BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
9
8
0
SB 980 (Lieu)
As Amended: March 17, 2014
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
Penal Code
MK:sl
PRISONERS: DNA TESTING
HISTORY
Source: Northern California Innocence Project
California Innocence Project
Loyola Project for the Innocent
Prior Legislation: SB 83(Burton) Chapter 943, Stats. 2001
SB 1342 (Burton) Chapter 821, Stats. 2000
Support: American Association for Laboratory Accreditation;
American Civil Liberties Union; California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice; California Catholic Conference
Inc.; California Province of the Society of Jesus (the
Jesuits); California Public Defenders Association;
Equal Justice Society; Legal Services for Prisoners
with Children; Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety;
Judge LaDoris Cordell (Ret.)
Opposition:California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors;
California District Attorneys Association; California
State Sheriffs' Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; Los Angeles County District Attorney;
National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children;
Orange County District Attorney; Sacramento County
District Attorney; San Diego County District Attorney
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 2
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED TO ALLOW ACCESS TO EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE
IF DNA TESTING IS APPROPRIATE?
SHOULD THE STANDARD FOR GRANTING A POSTCONVICTION MOTION FOR DNA BE
CLARIFIED TO STATE THAT THE DEFENDANT NEED ONLY SHOW THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT TO IDENTITY?
SHOULD THE LAW CLARIFY THAT EVIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
SHALL SATISFY THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIREMENT UNLESS THERE IS PROOF
TO THE CONTRARY?
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BE REQUIRED TO RETAIN BIOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE OF THOSE ON PAROLE AND PROBATION IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHO
ARE INCARCERATED?
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BE REQUIRED TO GIVE ONE YEAR NOTICE
IF THEY WANT TO DESTROY BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT BE REQUIRED TO SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
THAT THEY SEARCHED FOR EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED?
SHOULD THE COURT BE PERMITTED TO IMPOSE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS IF
EVIDENCE IS DESTROYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW?
SHOULD THE LAW BE CLARIFIED THAT THE COST OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
AND DNA TESTING SHALL BE BORNE BY THE STATE?
SHOULD THE CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY THE LAB TO DO THE DNA TESTING
BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT CERTIFICATION?
SHOULD THE LAW ALLOW THE COURT TO ORDER A DNA PROFILE THAT DOES NOT
MATCH THE DEFENDANT WHO REQUESTED TESTING TO BE UPLOADED TO THE
CODIS DATABANK?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 3
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of changes to the
statute providing for post-conviction DNA testing in light of
issues that have arisen over the years.
Existing law provides that a person who was convicted of a
felony, and is currently serving a term of imprisonment may make
a written motion before the trial court that entered the
judgment of conviction in his or her case for performance of
forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under specified
circumstances. (Penal Code � 1405.)
Existing law provides a person may request appointment of
counsel by sending a written request to the court stating that
he or she was not the perpetrator and that DNA testing is
relevant to his or her assertion of innocence and that the court
shall appoint counsel to investigate and, if appropriate file a
motion for DNA testing. (Penal Code � 1405 (b))
This bill provides that upon appointment or retention of counsel
to investigate and, if appropriate, to file a motion for DNA
testing and upon request of counsel a court may order that
counsel or counsel's representative be provided access to
physical evidence for purpose of examination, including, but not
limited to, any physical evidence relating to the investigation,
arrest, and prosecution of the defendant, upon a showing that
there is good cause to believe that access to physical evidence
is reasonably necessary to the counsel's effort to investigate
whether a motion for DNA testing is appropriate.
This bill provides that the court may also order:
The appropriate governmental entity to locate and
provide counsel with any documents, notes, logs or reports
relating to items of physical evidence collected in
connection with the case or otherwise assist the defendant
in locating items of biological evidence that the
governmental entity contends have been lost or destroyed.
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 4
The appropriate governmental entity to take reasonable
measure to locate biological evidence that may be in its
custody.
The appropriate governmental entity to assist counsel
in locating relevant evidence that may be in the custody of
a public or private hospital, public or private laboratory
or other facility.
