BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 694
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 26, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 694
(Leno) - As Amended August 17, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill codifies a standard for habeas corpus petitions filed
on the basis of new evidence. Specifically, this bill:
SB 694
Page 2
1)Permits a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis
of new evidence, which would have more likely than not changed
the outcome of the trial. However, this new evidence must be
evidence that has been discovered after the trial and could
not have been discovered prior to trial.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Potential significant costs in the millions (GF and Trial Court
Trust Fund) to Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Trial Courts
during the first two or three years. Although this bill
specifies the "new evidence" must be evidence that was not
available at the time of the trial, staff of the various courts
will have to review the record and make that determination.
Writs may be submitted to all three courts; and the higher the
court, the higher the level of review. Denial by a lower court
is subject to either appeal, or to the filing of an original
petition at the next higher court, (or both). The Judicial
Council estimates a large volume of new writs during the first
two or three years after enactment, but a leveling off
thereafter.
SB 694
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. 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 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."
"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
states."
2)Background. Current 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.
Current law states that a writ of habeas corpus may be
SB 694
Page 4
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.
Current law 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. However, 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.
The author states, "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."
SB 694 sets the standard for the granting of a writ of habeas
corpus as new evidence exists which would have more likely
than not changed the outcome of the trial. However, this new
evidence must be evidence that has been discovered after the
trial and could not have been discovered prior to trial. The
SB 694
Page 5
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.
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.
3)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.
4)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 6
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.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081