses incurred in relocating, as specified, if the
expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary
for the personal safety or by a mental health treatment
provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of
the victim.
13) Limits the total award to or on behalf of each victim to
$35,000, except that this amount may be increased to $70,000
if federal funds for that increase are available. (Gov. Code,
§ 13957, subd. (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
SB 694
Page 7
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Under existing
California law an inmate who has been convicted of committing
a crime, but claims that they are factually innocent, may file
a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which, if a court agrees
with their claim, could potentially result in a new trial if
warranted. The burden for proving one's innocence in such
cases that are based on newly available evidence is not
currently defined by statute, but has evolved from appellate
court opinions, and is practically impossible to achieve in
California.
"In order to prevail on a new evidence claim under current
law, an individual must undermine the prosecution's entire
case and 'point unerringly to innocence with evidence no
reasonable jury could reject.' The California Supreme Court
has acknowledged that this standard is very high, much higher
than the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard that governs
other habeas corpus claims, such as those based on ineffective
assistance of counsel. It is by far the most difficult
standard to meet in the entire nation.
"As a legal and practical matter, current case law requires
wrongfully incarcerated individuals who have produced new
evidence to conclusively and affirmatively prove their
innocence, often decades after the fact when witness memories
have faded, other evidence has disappeared, and re-litigating
the original case is essentially impossible. Even when new
evidence shows that their conviction would have never occurred
in the first place, an individual is likely to remain
wrongfully incarcerated under the status quo in California.
"This proposed standard in SB 694 simply brings claims of
actual innocence based on new evidence into alignment with
other post-conviction remedies for various established
constitutional violations, such as claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or false
evidence, as well as bringing California in line with 39 other
SB 694
Page 8
states. Simply put, the wrongful incarceration of an innocent
citizen, no matter how rare, is the greatest injustice society
can perpetrate. When it occurs it is our moral obligation to
address that shortcoming in our justice system, which is what
SB 694 will accomplish for those wrongfully behind bars."
2)Background: According to the background provided by 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 pointing 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 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,
SB 694
Page 9
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 in California 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 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
SB 694
Page 10
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."
3)Writ of Habeas Corpus Generally: 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."
Penal Code Section 1473(d) specifies that "nothing in this
section shall be construed as limiting the grounds for which a
writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted." 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;
b) 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,
c) 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. (Pen. Code, §
1473, subd. (b).)
A habeas corpus claim of false testimony requires proof that
false evidence was introduced against the petitioner at his or
her trial and that such evidence was material or probative on
SB 694
Page 11
the issue of his or her guilt. (In re Bell (2007) 42 Cal.4th
630.) False evidence introduced at trial against a defendant
is substantially material or probative if there is a
reasonable probability that, had the false evidence not been
introduced, the result would have been different. (In re
Roberts (2003) 29 Cal.4th 726.) A reasonable probability that
the result would have been different if false evidence had not
been introduced against defendant is a chance great enough,
under the totality of circumstances, to undermine the court's
confidence in the outcome. (Ibid.) A habeas claim of false
testimony does not require a showing of perjury or other
knowledge of impropriety. (In re Hall (1981) 30 Cal.3d 308.)
A writ of habeas corpus may also be prosecuted based on newly
discovered evidence, and shall be granted only if the new
evidence undermines the entire prosecution case and point
unerringly to innocence or reduced culpability. (In re Clark
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 766.)
4)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 this
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 is 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
SB 694
Page 12
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."
This bill also makes conforming changes, making it clear the
standard is a finding of factual innocence by a court 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.
5)Argument in Support: According to The California Innocence
Project, "The burden for proving one's actual innocence with
new evidence of innocence is not defined by statute in
California. Rather, California case law from more than sixty
years ago requires a wrongfully convicted person seeking
relief from their conviction to meet a very high burden.
Specifically, they must present evidence no reasonable jury
would reject, evidence which undermines the prosecution's
entire case and points unerringly to innocence. Even the
California Supreme Court has recognized this standard as much
higher than other standards for relief which govern other
habeas claims.