The production of laboratory documents of analysis
performed from time of evidence intake to disposition, in
the original form provided by the laboratory as prepared in
connection with the examination or analysis of any items
collected as evidence that may contain biological material.
This includes, but is not limited to, the underlying data
and laboratory notes prepared in connection with DNA tests,
presumptive tests for presence of biological material,
serological tests, and analyses of trace evidence, if the
evidence has been subjected to that testing. Any and all
items from the requested case file shall be made available,
including digital files and nonphotocopied photograph
-quality prints of photographs taken.
Existing law provide that the motion for DNA testing shall be
verified by the convicted person under penalty of perjury and
shall, among other things explain in light of all evidence how
DNA testing would raise a reasonable probability that the
convicted person's verdict or sentence would be more favorable
if the results of DNA testing had been available at the time of
conviction. (Penal Code �1405(c))
This bill would instead require the convicted person to explain,
in light of all the evidence, how the requested DNA testing
would be relevant to the issue of the identity of the
perpetrator.
Existing law provides that the court shall grant the motion for
DNA testing if it determines all of the following have been
established:
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 5
The evidence to be tested is available and in a
condition that would permit DNA testing requested in the
motion;
The evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of
custody sufficient to establish it has not be substituted,
tampered with, replaced or altered in any material aspect;
The identity of the perpetrator of the crime was or
should have been, a significant issue in the case;
The convicted person has made a prima facie showing that
the evidence sought to be tested is material to the issue
of the convicted person's identity as the perpetrator of,
or accomplice to, the crime, special circumstance or
enhancement allegation that resulted in the conviction or
sentence;
The requested DNA testing results would raise a
reasonable probability that, in light of all the evidence,
the convicted person's verdict or sentence would have been
more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been
available at the time of conviction. The court in its
discretion may consider any evidence whether or not it was
introduced at trial;
The evidence to be tested was not tested previously or
the evidence was tested previously but the requested DNA
test would provide results that are reasonably more
discriminating and probative of the identity of the
perpetrator or accomplice or have a reasonable probability
of contradicting prior test results;
The testing requested employs a method generally
accepted within the relevant scientific community; and
The motion is not made solely for the purpose of delay.
(Penal Code � 1405 (f))
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 6
This bill provides instead that before the grant of a motion for
DNA testing the defendant is not required to show that a
favorable test would conclusively establish his or her
innocence. Rather, the court shall grant the motion if all of
the following have been established:
The evidence to be tested is available and in a
condition that would permit DNA testing requested in the
motion;
The evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of
custody sufficient to establish it has not be substituted,
tampered with, replaced or altered in any material aspect,
if the chain of custody does not establish the integrity of
the evidence, the testing itself has the potential to
establish the integrity of the evidence. For purpose of
this section, evidence that has been in the custody of law
enforcement, other government official, or public or
private hospital shall be presumed to satisfy the chain of
custody requirement of this paragraph, absent specific
evidence of material tampering replacement or alteration;
The identity of the perpetrator of the crime was or
should have been, a significant issue in the case;
The convicted person has made a prima facie showing that
the evidence sought to be tested is material to the issue
of the convicted person's identity as the perpetrator of,
or accomplice to, the crime, special circumstance or
enhancement allegation that resulted in the conviction or
sentence;
The requested DNA testing results be relevant to the
issue of the identity of the perpetrator. In making this
determination the court shall presume the requested tests
will be exculpatory, and shall determine whether the
requested DNA testing results would be relevant to the
issue of the identity of the perpetrator. Exculpatory
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 7
results may be results that exclude the convicted person,
or results that exclude the convicted person and match
another suspect or an offender in the Combined DNA Index
System (CODIS) or match an unrelated crime or crimes in
CODIS. The court in its discretion may consider any
evidence whether or not it was introduced at trial;
The evidence to be tested was not tested previously or
the evidence was tested previously but the requested DNA
test would provide results that are reasonably more
discriminating and probative of the identity of the
perpetrator or accomplice or have a reasonable probability
of contradicting prior test results;
The testing requested employs a method generally
accepted within the relevant scientific community; and
The motion is not made solely for the purpose of delay.
