BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1134
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2016
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
1134 (Leno) - As Amended May 31, 2016
SUMMARY: Allows a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the
ground that 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. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines, for purposes of this bill, "new evidence" as
"evidence that has been discovered after trial, that could not
have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due
SB 1134
Page 2
diligence, and is admissible and not merely cumulative,
corroborative, collateral, or impeaching", and deletes the
existing definition of "new evidence."
2)Clarifies that the binding nature of the court's credibility
determinations on the Attorney General (AG) and the Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB) is true in
both contested and uncontested proceedings.
3)States that, in a contested proceeding, if the court has
granted a writ of habeas corpus and found the person to be
factually innocent, that finding shall be binding on the VCGCB
for a claim 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 and the claim
paid.
4)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 petitioner 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.
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 3
writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such
imprisonment or restraint. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (a).)
2)Specifies 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 a hearing or trial relating
to his or her incarceration; or,
b) False physical evidence, believed by a person to be
factual, probative, or material on the issue of guilt,
which was known by the person at the time of entering a
plea of guilty, which was a material factor directly
related to the plea of guilty by the person. (Pen. Code, §
1473, subd. (b).)
3)States that any allegation that the prosecution knew or should
have known of the false nature of the evidence referred to the
above provisions is immaterial to the prosecution of a writ of
habeas corpus. (Pen. Code, § 1473, subd. (c).)
4)States 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 VCGCB. (Pen. Code,
§ 1485.5, subd. (c).)
SB 1134
Page 4
5)Provides that in a contested proceeding, if a court grants 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 VCGCB for a
claim 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 and the claim paid.
(Pen. Code, § 1485.55, subd. (a).)
6)States 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.
(Pen. Code, § 1485.55, subd. (b).)
7)Defines "new evidence" to mean "evidence that is 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. (g).)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
SB 1134
Page 5
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to 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
that points 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 1134 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
SB 1134
Page 6
prove guilt when a charge is brought to trial, and absent
evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, 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 1134 seeks to bring California's innocence standard into
line with the vast majority of other states' standards,
forty-three in total, and to make it consistent with other
postconviction standards for relief 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),
which creates a reasonable probability of a different outcome,
the conviction should be reversed."
2)Writ of Habeas Corpus: Writ of 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
habeas corpus claim may be based on proof of false evidence
introduced at trial or new evidence that was unavailable at
trial. (In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal. 4th 1231, 1238, In re Bell
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 630, 637; In re Johnson (1998) 18 Cal.4th
447, 453-454; In re Hall (1981) 30 Cal.3d 408, 415-417; In re
Weber (1974) 11 Cal.3d 703, 724.) The standard for a habeas
corpus petition based on false evidence is lower than the
standard for a habeas corpus petition based on new evidence.
(In re Lawley, supra, 42 Cal. 4th at 1239.)
SB 1134
Page 7
Penal Code section 1473 provides that "[a] writ of habeas
corpus may be prosecuted for, but not limited to, the
following reasons: (1) False evidence that is substantially
material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was
introduced against a person at a hearing or trial relating to
his or her incarceration; or (2) False physical evidence,
believed by a person to be factual, probative, or material on
the issue of guilt, which was known by the person at the time
of entering a plea of guilty, which was a material factor
directly related to the plea of guilty by the person."
The standard for granting habeas petitions based on new
evidence is not codified in statute. Instead, the standard
stems from case law dating back to 1947. In order to be
successful on a habeas corpus claim on the grounds that new
evidence establishes the person's innocence, the 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." (In re Lawley, supra, 42 Cal. 4th at 1239; In re
Hall, supra, 30 Cal.3d at 417; In re Weber (1974) 11 Cal.3d
703, 724; People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1246, In
re Lindley (1947) 29 Cal.2d 709, 723.)
This bill would specify in statute that a writ of habeas
corpus may be prosecuted based on new evidence and codify a
new standard for granting habeas on this ground. This bill
would require the new evidence to be "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 National Registry of Exonerations at the
University of Michigan Law School there were 149 exonerations
nationwide in 2015, five of which were in California.
(National Registry of Exonerations, University of Michigan
SB 1134
Page 8
(Feb. 3, 2016)
< http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Exonera
tions_in_2015.pdf > (as of June 20, 2016).) 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 current
standard.
3)Argument in Support: According to the Northern California
Innocence Project, the sponsor of this bill, "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.' This standard is the most
difficult to meet of any standard in the country. Because the
language in the current standard is so unusual, courts find it
challenging to interpret. As a judge in the California Court
of Appeal noted in NCIP's Obie Anthony case, there is no 'road
map as to what it would look like from a factual standpoint'
to meet the current standard. Thus, individuals trying to
prove their innocence must meet a standard that even courts
struggle to interpret. As a result, very few claims of new
evidence of factual innocence have succeeded in California,
and innocent people remain in prison.
"SB 1134 allows courts to grant relief to innocent people who
have new evidence that is so strong that it 'would have more
likely than not changed the outcome of the trial.' The 'more
likely than 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. At least 29 other states use 'more
likely than not' or comparable language in their new evidence
standard.
"Since 1989, more than 1,760 innocent people nationwide have
been exonerated and freed from prison sentences after years,
sometimes decades, of wrongful incarceration. The human and
societal costs of wrongful incarceration are numerous and
significant.
SB 1134
Page 9
"The high number of exonerations is due in part to the advent
of new forensic techniques, especially with regard to DNA.
These developments mean that new evidence not known at the
time of trial has become more commonplace. Courts across the
country have reversed the convictions of hundreds of innocent
individuals after determining that, based on new evidence, the
conviction was wrong. But not in California where new
evidence of factual innocence almost never meets the 'points
unerringly to innocence' standard, and individuals must turn,
despite this new evidence, to other post-conviction claims."
4)Related Legislation: SB 694 (Leno) was substantially similar
to this bill. SB 694 was held in the Committee on
Appropriations.
5)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 1058 (Leno), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2014, allowed a
writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted 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.
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.
SB 1134
Page 10
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 (Sponsor)
Northern California Innocence Project (Sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union of California (Co-sponsor)
A New PATH
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
SB 1134
Page 11
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
SB 1134
Page 12