"The inordinately high burden currently in place in California
means individuals who are actually innocent often cannot get
relief through new evidence shows their convictions should be
reversed. The case of William Richards demonstrates this
tragic scenario. Richards was convicted in 1999 of the murder
of his wife, Pamela Richards. After the conviction, the
California Innocence Project discovered DNA evidence on the
murder weapon and under the victim's fingernails. Experts
testified this male DNA profile, which did not match Richards,
belonged to the perpetrator. The DNA evidence, in combination
with other evidence, completely undermined the prosecution
SB 694
Page 13
case, establishing that Richards was not the killer.
Unfortunately, however, the court reasoned the DNA, even in
combination with the other evidence, did not point unerringly
to innocence, partially because the DNA profile did not match
any known perpetrator in the DNA database.
"SB 694 would amend the existing California statute to
incorporate a standard of proof that is in alignment with most
all other jurisdictions-38 states and the District of
Columbia-and create a standard which is at once practical,
achievable, and effective. Specifically, SB 694 will allow a
wrongfully convicted person to receive a new trial if he or
she presents evidence demonstrating 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."
6)Argument in Opposition: According to The Judicial Council of
California, "While recognizing that establishing the standard
of review for writs of habeas corpus as contemplated by SB 694
is within the purview of the Legislature, the council
regretfully opposes SB 694 for significant procedural reasons
that impact the administration of justice and because the
council has significant concerns about the potential workload
and costs associated with the bill would it be signed into
law.
"Currently there is no codified standard of proof for a writ
of habeas corpus brought on the basis of new evidence and the
current standard is based on case law. The Supreme Court, in
In re Lawley, held that for newly discovered evidence to be
used to overturn a conviction it 'must undermine the entire
prosecution case and point unerringly to innocence or reduced
culpability;' ((2008) 42 Cal. 4th 1231, 1239). Further the
court stated 'if a reasonable jury could have rejected the
evidence presented, a petitioner has not satisfied his
SB 694
Page 14
burden.; (Id.) SB 694 would lower the current judicially
established standard of review for a writ of habeas corpus
based on new evidence from 'undermines the prosecution of the
case and points unerringly to innocence' to a standard of
'raises a reasonable probability of a different outcome if a
new trial were granted.'
"The council believes that changing the standard of review for
writs of habeas corpus in this manner will substantially
increase the workload of trial courts and appellate courts,
including the Supreme Court, in at least three instances.
First, the council believes that SB 694's standard of review
would substantially increase the number of writs of habeas
corpus filed in trial courts and appellate courts. Second,
the council believes that the standard will substantially
increase the number of evidentiary hearings and new trials.
Third, under certain circumstances, including writs of habeas
corpus in capital cases, the costs of appointed council for
petitioners are paid by the courts. An increase in habeas
petitions will therefore lead to an increase in costs to the
courts. Additionally, the council is concerned that the new
lower standard undermines the conviction process as it has the
appearance of questioning the integrity of trial court
proceedings. As a result, numerous subsequent writs could be
filed based on newly discovered evidence."
7)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1058 (Leno), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2014, allowed a
writ of habeas corpus when evidence given at trial has
subsequently been repudiated by the expert that testified
or undermined by later scientific research or technological
advances.
b) SB 618 (Leno), Chapter 800, Statutes of 2013,
streamlined the process for compensating persons who have
been exonerated after being wrongfully convicted and
imprisoned.
SB 694
Page 15
c) AB 1593 (Ma), Chapter 809, Statutes of 2012, allows a
writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted if expert testimony
relating to intimate partner battering and its effects was
received into evidence but was limited at the trial court
proceedings relating to a prisoner's incarceration for the
commission of a violent felony committed prior to August
29, 1996, and there is a reasonable probability, sufficient
to undermine confidence in the judgment of conviction, that
if the testimony had not been limited, the result of the
proceedings would have been different.
d) SB 1471 (Runner), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have required habeas petitions in death penalty cases
to be filed within one year and change the standards for
competent counsel. SB 1471 failed passage in Senate Public
Safety.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Innocence Project (Co-sponsor)
Northern California Innocence Project (Co-sponsor)
SB 694
Page 16
American Civil Liberties Union
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Public Defenders Association
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Innocence Project
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Westward Liberty
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Judicial Council of California
SB 694
Page 17
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Sacramento County District Attorney's Office
Analysis Prepared by:Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744