Existing law provides that if the court grants the motion for
DNA testing, the court order shall identify the specific
evidence to be tested and the DNA technology to be used. (Penal
Code � 1405 (g) (1))
Existing law provides that the testing shall be conducted by a
laboratory mutually agreed upon by the district attorney in a
noncapital case, or the Attorney General in a capital case, and
the person filing the motion. If the parties cannot agree, the
court shall designate the laboratory to conduct the testing and
shall consider designating a laboratory accredited by the
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). (Penal Code � 1405(g)(2))
This bill provides instead that if the parties cannot agree, the
court shall consider designating a laboratory accredited by an
accreditation body that is a signatory to the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition
Agreement (MRA) and offers forensic laboratory accreditation
services.
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 8
This bill provides that analysts, technicians, or other agents
of the laboratory conducting the testing, including local or
state governmental laboratories, shall communicate directly with
and provide documentation directly to both parties
simultaneously, and shall not communicate with one party
individually, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Existing law provides that the result of any testing ordered
under this section shall be fully disclosed to the person filing
the motion, the district attorney, and the Attorney General. If
requested by any party, the court shall order production of the
underlying laboratory data and notes. (Penal Code � 1405 (h))
Existing law provides that the cost of DNA testing ordered under
this section shall be borne by the state or the applicant as the
court may order in the interests of justice, if it is shown that
the applicant is not indigent and possesses the ability to pay.
However, the cost of any additional testing to be conducted by
the district attorney or Attorney General shall not be borne by
the convicted person. (Penal Code � 1405 (i)(1))
This bill provides instead that costs of DNA testing, litigation
costs incurred by appointed counsel for the defendant and fees
to appointed counsel for his or her representation of the
defendant shall be borne by the state if it is shown that the
applicant is indigent and not able to pay. These costs shall
not be borne by the county where the motion is filed and
granted. If the applicant is not indigent, and is able to pay,
the court may order the applicant to bear the costs. The cost of
any additional testing conducted by the district attorney or
Attorney General shall not be borne by the convicted person.
This bill provides that if the court grants a motion for DNA
testing pursuant to Penal Code Section 1405, testing is
performed, and a DNA profile is obtained from the results of DNA
testing of biological material that excludes the convicted
person, the court may, on its own motion or by motion of the
defendant, order a database search of the CODIS to compare the
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 9
profile obtained from the results of DNA testing of biological
material to the profiles contained within the CODIS databank.
DNA profiles shall meet current national DNA database index
system eligibility standards and conform to current Federal
Bureau of Investigation quality assurance standards in order to
be eligible for search against the state index system.
This bill provides that profiles contained within the CODIS
databank includes those profiles contained within the Convicted
Offender Index, the Forensic Index, the Arrestee Index, the
Missing or Unidentified Persons Index, and the Missing Persons
Reference Index.
Existing law requires the appropriate governmental entity to
retain all biological material that is secured in connection
with a criminal case for the period of time that any person is
incarcerated. It provides that the biological evidence may be
destroyed if notice is sent to the person and the notifying
entity does not receive within 90 days' notice of one of the
following: a motion filed under 1405; a request under penalty of
perjury that the evidence not be destroyed because the person is
going to file a motion under 1405 within 180 days; or, a
declaration of innocence under penalty of perjury that has been
filed within 180 days of the notice. (Penal Code � 1417.9)
This bill provides that the biological evidence and notice of
destruction of such evidence shall apply to any person
incarcerated or on probation or parole.
This bill also extends the time frame for replying to the notice
and filing a motion to one year from the time of notice of
intent to destroy the evidence.
This bill provides that if evidence has been destroyed in
violation of the law or otherwise, and if the appropriate
governmental entity receives a request for evidence under
Section 1405, the appropriate governmental entity shall submit a
statement that a representative from the agency personally
searched for the requested evidence, without relying upon the
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 10
agency's internal index or evidence location database, and
determined that the evidence was destroyed. The statement shall
be signed under penalty of perjury by the agency's
representative who conducted the search. If the court finds
that the biological evidence was destroyed in violation of the
provisions of the section it shall consider appropriate
remedies.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 11
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 12
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
Despite the widespread acceptance of DNA testing as a
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 13
powerful and reliable form of forensic evidence that
can conclusively reveal guilt or innocence, many
prisoners face insurmountable hurdles during the legal
process and do not have the legal means to secure
testing on evidence in their cases.
