BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1134
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1134
(Leno) - As Amended August 1, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|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:
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.
SB 1134
Page 2
2)Requires the Victims Compensation Board (VCB) to recommend
payment for incarceration of a person if the court finds that
the person is factually innocent.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)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.
2)Potential future increase in General Fund appropriations to
VCB 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, 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.
Administration cost to VCB would be minor.
3)Potentially significant annual cost (GF) to the Department of
SB 1134
Page 3
Justice due to increases in workload 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.
4)Potential future annual cost savings (General Fund) to the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation due to
averted incarceration of innocent persons to the extent future
writs of habeas corpus are granted that otherwise would not
have been eligible to be filed and innocence is established.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. 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."
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.
"The proposed new standard in SB 1134 addresses this anomaly.
SB 1134
Page 4
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
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 [43] 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)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
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
SB 1134
Page 5
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.
SB 1134 specifies in statute that a writ of habeas corpus may
be prosecuted based on new evidence and codifies a new
standard for granting habeas on this ground. This bill
requires 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.s' As noted in the author's statement, this
standard will make California's postconviction standard
consistent with 43 other states.
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 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
SB 1134
Page 6
Court has recognized this standard as much higher than other
standards for relief which govern other habeas claims.
4)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 694 (Leno) of 2015, substantially similar to this
bill, was held in this Committee's Suspense file.
b) 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.
c) 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 changed the standards for
competent counsel. SB 1471 failed passage in Senate Public
Safety.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081