BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1134|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1134
Author: Leno (D) and Anderson (R), et al.
Amended: 8/1/16
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
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 6/1/16
AYES: Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,
Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson,
Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning,
Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone,
Vidak, Wieckowski, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Habeas corpus: new evidence: motion to vacate
judgment: indemnity
SOURCE: California Innocence Project
Northern California Innocence Project
Loyola Project for the Innocent
American Civil Liberties Union
DIGEST: This bill codifies a standard for habeas corpus
petitions filed on the basis of new evidence
SB 1134
Page 2
Assembly Amendments were technical amendments to address changes
in the underlying statute that were made in the budget.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained
of his or her liberty, under any pretense, may prosecute a
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))
1)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).)
2)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).)
3)Provides that if the district attorney or Attorney General
stipulates to or does not contest the factual allegations
underlying one or more of the grounds for granting a writ of
SB 1134
Page 3
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 attorney General, the factfinder and the
California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
(VCB). (Penal Code § 1485.5 (a))
4)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 Attorney General, the factfinder, and the VCB.
(Penal Code § 1485.5 (c))
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 VCB for
acclaim 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 a claim paid.
(Penal Code § 148.55(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.
(Penal Code § 148.55(b))
7)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)Permits a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis
SB 1134
Page 4
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.
2)Requires the VCB to recommend payment for incarceration of a
person if the court finds that the person is factually
innocent.
Background
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 Lawley (2008) 42
SB 1134
Page 5
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 instead sets 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 VCB
shall make a recommendation for an appropriation to the
Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:
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
SB 1134
Page 6
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 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.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/17/16)
California Innocence Project (co-source)
Northern California Innocence Project (co-source)
Loyola Project for the Innocent (co-source)
American Civil Liberties Union (co-source)
SB 1134
Page 7
A New Path
A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
John Van de Kamp, former California Attorney General
Judge Ladoris H. Cordell (Ret.)
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/17/16)
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
SB 1134
Page 8
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 8/18/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,
Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roger Hernández, Kim
Prepared by:Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
8/19/16 19:21:49
**** END ****
SB 1134
Page 9