In 2000, California became one of the first states to
create a process by which an incarcerated person who
had been convicted of a felony could obtain DNA testing
to prove innocence. Fourteen years later, however,
California's post-conviction DNA testing process is in
need of some commonsense but crucial reforms.
Senate Bill 980's reforms would eliminate hurdles and
streamline the judicial process associated with
post-conviction DNA testing requests. This would help
reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions and
further the cause of justice in California.
These reforms would provide greater access to available
evidence for people requesting DNA testing, and
establish clear guidelines for police, prosecutors and
courts to follow when determining whether to grant
testing. They give courts the ability to order DNA
profiles to be run through the national DNA database,
making it possible to find the real perpetrators of
crimes. They establish more consistent and thorough
protocols for the preservation and destruction of
evidence after conviction, enabling more innocent
people to get testing.
2. DNA Testing in California
Prior to SB 1342 (Burton) Chapter 821, Statutes 2000 and the
creation of Penal Code Section 1405 there was no right to
post-conviction discovery in California, nor any procedure for
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 14
letting courts evaluate whether a defendant should have
post-conviction testing of DNA. Prior to Penal Code Section
1405 a defendant would have to persuade the district attorney to
allow DNA testing.
In creating Penal Code Section 1405, SB 1342 set up a process
where a defendant can make a written motion to the trial court
that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for
the performance of DNA testing. According to the ACLU:
Since its passage California has exonerated eight
people based on post-conviction DNA testing. However,
the process for obtaining testing is still difficult
and time consuming, and some courts have struggled to
effectively read and apply this important law.
This bill makes a number changes to Penal Code Section 1405 to
update it based on the over 13 years of experience with working
with the section.
3. Access to Information on Available Evidence
Existing law requires an individual requesting DNA testing to
show the court that the evidence is available and testable.
However, the law does not clearly state that an individual
requesting testing is entitled to find out if evidence is
available and testable and some prosecutors, law enforcement
agencies and courts have been confused as to whether they must
grant access. This bill clarifies that a court may order the
counsel to be provided access to the physical evidence for
purpose of investigation upon a showing that access to the
physical evidence is necessary to the counsel's effort to
investigate whether a motion for DNA testing is proper. The
bill specifically states that the court may order the following:
The appropriate governmental entity provide counsel with
documents, notes, logs relating to the physical evidence or
to otherwise assist in the location of the evidence.
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 15
The appropriate governmental entity to take reasonable
measures to locate biological evidence that may have been
in its custody.
The appropriate governmental evidence assist counsel in
locating evidence that may be in the custody of a public or
private hospital, laboratory or other facility.
The production of laboratory documents of analyses
performed from the time of evidence intake to disposition,
in the original form by the laboratory or analyses of any
items collected as evidence that may contain biological
material.
According to the sponsor, these changes address specific issues
that have arisen when investigating motions seeking DNA testing
over the years. Some agencies have been unwilling to help
locate the evidence. This will allow the court to order the
agency to do so.
4. Clarifying the Standard
Existing law provides that an individual requesting testing must
" raise a reasonable probability that, in light of all the
evidence, the convicted person's verdict or sentence would have
been more favorable if the results of DNA testing had been
available" at trial. According to the sponsors, this language
has been confusing to some courts. Some courts have denied a
request for testing because they believe they have to determine
whether the testing will match someone else or because they
believe they have to assess whether the defendant would be
entitled to a new trial based on the evidence.
This bill provides instead that the motion must explain in light
of all the evidence, how the requested DNA testing would be
relevant to the issue of the identity of the perpetrator. The
sponsors note that postconviction motions for DNA testing are
discovery motions allowing the defendant to "discover" evidence
which may later help him or her in a later challenge to his or
her conviction. They do not provide a remedy themselves.
