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