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 ****