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 16
Therefore, the decision should not be whether the defendant is
entitled to a reversal only whether DNA testing is relevant to
the identity of the perpetrator.
CDAA opposes the change in the standard arguing that as
currently written, "[t]he law balances the public interest in
finality of convictions with a fair and meaningful process for
post-conviction access to biological evidence."
5. Chain of Custody
A motion for DNA testing must show that the chain of custody was
sufficient so that the evidence was not substituted, tampered
with, replaced or altered in any material aspect. According to
the sponsors some district attorneys have argued, and some
courts have denied motions based on the fact that, the defendant
could not establish the evidence was not contaminated while it
was in storage at a law enforcement or other agency. This bill
provides that if the evidence has been in the custody of law
enforcement or other government officials or a public or private
hospital it shall be presumed to satisfy the chain of custody
requirements unless there is specific evidence of tampering.
CDAA opposes this provision stating in part "we have concerns
about the provisions of the bill stating that evidence has been
in the custody of the court shall be presumed to satisfy the
chain of custody. Unfortunately, many times evidence is found
in court storage rooms in an unsealed torn open condition. This
increases the potential for contamination. The chain of custody
attributable to the biological evidence at issue must actually
be intact not just presumed intact."
6. Retention of Evidence
Existing law requires law enforcement to retain biological
evidence while a person is incarcerated and if they wish to
destroy the evidence give the defendant 90 days to request that
the evidence be preserved and 180 days to file a motion for
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 17
testing. This bill would provide instead that the evidence
shall be kept while a person is incarcerated, on probation or
parole. It also extends the notification time and the time to
file a motion to one year. Notices have often not reached the
person in a timely fashion and the filing of a motion for DNA
testing can take time. These deadlines will give people an
opportunity to file before evidence is destroyed.
If evidence has been destroyed and if the appropriate entity
receives a request for evidence, the appropriate entity shall
submit a statement signed under penalty of perjury that a
representative from the agency has personally searched for the
evidence beyond relying on the agency's internal index or
evidence location database. There have been cases where the
agency has said there was no evidence, because it was not logged
in the index, and it was later located with a physical search.
There is not currently a penalty if an agency intentionally or
negligently destroys evidence. This bill would allow a court to
take appropriate actions in instances where DNA evidence was
destroyed in violation of the law. The bill does not define
appropriate actions.
7. Payment of Testing
The law requires the State to pay for testing if the defendant
does not have the ability to pay, but some courts have
misinterpreted this section and believe individual counties are
required to pay and have denied testing because they cannot
allocate county resources. This bill clarifies that the cost of
DNA testing and appointed counsel shall be borne by the state of
California not the county if the defendant does not have the
ability to pay.
8. Lab Certification
(More)
Existing law provides for testing to be completed by labs
accredited by the ASCLD/LAB.
Many labs no longer use this certification. This bill provides
instead for testing to be completed by laboratories accredited
by an accreditation body who is a signatory to the ILAC Mutual
Recognition Agreement (MRA) and offers forensic laboratory
accreditation services.
9. Unmatched Profiles Uploaded to CODIS
Under existing law, if DNA evidence comes back not matching the
defendant, there is no process to make sure the evidence gets
uploaded to CODIS unless the district attorney seeks to have it
done. This bill would allow a court on its own motion or the
motion of the defendant to order a database search of CODIS of
the profile and requires the profiles to conform to the current
CODIS regulations. The logic of this is that if the DNA does
not match the person currently imprisoned for the offense, it is
possible the perpetrator is already in CODIS and it is in the
interest of justice to determine who is the true perpetrator of
the crime. A CODIS match may also help to clearly exonerate the
defendant if no link between the person who does match and the
defendant can be made.
CDAA opposes this provision stating:
SB 980 seeks to use the state's database to improperly
fish around for any other suspects or witnesses,
thereby subjecting innocent persons to unnecessary
investigations. Under the new PC 1405.1(a) the court
could potentially order labs to upload profiles that
have nothing to do with the case. For example, a
cigarette butt found 20 feet away from a dead body on
the side of the road could be uploaded into CODIS upon
a court's order.
***************
(More)
SB 980 (Lieu)
Page 19