BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1134| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1134 Author: Leno (D) and Anderson (R), et al. Introduced:5/31/16 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/5/16 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-1, 5/27/16 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza NOES: Nielsen SUBJECT: Habeas corpus: new evidence: motion to vacate judgment: indemnity SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union California Innocence Project Loyola Project for the Innocent Northern California Innocence Project DIGEST: This bill allows the granting of a habeas corpus petition based on new evidence which "is credible, material and presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial." ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense, may prosecute a SB 1134 Page 2 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: 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; or 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. (Penal Code § 1473 (b)) 3)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).) 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. (Penal Code § 1473(d).) 5)Provides that if the district attorney or Attorney General (AG) stipulates to or does not contest the factual allegations underlying one or more of the grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a judgment, the facts underlying the bases for the court's ruling or order shall be binding on the AG, the factfinder and the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (CVCGB) (Penal Code § 1485.5 (a)) 6)Provides that the express factual findings made by the court, including credibility determinations, in considering a petition for a habeas corpus, a motion to vacate or an application for a certificate of factual innocence shall be binding on the AG, the factfinder, and the CVCGB. (Penal Code § 1485.5 (c)) 7)Provides that in a contested proceeding, if a court grants a writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is unlawfully SB 1134 Page 3 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 CVCGB for acclaim presented to the board, and upon application by the person, the CVCGB shall, without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation be made and a claim paid. (Penal Code § 148.55(a)) 8)Provides that if the court grants a writ of habeas corpus concerning a person who is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained on any ground other than new evidence that points unerringly to innocence or actual innocence, the petitioner may move for a finding of innocence by a preponderance of evidence that the crime with which he or she was charged was either not committed at all, or if committed, was not by him or her. (Penal Code § 148.55(b)) 9)Provides that for the purposes of this section, "new evidence" means evidence that is not available or known at the time of trial that completely undermines the prosecution case and points unerringly to innocence. (Penal Code § 148.55(g)) This bill: 1)Adds, as grounds for a writ of habeas corpus, when new evidence exists that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial. 2)Provides that for purposes of this section "new evidence" means evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not have been discovered prior to trial but the exercise of due diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching. 3)Clarifies that the binding nature of the credibility determinations on the AG and the CVCGB is true in both contested and uncontested proceedings. 4)Provides instead that in a contested proceeding before the CVCGB, if the court has granted a writ of habeas corpus, or SB 1134 Page 4 when, the court vacates a judgement, and if the court has found the that the person is factually innocent, that finding shall be binding on the CVCGB for a claim presented to the board, and upon application by the person, the CVCGB shall, without a hearing, recommend to the Legislature that an appropriation be made and a claim paid. 5)Provides that in a contested or uncontested proceeding, if the court grants a writ of habeas corpus and did not find the person factually innocent in the habeas corpus proceedings, the petition may move for a finding of innocence by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime with which he or she was charged was either not committed at all, or if committed, was not by him or her. 6)Deletes the existing definition of "new evidence." Comments 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 prosecution of a writ of habeas corpus. 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 SB 1134 Page 5 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 that is credible, material, presented without substantial delay, and of such decisive force and value that it would have more likely than not changed the outcome at trial." As noted in the author's statement, this standard will make California's postconviction standard consistent with 43 other states. According to the February 3, 2016 report of National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School there were 149 exonerations nationwide in 2015, five of which were in California. That was five exonerations under a standard that is higher than the standard in most other states, it is unclear how many others were denied a hearing because they did not meet the standard who would be eligible under this standard to have their habeas corpus petition heard. Victims Compensation Board. This bill also makes conforming changes, making it clear if there is a finding of factual innocence by a court then the CVCGB shall make a recommendation for an appropriation to the Legislature. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Courts: Potentially significant increase in new petitions for writs of habeas corpus to be filed under the authority of the bill. The Judicial Council has indicated potential costs in the millions of dollars (General Fund*) to the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and Supreme Court to address the increase in workload. Payments for wrongful convictions: Potential future increase in General Fund appropriations for payment of approved claims for compensation potentially in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars in any one year. Annual costs would vary based on the number of claims filed and the duration of unlawful imprisonment specific to each individual. Since 2002, SB 1134 Page 6 17 claims have been paid totaling $8.1 million, ranging in amount from $17,000 to $757,000. Five approved claims totaling about $1.2 million are pending Legislative approval. The average compensation amount for the 22 claims is $420,000. Attorney General (AG): Potentially significant increase in workload (General Fund) to the extent a greater number of persons are allowed to prosecute writs of habeas corpus under the existence of new evidence, as redefined. Resources could potentially be required for post-verdict investigations, to litigate retrials, appeals, and collateral challenges. CVCGB: No significant workload impact to the CVCGB. 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 potentially fewer required hearings in order to recommend an appropriation for claims prospectively. State prisons: 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 that otherwise would not have been eligible to be filed. SUPPORT: (Verified5/31/16) American Civil Liberties Union (co-source) California Innocence Project (co-source) Loyola Project for the Innocent (co-source) Northern California Innocence Project (co-source) A New Path A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Catholic Conference California Civil Liberties Advocacy Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Friends Committee on Legislation of California John Van de Kamp, former California Attorney General Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area Legal Services for Prisoners with Children National Association of Social Workers SB 1134 Page 7 OPPOSITION: (Verified5/31/16) None received ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support former Attorney General John Van de Kamp states: To win a claim of factual innocence under current California case law, an individual must "undermine the entire prosecution case and point unerringly to innocence" with evidence that no "reasonable jury would reject." This standard is the most difficult in the country and is so impossibly high that it functions as a barrier to wrongfully convicted individuals seeking justice in our criminal justice system. SB 1334 amends California Penal Code to incorporate a standard of proof in line with the standards in 43 other states. SB 1134 will allow courts to grant relief to innocent people who have new evidence that is so strong that it "would likely than not changed the outcome at trial." The "more likely that not" standard proposed by the bill is clear and is a standard familiar to the courts. It is still a very high standard, but a fair one. To prevail with a claim of factual innocence under the bill, an individual must still have new evidence that "is credible, material, presented without substantial delay," and "admissible" and that "could not have been discovered prior to the trial by the exercise of due diligence." The bill provides a vital claim to innocent individuals who do not have another recourse under other habeas claims such as false testimony, Brady violations or ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the current standard, those innocent individuals have little chance of proving their innocence, so remain wrongfully imprisoned. SB 1134 gives these individuals a fair chance to prove their innocence and the criminal justice system a chance to rectify the wrongful imprisonment of innocent individuals. SB 1134 Page 8 Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. / 5/31/16 20:45:26 **** END ****